🎶"IT MASTIFF BEEN LOVE, BUT IT'S ROVER NOW"🎶 pic.twitter.com/XBeqXb7PUP
— Paul Bronks (@SlenderSherbet) October 19, 2024
NIMNMBY
— MattGolding Cartoons (@GoldingCartoons) October 26, 2024
Not ln My Neoclassical McMansion Backyard @theage pic.twitter.com/RFaNBGf9iJ
Historically three facts are clear about farmland in New South Wales.
1. Approximately half of the state's land mass can be considered to have moderately low to extremely low agricultural value [Adams VM & Engert JE, 2023]. Yet New South Wales produces about $15.1 billion of agricultural food and $38.1 billion of manufactured food & beverage products each year [NSW Govt, Investment NSW, 2024], with agriculture and primary production generally being an important industry on the North Coast as one of its largest employers and a significant contributor to the regional economy.
2. The state's 1,973km long coastal strip from the ocean to the Great Dividing Range has historically produced around 20 per cent of its primary production annually [Melville JM, 2012].
3. Agricultural and pastoral land is being removed from the state's coastal zone at an alarming rate. With up to 60% of agricultural land within the Greater Western Sydney 'food bowl' - which produces more than three-quarters of the total value of agricultural produce in the metropolitan region - being lost to property development in the last ten years. However, agricultural land loss to property development is not confined to major cities, but can be found all along the coastal zone. Wherever there are regional cities, towns & villages seen as highly desirable by those seeking a tree change or sea change lifestyle.
Such is the case here......
ECHO, 3 May 2034:
The contentiousCudgen Connection development proposed on State Significant Farmland (SSF) on the protected Cudgen Plateau next to the Tweed Valley Hospital (TVH) site was in front of Tweed Shire Councillors at yesterday’s planning meeting.
The council staff report had recommended that the application for gateway determination should be approved however, Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association (KRAPA) were clear in their objections to the proposal and highly critical of the inaccurate statements and reports relating to the SSF site.
When the TVH was proposed on the SSF the issue split the local community and when the hospital was approved and the site re-zoned from SSF both sides of the political spectrum gave ‘iron clad’ promises that there would be no further development of or rezoning of SSF on the Cudgen plateau.
 |
Six to one in favour of refusal
‘We are so grateful to the six councillors who voted to refuse this application,’ Peter Newton, President of KRPA told The Echo.
‘Particularly the community could not have had better representation than from Mayor Cherry, Deputy Mayor Dennis and Councillor Firth who forensically addressed every community concern in speaking to the item. It’s disappointing that it was left to Mayor Cherry and others to detail the clear shortcomings and inconsistencies within this proposal, which we would have expected to see in the Council report.’
Mayor Cherry spoke to the proposed refusal telling the meeting that, ‘In order to support a variation allowed for under the North Coast Regional Plan, we need to be satisfied that the variation is supported by a sound evidence base addressing agricultural capability and sustainability. Is the land capable, is this sustainable?
‘We’re required to form a view as to whether the proposal has to strategic and site specific merit. For the clarity strategic merit means that the proposal has alignment with the New South Wales Strategic Planning Framework and government priorities. It also needs to have alignment with our priorities, and those that have council that have been approved by the state government. Is it consistent with the North Coast Regional Plan? Is it consistent with the Tweed Local Strategic Planning Statement with our strategies with the Tweed Regional Economic Development Strategy.
‘These are the questions we’ve had to consider and this is the site suitable for the relevant development. This is one question that hasn’t really come out in this assessment at all. Where’s the strategic assessment and the demonstrated need for 120 bed private hospital in this location, where is consideration of the impacts that that might have on our Tweed Valley Hospital on the existing private hospital John Flyn, on our other day surgeries in Tweed Heads? Does the proposal give regard and assess the impacts of the natural environment, including the known resources and what is our SSF but a finite resource? We can’t make any more of it.’......
Developer won’t back down
Speaking to the meeting conservative Cr Warren Polglase told the meeting that the developer wouldn’t be walking away from the proposal.
‘Well I support the proposal as it is,’ Cr Polglase told the meeting.
‘I will be voting in favour of it and I realise that the applicant is definitely going to go to review and I guess a determination will be put forward to the Regional Planning Panel, which will finish up on the minister’s desk.’
Mr Newton told The Echo that, ‘This result was the outcome our community wanted and deserved. While this decision is a very clear endorsement for protecting our precious SSF and the unsuitability of the Cudgen Connection proposal, we do appreciate that this is one step in the process.’.
Read the full article at:
This is a cruel hoax being perpetrated by the NSW Minns Labor Government which benefits no-one except financial speculators and slapdash property developers
Echo, 21 December 2023:
The latest ‘affordable housing’ reforms by the NSW Labor government have been roundly criticised by the peak body representing councils, with Local Government NSW (LGNSW) saying it ‘further erodes council involvement in town planning, giving developers increasingly free rein in both city and country’.
The legislation that governs NSW ‘affordable housing’ is the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), and a revamped SEPP came into effect last week under NSW Labor, which aims ‘to make it faster and easier to build more affordable housing’.
It followed the original policy announcement made earlier in June.
A joint statement by Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Paul Scully, and Minister for Housing, Homelessness and the North Coast, Rose Jackson, spun a positive message around the reform, including amendments ‘to ensure the bonuses are available to Build to Rent developments, by allowing them to apply in commercial zones, even if residential accommodation is prohibited under the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP)’.
Inconsistent statements
Ms Jackson said, in the media release, ‘These reforms are about bringing together all key delivery partners while making sure we consider the views of councils and communities, so we get high quality homes supported by the right infrastructure and amenity.’
Yet LGNSW president, Cr Turley, said the new SEPP removes councils from the approval process, which removes community checks and balances, and that the reforms also do not address how the infrastructure required by the additional density and growth in population would be funded.
‘You can vote out a council which makes planning decisions you don’t support, but you have no such power to get rid of the bureaucrats,’ she said.
The Echo asked the office of Ms Jackson why she believes councils’ views were considered in the revised SEPP, given the views of LGNSW.
Additionally, The Echo asked how can the NSW government ‘be confident that their affordable housing reform will be effective, given there is no measure of effectiveness in this reform?’.
Also, ‘Does Ms Jackson support a parliamentary inquiry into the SEPP to establish how affordable housing outcomes can be measured and improved?’
Ms Jackson’s reply will be published if received.
Cr Turley added the SEPP change also allows developers of the biggest buildings to bypass every single component of the council approval process, leaving no protection for local communities.
‘Under the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway, communities will be at the mercy of faceless government bureaucrats any time a building costs more than $75m in the city, or $30m in regional areas’, she said.
 |
| IMAGE: Planning Institute of Australia |
NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Liberal MLA for Pittwater, wannabee premier & pinup boy of the developer set, Rob Stokes (left), was recently boasting that to facilitate urban development "Last financial year we cleared 336 rezoning proposals through the system".
Not content with that rate of urbanisation Stokes has now released a suite of new changes to environmental assessment and planning rules, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Statement of Expectations) Order which reserves the right for the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to intervene where councils are not upholding their responsibilities - as perceived by the minister of the day, lobbyists for the building industry and property developers themselves.
Understandably, some aspects of these changes were not well received at the coal face.
Local Government NSW (LGNSW), media release, 16 December 2021:
Councils furious at ‘disrespectful’ planning announcement
A punishing new planning regime for NSW councils has been described as a follow-up gut punch to councils before the NSW cabinet reshuffle expected this week.
The regime – announced to developers by NSW Planning Minister Rob Stokes yesterday – includes a new planning guarantee requiring councils to refund planning application fees if they do not meet timelines arbitrarily imposed by the State Government.
“This announcement is a second gut punch, following hard on the heels of the lowest rate peg setting in 20 years – a rate so low that councils are already being forced to consider cuts to services, infrastructure and jobs,” Local Government NSW (LGNSW) President Darriea Turley said.
“It was dropped at a developers’ lunch 10 days before Christmas, and before the councils elected at the 4 December elections have even been declared by the NSW Electoral Commission, let alone had a chance to meet.
“The Minister is no doubt rushing to lock in what he sees as his legacy before he is moved out of the portfolio in the upcoming Cabinet reshuffle, but this announcement smacks of disrespect and contempt for the third tier of democratically elected government, and the communities they represent.”
A media release issued by Minister Stokes foreshadowed:
Cr Turley said it was particularly rich for the Minister to be claiming he was simply asking councils to meet the same standard of timeliness and certainty on rezoning and development applications as the NSW Government.
“It is not uncommon for the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to take more than a year to assess planning proposals by councils,” she said.
“Where is the recognition that the development industry often submits partially complete or wildly speculative proposals well outside the approved strategic plans for the area, slowing the process?
“Where is the recognition that councils are already grappling with a plethora of other changes pushed through by this Minister – changes that are impacting their systems and processes, and placing additional strain on an already-strained workforce?
“These include having to recalibrate their systems to integrate with the Planning Portal; amending, developing and updating their land use plans; preparing new plans and implementation strategies for housing and employment; changing the names and definition in their polices and plans; increasing their planning and development reporting – all with significant shortages of planning staff.
“Planning is a critical function jointly delivered by local and state governments, and communities deserve a co-designed system.
“Local government has always committed to working with the Minister for Planning to provide a genuinely collaborative system that delivers the best outcome for the people of NSW.
“We are profoundly disappointed the outgoing Minister has decided to leave our sector on such a negative note”.
It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) which was established under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.
Under this scheme, applications for development or clearing approvals must set out how impacts on biodiversity will be avoided and minimised. The remaining residual impacts can be offset by the purchase and/or retirement of biodiversity credits or payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
Landholders can enter into Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements to create offset sites on their land to generate biodiversity credits. These credits are then available to the market for purchase by developers, landholders or the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to offset the impacts of development or clearing.
However it was a scheme loathed by the mining industry from the start as an impediment on its commercial interests and by the industry's supporters, such as National Party political robber baron and then Deputy Prime Minister John Barilaro. It was also a scheme heartily disliked by local government areas fighting to retain biodiversity, maintain healthy water sources and protect remaining forest.
Clarence Valley Independent, 15 December 2021:
A report tabled at the August 24 Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting warns that the NSW Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) has had the opposite effect to its intention: instead of protecting the valley’s natural environment, it has “ensured a net loss to biodiversity, often of our most threatened flora and fauna”....
Staff advised councillors of four key issues: “a net loss of biodiversity across the LGA, a lack of stewardship sites in the Clarence (currently, there are only two stewardship sites in the Clarence), a lack of transparency in the BOS, and inconsistencies in offset prices.
“There is little confidence in this legislation for biodiversity conservation as offsets can be facilitated outside of the CVC local government area,” staff wrote.
“…credit suppliers are located all over the state, hence, if a developer can source credits, they are unlikely to be sourced within the Clarence, creating a ‘net loss’ of biodiversity.”
On the lack of transparency, staff wrote: “Many plant community types on the floodplain, which comprises a large percentage of land being developed in the Clarence, are threatened ecological communities (TEC), which are to be offset for the same TEC, forcing developers to pay into the fund as the sole way to offset credits, as there are no locally available credits.
“There is no way to determine if this money deposited in the trust is then used to facilitate recovery or protection of TECs in the Clarence – creating biodiversity loss.”....
Clarence Valley Council was not alone in expressing Northern NSW concerns as the Inquiry's submissions list confirmed.
The NSW Parliament Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Environment and Planning's Inquiry into the Integrity of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme will not report until 1 March 2022, so the jury is still out on the Perrottet Coalition Government's response to its yet to be completed investigation.
However, one issue is being addressed.......
Environment reporter Lisa Fox (left)writing in The Guardian, 10 December 2021:
Officials working on conservation matters in the New South Wales environment department have been barred from holding financial interests in the state’s biodiversity offset scheme.
This follows an investigation of the department’s management of potential conflicts of interest.
Senior officials told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that staff who work on the offset scheme or in the department’s biodiversity, conservation and science sections had been told they could not work in those roles and hold personal interests in properties and companies that were involved in the financial trade of offset credits.
It follows two external investigations that were commissioned by the department after Guardian Australia uncovered a series of failures in offset programs.
Offsets exist to allow developers to compensate for environmental damage in one area by delivering an equivalent environmental benefit in another.
But there have been problems with the system, including in one case a 20-year delay in delivering environmental protection and so-called “double-dipping” by developers in areas of urban sprawl.
Guardian Australia also revealed the state and federal governments bought tens of millions of dollars in offset credits from properties linked to consultants whose company advised the government on development in western Sydney.
The reporting triggered a string of reviews, including one by the legal firm Maddocks and one by the consultancy Centium examining how the environment department had managed potential conflicts of interest associated with staff holding financial interests in offset sites….
Dean Knudsen, the deputy secretary for biodiversity, conservation and science, told Friday’s hearing of the offset inquiry there had been fewer than five officials with such financial interests.
After the reviews, the department has introduced a new conflict of interest protocol that deems some investments “high risk” and presenting an “unacceptable risk to the integrity” of the scheme.
Knudsen said as a result, staff in certain sections could no longer participate in the scheme and those with historic interests had 12 months to divest.
“For departmental staff we’ve effectively said you’re not supposed to be participating in the scheme,” he said.
“If you have historically, we’ve told them what you have to do to effectively distance them from that.”
The Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, who is chairing the inquiry, said the changes were welcome.
“This should have happened at the start of the scheme to help prevent the types of windfall gains by a few individuals with detailed knowledge of the offset industry,” she said.
“However, we also need to see a tightening of conflicts of interest [rules] within the industry itself, including within ecological consultancies.”
Officials were also asked about delays in securing permanent protection of offset sites to compensate for habitat destruction caused by coalmines in NSW.
Responses to questions on notice in the parliament from the independent MLC Justin Field state that of the 41 coalmines approved in New South Wales in the past decade, one did not require offsets, 14 had not yet triggered the requirement to deliver their offsets, nine had land set aside but permanent protections were not yet in place, and 17 had “substantially finalised” their offsets.
….but certain aspects – such as finalisation of some of the legal arrangements protecting the site – were outstanding.
Officials agreed the process for securing offsets for mines had not been “as timely as [they] should be”.
Field said it was not good enough that “not one single coalmine approved in the last decade has secured their required offsets through finalised in-perpetuity arrangements”.
“The government needs to improve the transparency around what the hold-up is, put a deadline on finalising these arrangements and hold these mine operators to that deadline,” he said.
Read the full article here.
