In STEP Matters, Issue 183 (Concern about Changes to Biodiversity Laws) we explained the reasons for concerns about the NSW Government’s plans to rewrite the biodiversity laws. The new legislation is due to be released in March 2016 and the indications are that protections will be significantly weakened.

As occurred with the hunting in national parks and the 10/50 vegetation clearing laws, there is a spurious argument behind the changes. Rural landowners have been lobbying the National Party members to unwind the Native Vegetation Act that restricts land clearing. So the Government wants to change the law but they will change it for coastal and urban areas as well.

The major cause for concern is the weakening of the offset provisions. This will allow developments to proceed that might have been refused under the current laws because of impacts on threatened species habitat or endangered ecological communities.

Under the proposals, developers will not be limited to the ‘like-for-like’ principle where offset areas must be of an equivalent ecological type to the area to be lost and preferably in the local area to be affected. Under the new law it appears likely that developers will be able to substitute entirely different vegetation and also employ so called supplementary measures such as paying into a government fund or rehabilitating mine sites (which should be done by mine owners).

This offsetting will have a particularly destructive effect in urban areas where often there is no like-for-like offset available. Areas like the Cumberland Plain Woodland that is already under tremendous pressure from development will be further threatened.

These changes will be directly opposed to the Australian Government’s commitments to preserve biodiversity, increase urban tree cover and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Native Vegetation Act, when it was introduced in 2003 was a major factor in the reduction of Australia’s emissions from land clearing.

We urge you to write letters and contact your local member to express your concerns by the end of February. The aim is to convince Liberal Party members to override the influence of National Party and remove the destructive elements of the new legislation before it can be approved by Cabinet.

In the past, councils expended significant funds in formulating local environment plans with zoning locations appropriate for different areas. The particular zoning and its extent took into account the immediate and cumulative effects on local infrastructure, services, traffic, street car parking, social services and amenities. The matching development control plans gave consideration to the local character of the area, including streetscape, topography, shared views, and soils.

It now seems that the NSW Government is trying to overwrite these local powers by proposing a major expansion of medium density housing into low density housing areas. Details are provided in a discussion paper released in November 2015 called Options for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development.

The deadline for submissions is 1 March.

The NSW Government is rushing in these proposals before the Greater Sydney Commission has even got off the ground. The Commission is intended to be responsible for metropolitan planning controls in a partnership between state and local government. How can it act effectively when such a major change to planning laws is being implemented right now?

The paper is proposing a new route for the delivery of medium density housing using complying development. This is in addition to the existing R3 zone which is specifically designed to deliver medium density housing.

The application of the mechanism of complying development is problematic. Broad geographic application throughout Sydney means none of the local infrastructure and other needs can be properly taken into account. The proposals would also lead to an effective blanket rezoning to medium density, with minor exceptions, of virtually all single dwelling, low density residential R2 land with a street frontage of 12.5 m or more and a minimum lot size of 400 m².

The suite of medium density complying development types cover dual occupancies, manor houses (2 up, 2 down) and townhouses/ terraces depending on land size. For example 3 to 10 dwellings could be built in a terrace or townhouse type configuration on land with a minimum size of 600 m².

The proposal to expand the definition of complying development will remove from local residents their rights to functional neighbourhood notification under council-determined development applications. This includes their right to object and have those objections assessed as part of the normal development assessment process. Residents in R2 (low density) zones will suddenly find medium density development happening next door that they thought was not permissible under the existing zoning laws.

These proposals represent abysmal planning. They attempt to provide a 'one size fits all' approval process that cannot possibly take into account the significant variation between, and within, local government areas. The traditional amenity of a single house on a single site will be lost. Once some development of this nature occurs in a street, will all the neighbours want to follow suit? The loss of leafy treescapes will be profound.

Complying medium density should only be considered for sites within 'core' R3 zones, i.e. sites where the R3 zone does not interface a lower density zone.

After promising that amalgamation would not be forced onto residents, the NSW Government is pressing ahead by moving the goal posts. Initially local councils needed to demonstrate to IPART that they were fit for the future. Then after the majority of councils did prove their financial fitness the Government imposed a minimum scale and capacity (population size) as the requirement.

From STEP’s point of view there could be benefits in combining the bushcare management of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai, both of which have excellent features. But will there be a cut in overall funding?

Claims of financial advantage have been made in a report prepared by KPMG but there is not sufficient information to check the validity of the claims. The report assumes improvements in administration efficiency but will this come at the expense of reduced services? The area of land to be managed will after all remain the same. Bushland will come under increasing pressure as urban development continues.

The number of councillors covering the total area will reduce from 20 to 15 but the total area of bushland that each of these councillors will be responsible for will increase dramatically compared with their current council area. Ku-ring-gai is 84 km² but the Hornsby area proposed to be included is 455 km²!

The claim in respect of the Ku-ring-gai/Hornsby merger proposal is that a gain of $70 million will be achieved over 20 years! A projection over such a long timeframe is problematic to say the least. The population of the merged council area will be about 270,000, growing to about 330,000 by 2030. The financial benefit equates to very little per capita, about $10 pa after allowing for inflation.

As the mergers are unlikely to be passed by the Upper House, the Government is using a process in the Local Government Act of altering council boundaries. A ‘delegate’ has been appointed to review the merger between Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils.

Please consider making a submission. The due date is 26 February. Find details on www.councilboundaryreview.nsw.gov.au.

The Ku-ring-gai Bushcare Association is an unincorporated organisation that is supported by Ku-ring-gai Council which supports the Bushcare volunteer program and holds regular educational events. The committee comprises elected volunteers and council employees.

At their annual general meeting in November 2015, Andrew Little spoke about talks held during the year that highlighted factors that will have major implications for the health of our local bushland in the future and which need to be considered in bushland management practices.

Prof Frankham (Macquarie University) gave a talk on conservation genetics for bush regenerators. He found that with small isolated populations as exist in our fragmented reserves, seed production and seedling viability declined with time due to lack of genetic variability. For small populations it is essential to broaden the genetic base to retain viability and capacity to adapt and evolve to a changing environment. Those people who attended the Native Seed Provenance Workshop at Mt Annan Botanic Gardens in July would have heard the findings of other researchers were similar.

Two talks were presented at the Convenor’s Forum by Dr Scott and Dr Hancock. They showed that climate modelling by CSIRO indicated that by 2050 Sydney’s climate could be similar to that of Port Macquarie and by 2100 to that of Brisbane. Our small fragmented bushland reserves would be most at risk due to their limited genetic base.

In the longer term one of the real game changers of the 21st century will be climate change. It is clear we will not be able to continue through the century on a business as usual basis. This is summed up in a recent CSIRO report (Dunlop M et al, 2012, Implications for Policymakers: Climate Change, Biodiversity Conservation and the National Reserve System. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, Canberra p6) which states:

Biodiversity will become increasingly dynamic, including changes in species distribution and abundance; changes in ecosystem composition, structure and function; and changes in the land uses and ecosystems making up our landscapes.

Many current conservation mechanisms primarily aim to preserve species and communities in their historical locations. This paradigm of conservation will become increasingly unachievable and less effective for guiding conservation investment and actions.

The challenge before us is to change our mindset, from preserving the vegetation and ecosystems that exist, to promoting their evolutionary capacity to adapt to a changing environment. Going forward, it will be our ability to make these changes that will likely determine our success in managing the natural environment