Category: Submissions

NSW Government’s Forest Industry Action Plan, Consultation Report Released

Stakeholder Consultation Report, attached, interesting bits highlighted for quicker reading.

Highlights:

Submissions from more than 1500 individuals and 160 organisations.

Viewpoints and evidence in support of environmental concerns tended to submit that:

• Native forest harvesting in NSW has major impacts on biodiversity and endangered species and should cease as soon as possible.

• Healthy, protected and intact forests are intrinsically, socially and culturally valuable.

• The forestry industry does not have the capability to deliver beneficial environmental outcomes. read more

Share

Please make your Submission to the TSC Draft Development Control Plan

The opportunity to ‘Have Your Say’ on the Tweed Development Control Plan closes 5pm Friday!

We’ve attached the CEC submission document for your interest, and for copy and pasting all or parts of as your own submission which is allowed and we encourage.

Please do make a submission, it is quick and easy on the Council website (link here: www.yoursay), or forward the attached CEC submission expressing your own support for it (email to tsc@tweed.nsw.gov.au).

To the General Manager Tweed Shire Council, read more

Share

STOP CLEARING AND BURNING FORESTS FOR ELECTRICITY, Don’t allow Redbank

NEFA: Please object to the Restart of Redbank Power Station by burning 850,000 tonnes of native forests each year, obtained from landclearing. SUBMISSIONS NEEDED BY 5:00pm on Monday 18 August 2025. MAKE YOURS NOW.

This month NSW’s Independent Planning Commission is deciding whether to approve a massive increase in landclearing in western NSW to burn 850,000 tonnes of ‘biomass’ each year into a disused coal powerplant at Redbank, near Singleton in the Hunter Valley.

This will be Australia’s first conversion of coal fired powerplant into a wood fired one. read more

Share

Tweed Conservation Zone Review

TS Council are inviting landowners and the community to provide their feedback on the draft Planning Proposal PP23/0001 which is the first in a series of planning proposals that will apply conservation zones across the whole of the Tweed.

It proposes to amend the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 by adding in the planning controls for the new conservation zones (C2 and C3).

TSC: Learn more and have your say by 29 May 2023

Share

Tweed Growth Management and Housing Strategy Survey

Below is the link to the survey and also the Caldera Environment Centre’s priority issues as a guide to help with your survey responses. Closing date is 12th Sept.

CEC points – from the perspective of preserving Tweeds internationally significant biodiversity and maintaining the character of local ‘village’ communities as well as preserving productive farmlands.

Suggested responses to survey questions:

Q on places and types of residential development for future population growth it is important that urban in-fill is prioritised. Increased density in areas that already have infrastructure will help protect natural bushland and agricultural land from clearing. It is VITAL that Environmental Offsets are not used in the process of urban development. The priority must be Avoid and Minimise – Offset only as last resort and ONLY within the development footprint. Priority sites to be funded under the proposed State Government Affordable Housing Fund should NOT be located on environmentally sensitive Crown Land, particularly on the Tweed Coast. read more

Share

See the Draft North Coast Regional Plan Update

The North Coast Regional Plan is the strategic plan for the future of the this region

View the document with our highlighted texts for clarity and speed of reading: http://calderaenvironmentcentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Draft_North_Coast_Regional_Plan_2041.pdf

Submissions closed 24 August 2022

Caldera Environment Centre

To NSW Dept Planning & Environment
Email: northern@planning.nsw.gov.au

Submission: Draft North Coast Regional Plan 2041 (NCRP).

The Caldera Environment Centre Inc. (C.E.C.) is a Tweed Shire environmental group, a registered Voluntary Conservation Organisation, a registered Charity and an Incorporated Association of 25 years standing. read more

Share

Inquiry into Australia’s Extinction Crisis

The inquiry has been re-referred, with a revised title and terms of reference, included below. 

… you are invited to make a new submission to this inquiry by 31 August 2022previous submissions are still to be considered. 

… lodge a submission through the committee’s website. 

Inquiry into Australia’s Extinction Crisis. 

Terms of Reference. 

Australia’s extinction crisis, including:

  • the ongoing decline in the population and conservation status of Australia’s nearly threatened fauna and flora species;
  • the wider ecological impact of faunal and flora extinction;
  • the international and domestic obligations of the Commonwealth Government in conserving threatened species;
  • the adequacy of Commonwealth environment laws, including but not limited to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in providing sufficient protections for threatened species and against key threatening processes;
  • the adequacy and effectiveness of protections for critical habitat for threatened fauna under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
  • the adequacy of the management and extent of the National Reserve System, stewardship arrangements, covenants and connectivity through wildlife corridors in conserving threatened fauna;
  • the use of traditional knowledge and management for threatened species recovery and other outcomes as well as opportunities to expand the use of traditional knowledge and management for conservation;
  • the adequacy of existing funding streams for implementing threatened species recovery plans and preventing threatened fauna loss in general;
  • the adequacy of existing monitoring practices in relation to the threatened species assessment and adaptive management responses;
  • the adequacy of existing assessment processes for identifying threatened species conservation status;
  • the adequacy of existing compliance mechanisms for enforcing Commonwealth environment law;
  • final report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Samuel Review);
  • the Australia State of the Environment 2021 report; and
  • any related matters.
  • read more

    Share

    Submission in objection to the Whitehaven coal mine expansion at Narrabri

    Lock The Gate have asked for submissions to the Independent Planning Commission in objection to the new expansion of the Whitehaven Narrabri coal mine which will affect the environment as detailed below.

    The CEC submission:

    We (the Caldera Environment Centre, Murwillumbah NSW) object to the Whitehaven coal mine expansion at Narrabri.

    We object because the proposed mine expansion:

    1. will damage significant areas of the Pilliga forest, which is home to many threatened species, this in itself is grossly inappropriate given the Ecological Crisis, the Collapse of The Ecology and Australia’s part in that, and
    2. will significantly add to the carbon polution problem, one of the factors directly causing climate change
    and
    3. will affect productive farmland
    4. will affect groundwater, affecting farmers
    5. will directly affect cultural values, including potential cracking and damage to a well-preserved grinding grove site.

    Our objection to this coal mine expansion is firm, do not approve this coal mine expansion.

    Caldera Environment Centre

    23.02.2022

    Lodged via web portal.

    Share

    Update: Redbank Power Station (burning native forests for electricity instead of coal – or not)

    Redbank power station have submitted to Singleton Council a modification application to their original coal based Development Application, a modification which will allow them to burn native forest ‘biofuel’ instead of coal.

    The reasoning for the original 1993 development consent for the Redbank power station was that the power station burn local coal mine waste tailings, as a way of eliminating the the need for mine tailings dams and tailings waste disposal expenses.

    The Caldera Environment Centre provided the following Submission in Objection to the da modification application:

    For the attention of Singleton Council, council@singleton.nsw.gov.au read more

    Share

    Invitation for public comment on the draft National Recovery Plan for the Koala.

    The Department of the Environment and Energy have drafted a “National Recovery Plan for the Koala.”

    “The National Recovery Plan for the Koala identifies national-level strategic actions to support recovery of the EPBC Act listed Koala.”

    The plan “sets out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline, and support the recovery, of the nation’s threatened Koalas.”

    The plan is to “align with relevant state and territory planning, programs.”

    Comment on this draft national recovery plan by 24 September.

    Your feedback is provided to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for the Minister for the Environment. All comments “will be considered by the Minister for the Environment in making the final recovery plan.”

    To have your say:

    Use this survey portal [link] to answer questions, upload a submission, or both.

    Alternatively, you can send your submission via email: Koala.consultation@environment.gov.au with “Recovery Plan” in the subject heading.

    This plan is made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Koala populations of Victoria and South Australia are not listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and therefore are not covered by this recovery plan.

    =&0=&

    The National Recovery Plan is not the only koala document out for public consultation. The draft conservation advice and listing assessment for the koala has been released for public consultation as well. The public consultation period closes on 30 July 2021.

    Information on how you can provide comment can be found at https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/comment.

    Any relevant information arising from the listing assessment will also be considered in the final version of the draft National Recovery Plan for the Koala.

    Share

    Submission – ‘Nightcap on Minjungbul’ (DA21/0010) Caldera Environment Centre

    Submission opposing DA21/0010 ‘Nightcap on Minjungbul’.

    A concept development application (DA) was lodged with Tweed Shire Council on 14 January 2021 over land at 2924, 2956, 2984 and 3222 Kyogle Road, Kunghur & Mount Burrell, hereafter referred to as “the site”. The application seeks approval for: Integrated Development – staged concept development application under s4.22 of the EP&A Act 1979 for multiple rural land sharing communities with stage 1 seeking approval for the upgrade of the existing private road and associated earthworks, vegetation removal and site construction office and storage area (NRPP). read more

    Share

    TSC Towards Zero Waste Strategy Proposed, TSC Asks Your Feedback

    Council has prepared a draft Towards Zero Waste policy and is seeking feedback on or before Tuesday 21 July 2020.

    The CEC would like to encourage public endorsement and adoption by Council.

    The towards zero waste concept means designing and managing products to reduce the volume of waste and materials, to conserve and recover all materials where possible, and to send waste to landfill as a last resort.

    The draft policy has been developed to guide Council on future strategies, actions and targets towards zero waste practices. read more

    Share

    NCC, AFCA to ARENA Bioenergy Roadmap: “Exclude forest derived biomass … FDB is not a credible or desirable energy source or route out of fossil fuel dependence.”

    The Nature Conservation Council and the Australian Forest and Climate Alliance have made the following joint submission to the ARENA Bioenergy Roadmap: 

    “Exclude forest derived biomass.” 

    FDB is not a credible or desirable energy source or route out of fossil fuel dependence. 

    We call on ARENA to contribute to responsible action on the climate crisis by ruling out forest derived bioenergy (FDB) or biomass. 

    FDB is: 

    • more emissive than coal at the point of combustion
    • not carbon neutral, (within time frames identified by the IPCC to reduce atmospheric carbon, if ever)
    • not clean
    • harmful to people and biodiversity

    The best way to deploy native forests to tackle climate change is to protect and restore them to slow emissions and increase the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. read more

    Share

    To: Department of Planning Industry & Environment. Re: Koala Habitat Protection SEPP

    The new koala protection guidelines rely heavily on the “Koala Development Application Map”. However, land clearing for “logging operations” on private lands” are exempt from these guidelines, as these operations do not normally require DA approval.  

    For logging on private lands Koala protection is supposed to be based on local “Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management” (KPoM). 

    HOWEVER – since 1995 only 6 Council KPoMs have been approved and only 3 of them contained Core Koala Habitat.  

    This is clearly a giant hole in the proposed koala protection policy.

    What measures are in place to fast-track Council KPoMs to align with the introduction of these new “Koala Protection Laws”? 

    In 2017 the EDO warned that new Native Vegetation Codes could allow rural land clearing of hundreds of hectares at a time without a DA and without reference to the Koala SEPP.  They recommended that koala mapping be in place =&0=& the new land clearing system commenced.  The EDO also recommended that the new Koala SEPP must also apply to rural land-clearing proposals that exceed the Code limits to ensure these land clearing proposals are assessed by the new “Native Vegetation Panel”.  (EDO NSW Jan 2017)

    However – a recent report has revealed a startling increase in levels of land-clearing in NSW since 2017.  In 2018/19 37,000 ha of clearing was approved – =&1=&  Between 2017/18 – 60% of clearing was ‘unexplained’.

    Much of this clearing was in contravention of new land clearing regulations but the lack of a robust Koala SEPP (with the caveats suggested by the EDO) was clearly a missing layer of protection and may have prevented such devastating habitat loss.

    When we add the damage this intense land clearing has done to the damage wrought by recent extreme fires in NSW we are looking at a catastrophic outcome for wildlife habitat and koala habitat.

    This is the calamitous environment in which the new Koala Protection SEPP must work.

    Its stated intent remains as:

    The aim of the SEPP … will continue to be to protect koala habitat to ensure a permanent free-living population over the present range and reverse the current trend of koala population decline. 

    If there is =&2=&of achieving this in NSW it is absolutely imperative that:

    The NSW Government fast track shire-wide Koala Plans of Management that comprehensively identify core Koala Habitat.  They must assist with the mapping of this habitat and have a =&3=&for achieving this across all the relevant shires in NSW

    Development Applications must be required for all logging and clearing of likely koala habitat identified in the “Koala Development Application Map”

    This requirement must be put in place =&4=&  It must remain in place until Councils Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management are in place.

    The development approval process =&5=&important koala habitat to be offset or cleared in exchange for money as the BAM (Biodiversity Assessment Method) allows.  The approval process must achieve the aims of protecting resident koala populations and

    reversing population decline read more

    Share

    Caldera Environment Centre submission to Tweed Shire Council on the Draft Climate Change Policy – Net Zero 2030

    The Caldera Environment Centre (CEC) strongly supports the Draft Climate Change Policy – Net Zero 2030. This draft policy builds on the framework of the Tweed Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2017-2027 – in particular regarding its goals of decreasing the carbon footprint of the Tweed Shire, progressing toward 100% self sufficiency in renewable energy and preparing for climate change through adaptation and mitigation. 

    In the face of the predicted dramatic impacts of climate change (see the 2018 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/) Council clearly has responsibility to work both within its own structures and within the community to prepare to manage this unprecedented level of forthcoming change and to take a precautionary approach. Some of these changes are already observable. The changes predicted include hotter temperatures and for longer periods of time, increased frequency and intensity of bushfires, more storms and floods, decreased predictability and reliability of rainfall and increased drought, rise in sea levels and further loss of already fast decreasing biodiversity levels (current threat involves over a million species). These changes will definitely impact local community health, agriculture and other economic spheres (e.g. tourism), emergency response capability, and management of the increasing threat to the biodiversity and integrity of the natural environment.  read more

    Share

    Review of Native vegetation clearing in NSW (Natural Resources Commission, NRC)

    The level of clearing confirmed by expert report shows that rather than helping the environment our laws are now operating to put greater stress on native landscapes that are already suffering the impacts of climate change, drought and bushfires.  Instead of building resilience and ensuring healthy and productive country, our laws are degrading the land.

    It is extremely disappointing that the general public and NFP environmental groups like NEFA were not included in the review process.  The review conducted by the NRC was due to broadscale land clearing exceeding acceptable rates, and in turn, triggering the legal requirement for a review according to the Vegetation Laws of 2016. However, the review’s existence and its results were not made public, it had to be sought and released by members of the media.

    The data in this report is truly alarming.  

    It shows clearing rates have increased by almost 13 times.  

    Biodiversity in 9 of 11 regions is now at risk.

    Unexplained clearing has risen to a point that the NRC concludes is “a major risk” and that “compliance rates are inadequate”

    The relaxation of rules around “offset areas” to compensate for land clearing has resulted in a dismally inadequate result.  The area that is required to be managed under conservation agreements falls far short of the minimum – by 33,743 hectares!

    The EDO NSW had warned (in 2016) of fatal flaws in the new native vegetation laws, and tragically, their concerns are now apparent in what is a blatant failure of regulatory policy.

    In 2017 the new native vegetation laws were established with a new approach to land clearing that replaced established guidelines with “self-assessment” and more flexible “biodiversity offsets”.

    This approach relied heavily on regulatory mapping to determine the basis for clearing of native vegetation.  It also required the establishment of a “native vegetation panel” of ecological experts to assess suitability of applications for vegetation clearing.   Another layer of protection against unfettered clearing was the Biodiversity Conservation Act and its facility to declare protected areas of “Outstanding Biodiversity Value” AOBV.  

    After two years it is now apparent =&0=&There is no complete “regulatory map”, no evidence of a Native Vegetation Panel and no process for declaring an ABOV.

    Current mapping has not yet classified the vast majority of lands in NSW into areas of classified regulation.  Landholders are expected to “self-categorise” their landholdings without the necessary skills to identify ecological communities or sensitive biodiversity.  Furthermore – it is not in their economic interest to assess their land is Category 1 (exempt from land clearing).

    Under the new laws areas that have been mapped and regulated with a code are supposed to be monitored by a Native Vegetation Panel.  This independent panel must consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of any proposed land clearing and refuse anything that has serious irreversible impacts on biodiversity values.  However, the EDO has found that =&1=&applications have been made to the panel since the scheme began!

    The EDO concludes that we are left with a situation where all the significant clearing now occurring in NSW is happening under a self-assessable Code or allowable activity. 

    Without the oversight of a Panel we cannot know whether land of high conservation value, threatened species or ecological communities is being cleared indiscriminately.  The new LLS act contains mechanisms for assessment and approval but no such mechanisms appear to have been put in place!

    The declaration of areas as ‘AOBV’ was intended to protect critical habitats containing irreplaceable biodiversity important to NSW, Australia or the world.  In such areas code-based clearing would be prohibited and private land conservation agreements would be put in place.  To date the EDO has not found=&2=&Previously protected communities like the Wollemi Pine and the Little Penguin remain without protection=&3=&under the new laws.

    The picture that emerges for our native environment is a man-made disaster.  This is in addition to the horror of recent fires and severe drought.  In such circumstances the laws that protect our native environments are of extreme importance.  It is appalling to see these laws stripped of their potency and operating with only a fraction of their essential mechanisms at a time when we need them most urgently!  

    It is equally appalling to read the governments response to this report which is perfunctory at best showing no grasp of the extent of this policy failure and the consequences we have already witnessed.  The NSW governments’ published response merely “notes” the points concerning mapping and ABOVs.  It agrees only “in principle” to consider reviewing aspects of the law that are clearly failing.  It does not commit to independent scrutiny or public transparency but only to in-house reviews.  There is no intent to “fix” or “reform” anything as a result.

    The monumental failures outlined by the NRC and explained by the EDO require the wholesale rewriting of land clearing laws in NSW.  In light of natural disasters and ongoing impacts of climate change it is more important than ever that these laws fulfil the purpose of conserving landscapes and building environmental resilience.

    Share

    CEC submission to NSW coastal reforms

    Caldera Environment Centre (CEC) has been established in Tweed Shire for the past 25 years to promote the protection of the environment.  Tweed Shire has a highly diverse coastal area which over the past years has been the subject of CEC campaigns.  A major campaign was the protection of the large Pottsville Wetlands which includes SEPP 14 wetlands with a successful outcome of over 200ha being transferred from private ownership to community land managed by Tweed Shire Council.

    A CEC representative attended the Coastal Reforms presentation by OEH at Ballina and this month we were able to have the EDO facilitate a community workshop on the Coastal Reforms.

    The Tweed coastal environment is under massive pressure from adjacent activities such as large residential and industrial developments, major roads, sports fields and an airport.

    CEC supports in principle the objectives of the draft proposal in particular the protection of the environmental values, Aboriginal cultural heritage, ecological sustainable land use planning, mitigation of future and current risks and inclusion of climate change and coastal processes.

    We would like to submit the following comments to be addressed in the new legislation:

    •    The coastal zone mapping and draft text for the new State Environmental Planning Policy to be provided for public exhibition prior to adopting the Bill.  The mapping to be of a high standard to ensure that all candidate areas are included in the new SEPP and in coastal environment areas.  Tweed Shire currently has detailed coastal mapping whereas many coastal Councils only have broad scale mapping.  Funding should be provided to Councils to ensure the quality of their mapping.  There have been changes to the extent of both Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest since the original mapping undertaken for SEPP 14 and 26. We agree that the new SEPP be based on the current SEPP 14 and 26 mapping, but be refined after public consultation, aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing.   An example in Tweed Shire is the increase in area of Littoral Rainforest in the south of the shire at Wooyung.  Restoration of the vegetation between areas of SEPP 26 over the past 15 years has brought these areas to a standard which would now include them in the SEPP.  Similarly areas at Fingal have been restored and would now comply with requirements of SEPP 26.

    •    Concurrence provisions should be maintained for the new SEPP as is the current case for SEPP 14 and 26.  This step provides additional scrutiny by the Department of Planning to ensure the provisions of the SEPP are fully addressed prior to any activities within the SEPPs.

    •    The existing controls for mapped coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests should be maintained, including concurrence provisions.  We support the 100m buffer area to the new SEPP.

    •    Coastal Environment area should be a higher status than Coastal Vulnerability and Coastal Use areas. The features included in this category are extremely important to ensure that remaining native vegetation, waterways and water bodies including areas that have been intentionally degraded is included as conservation areas and protected.  These areas should have the same protection as coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest.

    •    The requirement for Councils to prepare a Coastal Manual for management programs must be mandatory and enforceable.   It is essential that all coastal Councils are preparing a document that includes sound environmental assessment and response to threats to the environment.  We oppose the structure that allows Council to move from Stage 1 to Stage 4 without addressing Stage 2 and Stage 3.  There are important considerations (water quality, biodiversity, vegetation, cultural values) in these stages which should be addressed prior to moving to the final stage.

    The Manual is critical to the management and conservation of the coastal environment.  The programs should therefore be enforceable and included in the legislation and not left to the discretion of the Council.  Preparation should ensure that Councils are relying on recognised expert, peer-reviewed evidence and advice and appropriate assessment in responding to existing and predicted threats to the coastal environment, whilst providing for community engagement throughout the process.

    •    The draft legislation (Section 29) is lacking on compliance and enforcement.  The legislation requires clear limits on coastal management and conservation that is set out in the coastal management areas and the programs. The section should set out limits on development within the coastal environment.

    •    We support the constraint of development within the catchment that would impact on the 15 sensitive lakes and lagoons.  It is of concern that the coastal zone applicable to other coastal lake catchments could be reduced from 1 kilometre to 500m. Within Tweed Shire there has been continued impacts on the coastal Cudgen Lake from the catchment generally produced by inappropriate land management activities such as clearing and drainage.

    •    CEC supports the proposed independent NSW Coastal Council will replace the current panels as long as the membership is of a high caliber and selected on merit.

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations.

    Regards,

    Caldera Environment Centre

    To:  Coastal Reform Team
    coastal.reforms@environment.nsw.gov.au
    Office of Environment and Heritage
    PO Box A290
    Sydney South
    NSW 1232

    Share

    Draft Water Sharing Plan for the North Coast Coastal Sands Groundwater Sources

    The draft Water Sharing Plan for the North Coast Coastal Sands Groundwater Sources includes proposed rules for protecting the environment, water extractions, managing licence holders’ water accounts, and water trading in the plan area.

    The draft plan area comprises all coastal sand aquifers from the Queensland border to the Hawkesbury River.

    Set back distances from the boundary of National Parks estates has been identified as a specific Key Issue within the plan area.

    Report Card for the Tweed – Brunswick Coastal Sands

    Draft Water Sharing Plan for the North Coast Coastal Sands Groundwater Sources

    CEC submission

    Share

    CEC response to Northern Councils E Zone Recommendations

    Honourable Rob Stokes
    Minister for Planning

    office@stokes.minister.nsw.gov.au

    14th December 2015

    Northern Councils E Zones Recommendations

    Dear Mr Stokes

    Members of Caldera Environment Centre would like to submit their concerns in relation to the recommendations of the E Zone review of northern councils as they relate to Tweed Shire.

    A recent public workshop on the recommendations was held by our group and the EDO at Murwillumbah. Those attending, approximately 40, overwhelming supported the implementation of E Zones in areas of native vegetation. This is a similar response to that at community consultation sessions during the period of the review. There have been very few issues against the implementation of E Zones in Tweed Shire.

    The main considerations being the confirmation of the primary use being for environmental conservation or management and also fulfilling the criteria for E2 or E3 is impractical and onerous. These considerations are unrealistic in that this is a reversal of accepted practice to map and assess vegetation of conservation value, it will be time consuming and costly for Council and/or landholder to determine primary use as environmental conservation or management and likely to lead to disputes. Instead of a scientific approach to verify environmental values this is an ad hoc “use over past 2 years” approach. Similarly to verify the attributes to fulfil the E2 or E3 criteria to be undertaken by the listed methods such as site assessment, aerial photo interpretation and up to date flora and fauna studies will require significant allocation of expertise and funds by Council. It is likely that some areas of high conservation value vegetation currently zoned as environmental protection may not fulfil the recommended criteria.

    Even when the land fulfils both criteria then it is not mandatory for the Council to apply the E2 or E3 zone. This certainly does not make sense.

    Permitting extensive agriculture in E2 Zones, with consent, and E3 Zones without consent, will be detrimental to the conservation significance of the land within the zone. The example of activities provided in the document being, understorey grazing, can reduce the native seed bank and deplete groundcover and midstorey native plant species. This will result in a loss of biodiversity as there will be a lack of regenerating native plants and introduction of exotic species and loss of structure and function of the plant community.

    The recommended removal of Scenic Protection and Aesthetic Values from E Zones will result in the loss of currently protected Scenic Escarpment which is a valuable asset to the tourism industry and also ensures stabilization of the steeper slopes by retaining the vegetation.

    The mandatory objectives of E Zones in the Standard Instrument LEP are not met if permitting extensive agriculture is recommended. The objectives of E2 and E3 zones focus on protecting, managing and restoring areas with ecological, scientific, cultural and aesthetic values.

    The recommendations are premature as there are current reviews of Biodiversity legislation and Coastal Management Reforms.

    This recommended approach to E Zones has the potential to significantly undermine existing biodiversity values and has the potential to decrease future improvement in protection and enhancement of biodiversity values of the north coast.

    The Caldera Environment Centre is extremely concerned by the recommendations as Tweed Shire and the other north coast council areas are of high biodiversity significance and there should be insurance that this is not depleted or lost.

    Yours sincerely
    Caldera Environment Centre

    Objection to Repeal of North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

    Hi everyone,
    DoPE are proposing on getting rid of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (1988), apparently because it requires a variety of environmental values to be protected in environmental zones in Local Environmental Plans.  This is part of their plan to stop far north coast Councils from implementing their environment zones. It would be great if some others made submissions.
    Submissions due 09/07/2015 and can be made online at: http://planspolicies.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6839
     Attached is NEFAs submission                   Dailan Pugh
    NORTH EAST FOREST ALLIANCE
    Objection to Repeal of North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

    NEFA strongly objects to the repeal of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (1988)
    as this would constitute a significant weakening of environmental values and criteria that
    were used to identify environmental clauses and zones in north coast Local Environmental
    Plans (LEPs).  The principal problem is that the Government intervened to stop Tweed,
    Byron, Ballina, Kyogle and Lismore Councils from implementing their environmental zones
    and clauses, relegating them to limbo as “deferred matters”, and now the removal of criteria
    the Councils used to identify the “deferred” environmental zones and clauses will undermine
    NEFA are concerned that the North Coast REP is being deleted after 27 years of operation,
    and before the “deferred matters” are resolved, specifically to retrospectively reduce the
    criteria and undermine the justification for the proposed E Zones and clauses. This appears
    to be part of a concerted attack by the National Party and DoPE on environmental protection
    in one of Australia’s and the world’s biodiversity hotspots.
    NEFA’s concerns are heightened by the fact that DoPE’s removal of E zones and
    environmental clauses from the exhibited LEP’s appears to have been illegal.
    The North Coast REP needs to be retained in force until after the fate of the “deferred
    matters” is determined and the E zones and environmental clauses are restored to far north
    Doing Over the North Coast
    The North Coast Regional Environmental Plan now only applies to the deferred lands in
    Tweed, Ballina, Kyogle and Lismore LGAs. These are lands that the local Councils have
    identified as being of the highest conservation value within their LGAs. Byron LGA also had
    its environmental protections removed, though also lost coverage of its deferred areas by the
    In September 2012, at the behest of our then National Party representatives, Don Page and
    Thomas George, the Minister for Planning announced that there would be a six months
    review of E zones just for Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Kyogle and Lismore LGAs. It took the
    Government a year to complete the review which supported the protection of high
    conservation value vegetation in E zones in LEPs. Because the National Party did not like
    the outcome, one and a half years later E zones are still in limbo.
    In accordance with their Minister’s instructions the DoPE removed all environmental zones
    (E2 Environmental Conservation, E3 Environmental Management and E4 Environmental
    Living zones) from far north coast LEPs.  They also removed a variety of clauses aimed at
    protecting values such as streams, steep slopes, endangered ecological communities and
    wildlife corridors, for example removing from Byron’s LEP clauses 6.12 Riparian land and
    watercourses, 6.13 Development near the E2 or E1 zone, and 6.14 Biodiversity (which
    applied to wildlife corridors and EECs).
    The E Zones identified in these LEPs have become “deferred matters” excluded from the
    new LEPs and governed by the zones and requirements of the old LEPs.  This means that
    areas identified as having the highest conservation values are still allowed to be used for
    intensive agriculture and other inappropriate activities and developments.
    Ballina Council notes:
    “The consequence of the review is that the State Government has not allowed
    Council to apply environmental based zones in the shire through the new local
    environmental plan. This means that Council has not been able to recognise the
    significant environmental values, features and assets identified by Council’s
    research, technical studies and broad consultation as being important to the Ballina
    Shire community in the new plan.
    The implication of the Parsons Brinkerhoff interim reporting and the Department’s
    interim response is that the Ballina Shire community will have a vastly reduced
    opportunity to recognise environmental values in its local environmental plan. In
    particular, the suggested approach arising from the review is that Council will not be
    able to zone areas of coastal, scenic, urban buffer or water catchment values for
    environmental protection purposes unless there is an ecological value also
    associated with the land. The Department has further recommended a reduction in
    the use of other planning tools to recognise such important values.
    The approach suggested by the current E zone review documentation is entirely
    inconsistent with the historical planning approach in Ballina Shire, which has
    operated successfully since 1987. The State Government’s suggested approach is
    also inconsistent with the current legal requirements in NSW for local environmental
    plans to recognise a variety of environmental values in local planning instruments.
    Inability to recognise environmental attributes (inclusive of ecological, scenic
    amenity, coastal, urban buffer and drinking water catchment attributes) by way of
    zoning weakens the planning framework for addressing these matters. Moreover, this
    position weakens the existing structure and function of the planning framework
    presently applying to environmental areas in Ballina Shire under the Ballina LEP
    The repeal of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan is intended to further weaken
    the planning framework for addressing environmental attributes in all far north coast LGAs.
    Justice Sheahan’s decision to declare the North Lismore Plateau rezoning “invalid and of no
    effect” on the grounds that the exhibited Environmental (E) Zones were removed from the
    adopted Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment pending the outcome of the E zone
    review, brings into question the legal validity of the LEPs for Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Lismore
    and Kyogle because they all had their exhibited E zones similarly removed.
    Justice Sheahan stated “It would have been reasonable for the public to assume, on the
    basis of the exhibited proposal, that the land proposed for environmental zones would be
    subject to strict controls associated with that zoning. The maintenance of the rural zoning
    over those lands has significant legal and practical consequences in respect of the uses to
    which that land may be put, and how it is to be managed”
    In light of Sheahan’s judgement that “the absence of the environmental zones reflected a
    very substantial change in the planning regime” and thus invalidated the LEP amendment, it
    is evident that all our Council-wide LEP’s are similarly legally invalid.
    Getting rid of the North Coast REP is part of this illegal attempt to limit environmental
    protections on the far north coast of NSW by retrospectively reducing the criteria and
    justification for the proposed E Zones.
    The Need for the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan
    The North Coast Regional Environmental Plan specifies objectives and regional policies, for
    the future planning and development of land within the region, including to guide the
    preparation of local environmental plans. The North Coast Regional Environmental Plan is
    identified as one of the key documents underpinning the development of E Zones and
    environmental clauses by Byron, Lismore and Ballina Councils, and should have been for
    Tweed and Kyogle Councils.
    For example the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan identifies requirements to:
     retain existing provisions allowing the making of tree preservation orders,
     not alter or remove existing environmental protections without undertaking detailed
     include significant areas of natural vegetation including rainforest and littoral
    rainforest, riparian vegetation, wetlands, wildlife habitat, scenic areas and potential
    wildlife corridors in environmental protection zones,
     include wetlands, fishery habitats and sufficient land to separate adjoining land uses
    from the wetlands and fishery habitats in an environment protection zones,
     identify any coastal hazard areas, prohibit development that is at immediate risk from
    coastal processes, and minimise the visual impact of development near the shore,
     locate urban and tourism development on land that is free from flooding, land
    instability, coastal erosion, acid sulphate soils, bush fire risks, aircraft noise pollution
    and other environmental hazards.
    DoPE’s claims that these requirements are covered by more recent documents is not
    justified.  DoPE’s claim that “The underlying zones derived from previous LEPs continue to
    apply in these areas and provide suitable protection consistent with the REP”, is clearly
    untrue as the assessments undertaken by Councils identified numerous additional areas
    needed to satisfy the REP’s criteria that were not previously zoned for protection. When
    most of the older zones were identified the data available for delineating zones was limited,
    with little systematic or comprehensive mapped data available on conservation values.
    DoPE’s Practice Note PN 09-002 (Environmental Protection Zones) states that “in most
    cases, council’s proposal to zone land E2 needs to be supported by a strategy or study that
    demonstrates the high status of these values”. The removal of one strategy will reduce the
    weight given to particular attributes, and will remove the need to protect other values not
    captured in other strategies.
    The deletion of the North Coast REP is apparently intended to undermine the basis of the E
    zones and environmental clauses identified for the Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Kyogle and
    Lismore LGAs.  We consider that this SEPP should not have been removed from deferred
    lands in the Byron LGA and should be re-applied until the zoning of the deferred areas is
    Is the Far North Coast of NSW less deserving than Elsewhere?
    The forests of the North Coast of NSW have been identified as being of outstanding
    international, national and state value for threatened biodiversity.  They encompass the heart
    of the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage property.  They are part of one of
    the world’s 35 biodiversity hotspots because of their exceptional species endemism and the
    threat of habitat loss. They include the NSW section of one of Australia’s 15 recognised
    biodiversity hotspots, the ‘Border Ranges North and South (Queensland and New South
    Wales)’. They also contain the most plants and animals, including those threatened with
    extinction, in New South Wales.
    Significantly, the E zone review applies only to five council areas in Northern NSW whilst
    over 130 Council’s in the State have been allowed to fully complete their LEPs inclusive of
    environmental based zones. The decision to stop the far North Coast from protecting its
    exceptionally high conservation value vegetation was purely political bastardry and was not
    based on the region’s environmental merits, because this region is the most biodiverse in
    NSW and part of one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots.
    The Local Government areas of Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Lismore and Kyogle encompass the
    spectacular volcanic remnants of the Tweed Shield Volcano, centred on Mount Warning, and
    the Focal Peak Shield Volcano, centred near Mount Barney.  The volcanic ranges support
    rainforests, and the sedimentary soils of the valleys eucalypt forests and wetlands.
    Heathlands, swamps, melaleuca wetlands, saltmarshes and mangroves characterise coastal
    The forests of north-east NSW have been identified as part of one of the world’s 35
    biodiversity hotspots because of their exceptional species endemism (at least 1,500 endemic
    plant species, i.e., 0.5% of all known species) and habitat loss (70% or more of an area’s
    primary vegetation cleared) (Williams et.al. 2011).
    These Local Government areas are part of “Border Ranges North and South”, one of
    Australia’s 15 outstanding biodiversity hotspots, areas which are rich in biodiversity but also
    under immediate threat.  The supporting information states:
    This sub-tropical and temperate hotspot is one of Australia’s most diverse areas –
    and it is the most biologically diverse area in New South Wales and southern
    Queensland. It has a variety of significant habitats: subtropical rainforest, wet
    sclerophyll forest, mountain headlands, rocky outcrops and transition zones between
    These habitats support a huge variety of bird and macropod species. Many are rare
    or threatened …
    This region’s high population growth, with associated urban and tourist developments
    along the coast, is a major cause of habitat loss and fragmentation. Although most
    remaining natural areas are protected, they are under considerable threat from
    weeds, fire and recreational use.
    The rainforests of the area are of international significance as evidenced by the inclusion of
    many of the National Parks in the World Heritage Gondwana Rainforests of Australia, with
    more recent national parks identified as qualifying for addition. The Big Scrub once covered
    75,000ha and was Australia’s largest area of subtropical rainforest. It is estimated that there
    is now only some 664 ha of the Big Scrub remaining as small fragments scattered across its
    As well as being identified as one of Australia’s biodiversity hotspots, these landscapes have
    been branded as Australia’s Green Cauldron, a centrepiece of national tourism as one of
    Australia’s15  ‘National Landscapes’ – “places that capture the essence of our country – our
    most inspirational environments offering world class natural and cultural experiences”.
    Tourism is a major driver of the regional economy.
    Too much has already been lost, all remaining native forests, and other ecosystems, on the
    far North Coast of NSW need to be managed to limit impacts and retain or regain natural
    processes. There is a need to increase the area of native vegetation, maintain and enhance
    linkages between remnant areas, and to ensure the retention and enhancement of remnant
    In accordance with the North Coast REP, it is particularly important to identify the high
    conservation value vegetation and habitats remaining in the region, along with potential
    wildlife corridors, and ensure they are appropriately zoned and protected. Getting rid of the
    North Coast REP will make gaining needed protections harder, not easier.