Recent Submissions
 

Submission on Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (MNCRS)
- April 2007

Submission on Nambucca River Management Plan Draft Report
- September 2007

Submission on Improving the NSW Planning System
- February 2008

Submission on Draft Growth Areas for the Regional Strategy
- February 2008

Submission to Planning NSW on Proposed Planning Reforms to the DA Process
- February 2008

Submission on Tourism in National Parks
- August 2008

Submission on Nambucca Shire Council State of the Environment Report
- November 2008

 

Department of Planning
Locked Bag 10
Grafton NSW 2460
Email northcoast@planning.nsw.gov.au

26 April 2007

Dear Sir/Madam

Submission: Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (MNCRS)

The Nambucca Valley Conservation Association (NVCA) has operated for over 25 years in the Nambucca Shire with an average of 50 individual and group members.  Our members maintain a keen interest in sustainable land use management and planning, through active involvement in campaigns and regular newsletters. 

Our Association is a member group of the Regional Alliance for Sustainable Planning (RASP), the regional alliance of conservation groups and individuals formed last year to discuss and respond to the State Government’s proposed regional strategic plan.  We concur with all points and recommendations made in the RASP submission to the draft MNCRS, in particular those made which refer specifically to the Nambucca catchment, namely areas unsuitable for future urban, industrial and rural residential growth and areas identified for future protection based on their high conservation values.

The NVCA is concerned at the lack of any growth and conservation areas mapping in the draft plan.  This renders the community consultation process virtually meaningless with regard to the core issues of interest for our members. 

We consider the proposal to prepare these maps in consultation only with relevant councils and state government agencies to be inappropriate and unacceptable.  A fair and transparent means of planning for the future will allow the public to comment on growth and conservation area maps.  These should have been included in the draft MNCRS as has been the procedure with other regional strategic plans so far prepared by the DoP.

We therefore formally request that before signing off on the MNCRS, the DoP consults further with stakeholders by providing the draft final proposed growth areas and conservation areas mapping and allowing adequate time for comment. 

As the NVCA participated in the preparation of the RASP submission which covers the broader draft document, we intend to focus mainly on Nambucca Shire specific matters.  Given the lack of detail regarding the Nambucca in the MNCRS, our comments relate mainly to NSC’s proposals contained in the draft Nambucca Shirewide Structure Plan (NSSP) recently prepared by Sutherland and Koshy on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council (NSC).  Our understanding that DoP will be consulting with (NSC) and drawing on information contained in the Shirewide Structure Plan in its finalisation of the MNCRS, has prompted this focus.  
 

REGIONAL CHALLENGES

Environment

We are surprised at the reference in the foreword, and again on page 5, claiming that the region is rich in natural resources such as fisheries, timber and ground water.

Numerous reports have shown fish stock numbers are declining in the region due to over-fishing, habitat loss, pollution, dams and weirs.  The Department of Natural Resources on its website with regard to the NSW east coast claims:  NSW estuaries are not rich in commercial fisheries resources.  Declines in commercial fisheries have been experienced in recent years.  Reports of serious over-fishing and declines in fish stocks have occurred.  There is a serious lack of accurate data on fish catches in many estuaries.  www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/estuaries/issues.shtml

Evidence of unsustainable logging practices in public forests is also well documented.  The results have meant a decline in timber resources, forest biodiversity and jobs in the timber industry.  Dwindling private native forests are now being hit hard across the region with no code of practice yet in place.  Forests resources are far from rich.

Ground water extraction is largely uncontrolled (as is surface extraction) as metering does not exist, sustainable yields have not been established, illegal bores are widespread and new bores being drilled at an unprecedented rate.

NVCA believes that the region’s natural resources are already stretched past the limit.  Without clear mechanisms to protect sensitive ecosystems and natural resources through evidence-based planning, the government will not meet the identified environmental challenges referred to on page 6, namely to improve protection and enhancement of environmental assets.

NSC has a very poor record on natural resource management.  It continues to refuse to introduce a tree preservation order or native vegetation management plan, despite increasing public demands for action to remedy tree vandalism and pre-emptive clearing in urban zones.

NSC failed to use the most recent native vegetation mapping available to it (Nambucca Catchment Vegetation Survey - Kendall & Kendall, 2003), in the constraints mapping carried out for the draft NSSP.  The Kendall & Kendall survey and report was undertaken for NSC and the then Mid North Coast Catchment Management Board.  NVCA is concerned at NSC’s unwillingness to take ESD principles seriously in its planning process, as demonstrated by the proposed future urban, industrial and rural residential land areas identified in the SSP which contained significant areas of high conservation value native vegetation.  Had the Kendall & Kendall Report been referred to in the process of identifying the NSSP growth areas, the HCV vegetation could have been identified on the constraints maps an ecologically sustainable proposal could have been put forward in the draft, one which meets NSC own LEP and Management Plan objectives and legislated requirements to consider ESD principles and state planning guidelines.

In response to the community backlash at its failure to use the Kendall & Kendall report, NSC has now resolved to receive the report (after four years), but not adopt or apply it to any planning processes, despite the fact that DEC, DNR and CMA have been doing so for years. 

This woeful situation emphasises the need for a consistent approach to native vegetation management in urban zones within the region that will require consideration of environmental values and consent prior to removal of native vegetation. 

We urge DoP to require Nambucca Shire Council to implement a tree preservation order across urban zoned and public land within the shire.

We support the proposal in the draft NSSP to prepare a conservation plan for the shire and have requested that this happen prior to any finalisation of new release areas.  The same principle should apply to regional planning with regard to the finalisation of a regional conservation plan as the fundamental step prior to finalisation of growth area maps.

The MNCRS should require NSC’s input to growth area maps to include all available vegetation mapping (including Kendall & Kendall 2003) and to consider all constraints based not only on listed threatened species and SEPPs, but also under reserved vegetation communities.

We refer to the Nambucca Constraints Map produced and submitted by RASP detailing the areas of potential development which clash with HCV vegetation and request that the MNCRS ensure these vegetated areas are excluded from growth area maps.
 

PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE NAMBUCCA SHIRE

NSC has significantly overestimated future growth in the Nambucca Shire.  It has done this by relying on development application lodgement figures (largely influenced over past few years by speculative subdivision) rather than ABS and occupation certificate figures.

This distorted picture of demand, along with the misguided assumption that growth at any cost will result in economic prosperity, led NSC to plan for a doubling of its population in the preparation of the NSSP.  Doubling of the population equates to 3% growth, a rate not seen in the shire for many years.  This inaccuracy has distorted the entire NSSP process with inflated land release, housing, infrastructure and water requirements.

Nambucca is one of the slowest growing areas of the MNC.  ABS data shows it to have growth of 0.8% last year and an average over the past five years of 0.9%.  This is less than the 1% average used in the DMNCRS for the entire region.  In reality growth is more likely to be no more than 1% per year (27% over 25 years) and therefore result in growth of 5100 people over 25 years.  At this rate, using a household average of 2.1 people and 15 dwellings per ha, only 2430 extra dwellings would be required rather than the 7000 over 20 years touted in the draft NSSP.  By achieving a 50% infill rate, only 1215 dwellings would need to be on greenfield sites, resulting in a demand for 81ha of new land for housing, instead of the 543ha over 20 years quoted in the SSP.

The MNCRS must ensure that any proposed future growth areas for the Nambucca catchment reflect evidence-based projected population figures.
 

LAND AVAILIBILITY

Nambucca Shire currently has an over supply of rural residential land much of which is unsuitable for development due to environmental constraints.  Nambucca experienced a rush of speculative development applications in 2003 and 2004 as its rural residential quota ran out.  Council has still yet to prepare a rural residential release strategy.  Many sub-divided blocks remain unsold.  As the

population ages, we predict that demand for these labour intensive and unproductive ‘lifestyle’ blocks will drop as will demand for rural residential blocks.

Rural residential development in the Nambucca has resulted in significant loss of native vegetation, especially in light additional asset protection zone requirements.  Cleared areas are generally replaced with expansive lawns and exotic gardens which require extensive mowing and demand high water use.  They are not an environmentally sustainable form of residential development.

The NVCA does not support the further release of rural residential blocks.  However, given that it is likely they will be pursued in this shire, we believe that it is important there should be no further loss of native vegetation as a result of any rural residential development.

NVCA considers a 50% greenfield and 50% infill ratio for new dwellings to be appropriate given greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure, urban sprawl and local demographic considerations.

The draft NSSP proposes new rural residential land releases in areas of extreme environmental sensitivity such as the acid sulfate soil area east of Macksville and south of the Nambucca River and  the Bald Hill area, which is almost entirely covered in high conservation old growth and under reserved native forest and falls within the DEC identified regional wildlife corridor.

NVCA does not support any new areas to be zoned for rural residential development in the Nambucca catchment.

The proposed urban release areas in the draft NSSP are excessive and also needlessly involve areas of significant environmental sensitivity.

NVCA supports DCP 17 South Macksville Urban Release area.  This area will yield over 600 lots in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.  Importantly the DCP 17 area is relatively unconstrained.

Proposals in the draft NSSP for future urban areas at South Valla Beach and south Scotts Head are strongly opposed as not required to meet demand and significantly constrained.

NVCA opposes the proposal for development of the Boggy Creek area which would involve the removal of areas of significant native vegetation.
 

NATURAL HAZARDS

The MNCRS must pay closer attention to the potential impacts of climate change such as sea level rise and storm surges.  Residential and industrial development should no longer be allowed on flood plains and in close proximity to riverbanks and low lying coastal zones.

Considering climate change, and as a precautionary measure, no development should occur below the 1-in-200-year flood level.
 

WATER SUPPLY

All new urban dwellings should be self sufficient for all but non potable water.  All new rural residential developments should be 100% self sufficient for water with enough contingency water for drought and fire fighting purposes.  Local Governments should be assisted by State and Federal Governments to recycle all sewerage treatment plant outputs and stormwater runoff as a high priority. 

Investment in the proposed off stream water storage facility at Missabotti  should be deferred until Council has adopted an integrated water cycle management plan and implemented critically needed actions such as rainwater capture, grey water recycling, storm water capture and STP recycling.

The NVCA does not support inter-basin transfers of water or in-stream dams.
 

THE NAMBUCCA ESTUARY

The 13ha sand island zoned 6 (a) public recreation in the inner harbour of the Nambucca Estuary contains significant under reserved vegetation including saltmarsh and swamp oak.  It is frequented by numerous bird species and is in close proximity to the breeding colony of the endangered Little Terns on the northern tip of Gumma Peninsula.  This island also forms the southern boundary of an area of water known locally as The Glen, which is well known to divers and snorkellers for its excellent diving and highly diverse marine life.  Dr Stuart Blanch recently wrote to various Ministers nominating The Glen as an aquatic recreational reserve.  Both the island and The Glen together, if protected as reserves, could potentially provide opportunities for passive recreation eg safe diving and bird watching and local low impact passive eco-tourism ventures.

The sand island is worthy of protection and must not be developed.  NVCA requests that it be considered for inclusion in the coastal reserve system along with ‘The Glen’ section of the estuary to the immediate north.
 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The NVCA supports the aim of concentrating growth and redevelopment of the region’s four major regional centres and six major towns as a means of protecting sensitive coastal and natural environments.  We support the concept of ‘shop top’ housing.

We also support protecting the coast by limiting urban sprawl, by focusing new settlement in areas identified on local strategy maps (if they have been prepared using all available environmental data) and restricting unplanned new urban or rural residential settlement.

NVCA does not support the proposal to allow additional development sites outside of agreed local strategies.  The five year review process should be used to review and consider proposals outside the defined development areas.  The review process should ensure transparency and certainty for all stakeholders.  The sustainability criteria do not provide certainty and are considered such a glaring loophole as to potentially render the regional planning process invalid. 

The MNCRS should only apply the sustainability criteria to areas designated for development in the Strategy.  Additional development sites outside of agreed local strategies should not be allowed.  Any variations to the designated development areas should only be considered at the  5 year review phase through a public process. 

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the draft MNCRS.  We look forward to providing further comment once the draft future growth areas and conservation areas mapping is released for comment.

Yours sincerely,
Paula Flack
President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Michael Coulter
General Manager
Nambucca Shire Council
PO Box 177
Macksville NSW 2447

4th September 2007

Dear Mr Coulter,

Submission on Nambucca River Management Plan Draft Report

The Nambucca Valley Conservation Association (NVCA) would like to provide the following comments on the abovementioned draft management plan;

The overarching management objectives listed on p1-3 are fully supported by this Association.

Prioritisation of management strategies

O       Full support for the identification of improving overall riverbank condition, in particular improving riparian habitats on all major streams and waterways as priority #1.  Without improved bank stability and riparian vegetation, estuary health cannot be achieved.  This strategy underpins all others and should be the focus of local government and riparian landholder’s efforts to improve river health and water quality.

O       Strategy EC-1 should be afforded a higher rank.  Much misinformation has been circulated in the valley about the need to dredge the river to save it from ‘completely choking’ from sedimentation.  The NVCA is concerned that many people have been misled into believing the current sediments in the river are a new ‘problem’ which can be simple fixed by dredging.  Raising community awareness as to the historically high sediment loads in the estuary, the dangerous river mouth and normal estuary processes are a critical step in achieving sustainable use and development of the estuary.  This strategy should be ranked 4 or 5.

O       Strategy WQ-1 should be afforded a higher ranking - we suggest 10.  Establishing a coordinated and consistent approach to water quality at strategic points throughout the estuary as early as possible, will provided good baseline data to assess the success or otherwise of the implementation of the strategies outlined in this plan.

O       Apart from the above points, the NVCA agrees with the order of priority in Table 1-2.

 Comments on the Management Strategies

 1          Management Strategy BE-1

O       Uncontrolled grazing of riverbanks should be identified as a causal factor in bank instability in the first paragraph in the description section.  It is rightly mentioned in the second para as a preventable threatening process.

O       Suggest an additional action - to raise public awareness locally of state and federal government assistance programs for improving riparian land management and the benefits to landholders of undertaking riparian rehabilitation works.  Good examples exist in the shire of such works, demonstrating improved water quality and quantity, improved infrastructure (gates, pumps, off river stock watering points, fencing), improved stock health, increased land values, protection of valuable grazing lands from further loss through bank collapse and increased ecological function.  This action would be the responsibility of NSC, NV Landcare, CMA and DNR.  Mechanisms could include workshops, field days, media and testimonials from landholders in particular farmers, with successful projects.  This action may go some way to addressing the issue raised in the footnote on p2-2.

O       The NVCA feels strongly that over use of rock revetments alone, whilst stabilising banks does not result in improving or maintaining overall ecosystem function.  Large stretches of rock revetment (which appear to be increasingly used in estuary riverbank ‘restoration’ projects in the Nambucca) provide no shade to surface water, are hostile environments for both natural and manual revegetation, present a sterile and ugly look and make access for humans difficult and dangerous. Greater effort should be made by NSC to incorporate native vegetation in particular mangroves into estuary riverbank rehabilitation works, especially where road stabilisation in close proximity to river is to be achieved.

O       The strategy of protecting and rehabilitating the best sections of river bank first and leaving the worst for later has been around for some years now.  Is there evidence that this is actually the best approach?  In some cases, particularly in the upper catchment, rehabilitated and stable areas can be threatened by excessive bank erosion from degraded areas upstream.  Gravels and sediments can suffocate aquatic vegetation and overly narrow the channel.  A previous trial by the then Department of Land and Water conservation in a freshwater section of the Nambucca River, which involved burying chains in gravel inner bars and relocating them post flooding, showed that mobile gravels to not travel very far downstream even in high flow events.  NVCA supports the reach based approach to rehabilitation/management which allows flexibility in addressing areas of varying bank conditions concurrently if necessary.  Sediments and gravels washed down from eroding banks upstream should be stabilised with plantings or removed and returned to projects upstream (only if they pose a threat to a stable and protected reach downstream).  This practice would ensure no further loss of the bed and bank material from the system. Lyall & Macoun Consulting Engineers state “Where possible gravel should be relocated to a position in the channel near the removal site to ensure that the local system does not lose gravel”, (Nambucca Valley River & Catchment Study Executive Summary.  Lyall & Macoun 1999).

2          Management Strategy LTU-3

O       This strategy is appropriately identified as #2.  Increasing developer interest and pressure to develop sensitive coastal areas in close proximity to rivers highlights the importance of strong development control plans to regulate such activities.  NSC does not have a DCP to control soil erosion and sedimentation from development sites.  Hopefully this inadequacy will be addressed soon.

O       NSC should introduce a comprehensive Vegetation Management Plan or Tree Preservation Order, to ensure impacts to native vegetation are carefully considered and regulated in all new development on private and public land.

3          Management Strategy CH-1

O       NVCA does not consider a golf course appropriate land use for Stuart Island given its environmental and Aboriginal cultural sensitivity.  However given that the current situation prevails, this Association supports removing the obstruction to natural flow which currently exists due to the causeway.  A well designed simple bridge which would afford best possible flow is our first preference to reinstate natural flow.  Careful monitoring of silt movement and seagrass beds should be undertaken following alteration of the flow regime between Stuarts Island and mainland.  This Association does not support increased development of the Island, such as upgraded boat ramp as suggested on p 12-6.

4          Management Strategy BWU-2

O       The NVCA supports raising community awareness as to the environmental impacts of boating.  This should also stipulate jet-skis, which are frequently observed especially in holiday time being ridden at speed and executing tight ‘donuts’ in close proximity to banks. 

O       Letters to the editor of our local newspaper and feedback from our members highlights the lack of knowledge and extent of misunderstanding and misinformation which exists in the community regarding river processes, health and sustainable management practices.

5          Management Strategy FOA-3

O       Numerous tyres exist in the estuary river either as homemade wharves, bank stabilising structures or random pollution (mainly escapees from upstream ‘placement’).  Their existence and the risks posed to water quality and aquaculture needs to be acknowledged in this strategy.  Many loose tyres could be easily retrieved however some other ‘structures’ may require financial assistance to private landholders to remove or replace these with environmentally sustainable materials.

O       The NVCA has been concerned for many years regarding the failure of NSC to address sewerage pollution events in times of high rainfall, particularly from the relatively new Macksville STP and at least one pumping station in Macksville.  Any action to remedy this situation is fully supported.

O       The NVCA believes the oyster industry deserves a higher degree of support from NSC through increased efforts to minimise pollution inputs into the river and support of boating and river management measures which minimise negative impacts on this important local industry.

O       Action 9 for this strategy should support programs focussed on assisting not only intensive agricultural industries, but any agricultural industry willing to make a genuine commitment to minimising its impacts on water quality.

O       Figure 6-1: It is not clear whether the red dash at Wellington Rock denotes an oyster lease or hand collect site?  This map should also identify know sources of pollution input into the river which impact on the oyster industry ie Macksville STP, Newee Ck (documented poor water quality), acid sulfate run off from Gumma Gumma Wetland and Watt Ck.  Beer Creek/drain directs town stormwater runoff into the Nambucca River and especially should be listed.  Recently the disastrous West Street development has discharged huge silt loads into Nambucca River via Beer Creek during every rain event, having a direct impact on oyster leases in the immediate vicinity of the confluence.

6          Management Strategy HM-1

O       To achieve the objective of Habitat Management (HM) to which this strategy relates, NSC should adopt a native vegetation management plan.  This should be included as a recommended action.

O       We acknowledge and support the inclusion of the first dot point in the action list on p7-2.  NSC has the information to guide it in modifying boundaries to 7(a) & 7(b) zones in the report Nambucca Catchment Vegetation Survey (Kendall & Kendall May 2003).  Disappointingly however, it has formally resolved to ignore this information in its planning and natural resource management activities. 

O       Action list on p 7-2 refers to Figure 7 showing species listed under the TSC & FM Acts, however the figure legend only refers to ‘unprotected significant habitat’?  Legend should acknowledge where the zones originated from ie Nambucca Shire LEP.

7          Management StrategyLTU-1

O       The actions recommended in this strategy are fully supported

8          Management Strategy HM-2

O       The description section for this strategy recognise soil disturbance from stock impacts, but surprisingly fails to mention impacts on vegetation from stock grazing.  These far reaching impacts, in particular loss of understorey and succession (recruit) plants, over time result in decline in species and age diversity and therefore ecological integrity.  Areas of high ecological and/or conservation value should be protected from grazing or at the very least have an agreed stock management regime in place which protects the integrity of the ecosystem in perpetuity.  Various grant & incentive programs already exist to support landholders to achieve this.

O       Another activity not recognised as threatening remnant areas of high ecological and/or conservation value, is that of legal and illegal clearing for development or agricultural purposes.  Legal land clearing occurs because of a lack of regulatory mechanisms covering residentially zoned lands in the shire (no Tree Preservation Order).  Therefore opportunities are missed to identify and protect important remnant vegetation.

O       Plant removal either by landholders or poachers – in particular rare and threatened species such as orchids is another activity which threatens integrity and viability of HCV habitats.  Whilst perhaps not being a large scale activity, it is known to occur.  Incremental removal of rare plants has a devastating impact on declining and isolated populations of rare species and deserves a mention.

O       Use of information already available to NSC in the mapping data of the Kendall & Kendall Vegetation Study would assist in the actions recommended in this strategy.

O       P9-2 regarding rehabilitation of habitats and mechanisms to achieve this; stock are a major threat to newly revegetated areas.  Any revegetation project must include a stock management plan (if stock are involved) to exclude them from any newly revegetated areas.  Any funded project should set out an agreement with the landholder as to how stock will be managed to ensure maximum success of the revegetation program.

9          Management Strategy EC-1

O       The statement in last para on p 10-1 re ‘Smaller, albeit temporary works such as minor dredging may be considered where problems become critical’ would benefit from an example of what the consultants consider ‘temporary’, ‘minor’ and ‘critical’.

O       Fully support the recommendation to promote the use of shallow draft vessels where navigation is constrained.  The NVCA recognises that the constrained areas of navigation shift around in the lower estuary as sediments shift.  This has been documented from earliest European records of the river mouth and estuary.  Clear signage and responsible boating/navigation practices will enable boating activities to continue as per usual without the unsustainable and unnecessary intervention of dredging which would benefit only large boat users for a short period of time.

10        Management Strategy BWU-1

O       Figure 11-1 Signage is needed at the entrance to Warrell Creek clearly stating high conservation value area to whatever length upstream is deemed so and also any applying speed limit.  Why is Shelley Beach Boat Ramp not proposed for signage?

O       The NVCA supports the staged strategy to (1) raise awareness of the impacts to riverbanks and other river users of excessive speed and boat wash, through strategy BWU-2 and Action 1 of BWU-1 and (2) revising allowable boat speeds if implementation of (1) does not result in a reduction of bank erosion and improved outcomes for other river users.

O       NVCA agrees with NSW Maritime’s proposal to reduce speed in the inner harbour to 4 knots and with its immediate introduction.  A member recently witnesses a small aluminium boats enter the inner harbour through the ‘hole in the wall’ during mid tide at great speed (faster that 8 knots) and skirt the NW section of the sand island in a way that had a snorkeler, swimmer or dolphin surfaced in their path there would have been no chance to avoid a collision.  The need for increased monitoring and regulating of boat speeds is apparent.

O       It is likely that responsible boat/river users will understand the reasoning behind this important strategy to reduce bank damage and will support its implementation.  The NVCA is aware that again there exists considerable misinformation in the community about the proposal ranging from a blanket reduction of speed to 4 knots through the entire estuary to eventual ‘lock out areas’!  This emphasises the need for the Action Table relating to this strategy to carefully and clearly worded and set out, to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.

O       The reasoning behind the no wash areas is fully supported, however we are aware that it may have contributed to the misunderstanding by some boaters that boating will be virtually prohibited by its implementation.  Any boat movement will create wash of some kind but it is the level of wash that is of concern especially in actively eroding areas.  These areas may be better identified as ‘Wash Minimisation Zones’ with signage to that effect.  The desired outcome from this signage would be clear and achievable.

O       Why is there only a ‘no tow’ zone rather than both no tow and wash minimisation to the east of Stuarts Island?

O       Also supported is the proposal for a no wash or speed limit in Warrell Creek in recognition of its high conservation value and for amenity of other river users.

O       Suggest considering extension of ‘no wash’ area to confluence with Newee Creek to minimise impact of pollution runoff from highway crossing at Newee Creek.

O       Should consider opportunities to tie various boating, swimming, habitat signage together wherever possible to minimise the number of signs around the estuary.

O       We acknowledge that NSW maritime are already planning to reduce speed in the inner harbour irrespective of what this plan may propose or what NSC might decide.

11        Management Strategy BWU-4

O       Waterskiing should be prohibited in narrower reaches identified as having unstable banks such as the Bowraville reach, at least until such times as the banks are fully stabilised and revegetated.

O       We agree with a review of use of Wellington Boat Ramp for small craft only and removal of rock ballast.

O       The Apex Park boat ramp should be kept open but for the use of small pleasure craft such as tinnies, canoes and kayaks only.  No jet skis or waterskiing craft should be used in this highly degraded reach.  It is agreed that access is a problem to Apex Park and this should be addressed with good entry/exit design and signage.  Any facilities provided for the public at this site should apply best practice design to ensure no contamination of the river from runoff from sewerage.  Fresh water could be provided via rain water tanks and captured from either toilet block or picnic shelter.

O       Table 12-1 should be more specific re proposal for minor dredging at jetty near Stuarts Island.  What is meant by ‘minor’ - to what depth and extent and for what purpose?  Small craft only should be launching from this ramp.  With shifting sands the ‘problem’ may no longer exist.  The altered flow regime following changes to the causeway may alter the shoaling pattern at the boat ramp.

12        Management Strategy LTU-2

O       As expressed earlier in this submission the NVCA is concerned by the number of tyres currently existing in the estuary either as structures or as pollution.  This strategy should include a recommendation to systematically remove tyres from the estuary, through ‘Green Team’ clean up programs, incentives for property owners to clean up and staged decommission of artificial wharves and bank structures which involve tyres. 

O       A USA study Waste Tyres in Sub-Grade Road Beds (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1990) found that ‘metals are leached from tyres in the highest concentrations under  acid conditions with laboratory studies showing barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium and zinc  as constituents of concern’.  Tyres in saturated conditions were found to present greater concern with the conclusion ‘potential environmental impacts from the use of tyres can be minimised by placement of tyre material only in the unsaturated zone of the roadway sub-grade’.  As a result of the report, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency introduced guidelines to stop the use of tyres in saturated conditions.

13        Management Strategy BWU-3

O       Signs should be multi lingual catering to tourists eg German & Japanese.

O       The NVCA does not support closing the ‘hole in the wall’.  Such action is likely to further manipulate the natural flow through the inner harbour.  Improved warning signage and public education regarding the dangerous conditions is supported.

14        Management Strategy EC-2

O       NVCA does not support dredging of the estuary.  Providing and maintaining a deep permanent channel is a pipe dream of the development lobby in this shire.  The Nambucca estuary is small and relatively unchanged in sections, especially Warrell Creek.  Many tourists and residents come to the Shire to enjoy these values.  Clever strategic planning and sensitive development of the estuary will encourage strong economic growth without compromising the scenic and ‘unspoilt’ values of the estuary.  The challenge for NSC is to firstly identify and protect areas where estuary development is clearly inappropriate and unsustainable and to apply ESD principles to areas deemed potentially suitable for development.  If this were to occur rather than developer pressure and economic drivers taking precedent in planning decisions, our shire could stand alone from other neighbouring over developed ones, attracting greater number of tourists seeking ‘unspoilt’ locations.

15        Management Strategies CH-2

O       NVCA acknowledges the importance of protection of Aboriginal & European cultural heritage.  We stress the importance of NSC working closely with the Aboriginal community to finalise the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan and to apply the information and recommendation it contains to all planning and development approval matters.

16        NVCA fully supports Management Strategies TM-1 (Rank 16), FOA-1 (Rank 17), FOA-2 (rank 18), WQ-1 (Rank 19), CCSLR-1 (Rank 20) – graph/legend on p 21-1 requires clear explanation, BWU-5 (Rank 21), HM-3 (Rank 22), HM-4 (Rank 23), CL-1 (Rank 24), LTU-4 (Rank 25) and  TM-2 (Rank 26).

Formatting

O       Figure 1-1 requires a legend explaining black & red line, ie tidal limit and roads.

O       Figure 2-2 text too small to read.

O       To improve user friendliness of document, it would be helpful to have a brief title for each strategy eg MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BE1 (RANK 1) Improve Overall Riverbank Condition, MANAGEMENT STRATEGY LTU-3 (RANK 2) Minimise Environmental Impact of New Development etc.  This would also help when strategies other than the one being looked at are referred to in the document eg on p 12-1 (last line) it states ‘see StrategyBE-1’, but lack of title and page number make this suggestion more difficult than it need be.

O       Table 6-1 text on legend too small to read.

O       Suggest page number at bottom right of landscape pages to allow quick flick for pages.

General Comments

O       A pollution issue exists in the river which does not appear to be mentioned and does not necessarily fit into any particular category.  Blue barrels (presumable escaping from oyster leases where they are used as floats) are an environmental pollutant often seen floating in the estuary or washed up near banks.  They also pose a significant threat to boating.

O       The draft plan does not include any recommendation regarding monitoring and review of the management plan itself.  NVCA suggests that this is considered in final document.

O       The NVCA commends NSC on the level of community consultation undertaken in the development of the Estuary Management Study and trust that this Association’s comments will be carefully considered in the preparation of the final document.

O       Overall this Association believes the management plan if fully implemented, over time will result in significant improvements to both the environmental and economic viability of the Nambucca estuary.

Thankyou for the opportunity to provide input to this important draft document.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Davies
NVCA Committee member and representative on Nambucca Shire Council’s Estuary & Coastline Management Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Reforms
Department of Planning
GPO Box 30
Sydney NSW 2001

14 February 2008

Dear Sir/Madam

Submission on Improving the NSW Planning System

Further to our email of 8 February regarding the abovementioned document, we would like to make the following comments. 

 1          Timing and staging of reforms

2          Snapshot of NSW planning system

 

·         The snap shot refers to 80% of DAs lodged in 2005-06 being from families and small business, but fails to define small business.  Is a developer who lodges a DA for say one or two dwellings a year considered a small business?  This figure should have been broken down to families (single dwelling) and developer, to offer a truer picture.

 

·         No consideration is given to the fact that many DAs lodged with local governments are incomplete or incorrect, resulting in a delay to determination and pushing up the determination time.  This situation is partly due to lack of or inconsistent information available to those wishing to lodge a DA, but is also often due to sloppy applications.  Standardising LEPs across the state will go some way to addressing this problem, however it is unacceptable that councils with good turn around times (mostly non metro councils) should be penalised with reduced assessment and determination powers because of other (mostly metropolitan) councils with poorer performance.  Rather the underperforming councils should be required to review their processes and policies to ensure minimum DA turn around time. 

 

·         Another contributing factor affecting turn around times for DAs which does not appear to have been considered, is that of the enormous planning reforms workload currently placed upon existing local government planning staff, such as the new LEPs, DCPs and strategic plans.  These demanding tasks have had a particular impact upon regional councils which due to financial constraints often find it difficult to provide employment packages lucrative and attractive enough to entice experience planning staff away from cities.  The burden of state and federal government cost shifting onto local government without matching resources has compounded this situation.  Nambucca Shire Council (NSC) has been understaffed in its planning department a number of times recently due to the inability to recruit suitably qualified staff, with the resultant delays to planning and DA determination activities.  Despite this, NSC’s turnaround times for Jan – Nov 2007 have been 46.81, 59.06, 31.88, 39.19, 54.80, 48.65, 52.72, 66.55, 61.65, 57.74 and 72.25 days respectively, an acceptable outcome.

 

3          Gateway approach

 

·         We see this as a means of fast tracking rezonings but with no certainty as to the type or level of community consultation.

 

·         The paper’s proposal that community consultation would be established as part of the ‘gateway process leaves us wondering about the likelihood of public exclusion from the process on controversial rezoning proposals, in particular those involving environmentally sensitive lands.  We have no alternative but to oppose the ‘gateway approach’ until such time as we can be clear that there has been no eroding of public opportunity to view and comment on any rezoning proposal at an early stage.  Ideally community participation in these far reaching decisions should be enhanced as should concurrence requirements.

 

4          Public consultation and participation

 

·         NVCA believes that public participation is a fundamental right of the people and that it must remain as a key foundation of the planning system.

 

·         No clear information exists within the Discussion Paper as to how public participation will occur for the various types of DA.  No detail is provided on the proposed community consultation guidelines.  We have no choice but to remain sceptical.

 

5          Planning Panels

 

·         This proposal raises many questions.  NVCA is particularly opposed to the removal or overriding of local government’s powers with regard to DA assessment.  As the level of government closest to the community, local government is in the best position to understand the basis for local strategic plans and to assess DAs in this context.  This approach allows for the diversity of different communities and localities.  It helps to maintain local character.

 

·         It is difficult to comment other than to highlight opposition due to the complete lack of detail in the discussion paper as to how these planning panels will be formed, who will sit on them and their terms of reference.  This information should have been provided.  Any planning panel must include environmental representatives with an appropriate level of expertise.

 

6          Concurrence requirements

 

·         Although often the cause of delays to DA determinations, having various agencies consider relevant aspects of DAs is critical and must not be changed.  This approach provides the depth of assessment and consideration expected by the community to ensure environmental, social and economic matters are fully considered.

 

·         The proposed reduction in concurrence requirements is not acceptable.  The planning system should retain the invaluable input and expertise provided for integrated development assessments in particular in regards to native vegetation, threatened species, critical habitat and water resources.

 

·         How will the level of concurrence required be established?

 

·         Agency participation should be improved with increased resources for the process rather than reduced or removed.  This would reduce the backlogging which often results in DA’s taking longer than the minimum 40 days required of local government to determine a DA.

 

7          Exempt and complying development

 

·         Basing the target for exempt and complying development on a simple proportion ie 50% with policies developed to achieve that target, is putting the cart before the horse.  Policies for exempt and complying development should be based upon clear and justifiable parameters which are acceptable to the wider community not just developers. 

 

·         We support the mandatory listing of solar panels as complying development.
 

 

8          Private certification

 

·         The NVCA does not support private certification under the current system and lack confidence that the proposed changes will satisfactorily address our concerns.

 

·         This is a system clearly vulnerable to abuse through the very nature of the work.  A private certifier is unlikely to want to make life difficult for a developer who is a current and future source of income.  Put simply a private certifier is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds him/her.

 

·          The proposal to limit the number of jobs to three which a certifier can undertake for any one developer is evidence of the government’s lack of trust in the process.  However we are not at all convinced that this measure will negate the opportunity for corruption.

 

 

·         Local Governments should be adequately resourced to assess and determine developments in its own planning area.

 

 

9          ePlanning

 

·         NSC’s recent community survey showed that of the 400 people survey only 12% had visited council’s website.  This result is perhaps not surprising given the depressed socio economic status of the Nambucca and the high proportion of over 60 year old (38.4%) who often do not use the internet.

 

·         ePlanning certainly has its merits, but how will those not using internet be catered for.  People need a choice in how information is disseminated.

 

10        General comments

 

·         The NVCA understand the need to improve the planning system in NSW however we do not accept the rhetoric that this is about streamlining the process for ‘Mums and Dads’.  The proposed changes will result in less input into DA assessment and approval by local government, in particular elected representatives and reduced opportunity for community consultation.

 

 

 

11        Conclusion

 

It is difficult not to conclude that the proposed changes are more about greasing the wheels of development in NSW with the emphasis on economic growth and less about social and environmental consideration and outcomes. 


Together with other new state plans and policies, such as the draft Regional Strategic Plan which drastically over allocates land for development beyond projected needs and BioBanking which allows development in critical habitat, these proposed planning reforms open the door for excessive development, even where it may not be needed or appropriate.

The NVCA believes the development industry lobby groups have been extremely successful in their bid to have environmental protection weakened in NSW.  They have had the sympathetic ear of the NSW Government.  We are now witnessing a piecemeal dismantling of environmental protection instruments.  This is an extremely disappointing outcome given that previous state planning instruments for environmental protection were already woefully inadequate and failed to even slow the steady decline of biodiversity in this state. 

In view of global climate change and increasing loss of biodiversity, our members are not confident that the current planning reforms will result in truly sustainable planning or land management - they will not protect environmental values and biodiversity for future generations.

We trust you will accept our feedback on this important issue.

Yours sincerely
Georgette Allen
Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manager
Department of Planning
Locked Bag 9022 Grafton NSW 2460
Email: northcoast@planning.nsw.gov.au

18 February 2008

Dear Sir,

Submission on Draft Growth Areas for the Regional Strategy

Further to our submission of 29 April 2007 regarding the Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, we make the following comments regarding the proposed Future Growth Areas identified as part of the regional strategy.  Our submission is in two parts firstly general comments regarding the proposed regional growth areas and secondly, specific comments relating to the Nambucca area.

1          General comments

·         We support the concept of identifying sufficient land for projected needs, but are astounded that the Department of Planning (DoP) has identified so much land for future urban and industrial development.  The amount identified in the Draft Growth Areas is, by the NSW Governments own figures, 1,157% too high for residential land and 979% too high for industrial land!  We strongly object to this proposed blatant securing of an oversupply of land. 

·         Kempsey, Great lakes and Nambucca suffer the most over allocation with 323%, 276% and 260% over allocation for residential land respectively.  We consider this a land grab by the development industry.

·         All local government areas except Bellingen are over allocated for employment (industrial) land, with Nambucca, Clarence and Taree being the worst off at 4,300%, 3,809% and 3,048% over allocation respectively.

·         The proposal to review the Strategy every five years is supported.  It should be this mechanism which responds to any changing demographics trends, if they occur, so that any requirement for further rezoning of land can be demonstrably evidence based.

·         If such an oversupply was to be ‘locked’ into the final growth area maps, then property owners and investors will hold local and state govt to ransom if those rights were threatened with any proposal to back zone.

·         By ‘locking in’ this gross over allocation of land, the State Government is denying itself and the community flexibility and options for future land use or protection in these areas.  This prospect flies in the face of responsible planning, especially in view of climate change impacts, in particular sea level rise, which are under considered in this process. 

·         In view of the above dot point, the Precautionary Principle should be applied and the final Growth Areas should be adjusted down to reflect the Government’s projected growth figures and when doing so, the primary principles should be 1) no loss of native vegetation or at the very least no loss of vegetation listed as rare, vulnerable or endangered under the TSC Act or identified as under reserved; 2) no filling or drainage of the floodplain; 3) avoidance of sites at risk from future inundations caused by worst case scenario sea level rise and 4) preference for sites adjacent to existing centres and services.

·         We find it difficult to understand how ESD principles can be met through this strategy without firstly developing a Conservation Plan.  Before adopting a final Strategy the NSW Government must develop a Conservation Plan for the Mid North Coast which provides protection for biodiversity in perpetuity.

·         The NVCA does not support the following sites as new growth areas; West Yamba, James Creek, Lawrence, Corindi, Arrawarra Headland, Safety Beach Golf Course, Mastracolis Road, North Boambee Valley, Bonville, Boggy/Cow Creek, South West Rocks, Scotts Head, Lower Nambucca, the expansion of Thrumster, Dunbogan, Area 15, North Tuncurry and Balberook and North Arm Coves.

·         Some sites identified in the Draft Growth Areas have significant conservation values and should not be included, however if the NSW Government does not reject these sites, it should establish a Sensitive Sites Panel akin to that used for the South Coast Regional Strategy, to allow a closer examination of the sites and related issues.

·         The NVCA strongly objects to the sustainability criteria, which enables development to occur outside areas identified in the Strategy.  The glaring loophole defeats the purpose of developing a Regional Strategy in the first place.  

2

2          Nambucca Shire proposed future growth areas

 

·         This Association’s comments put to DoL in its 29 April MNC Regional Strategy submission regarding Nambucca Shire Council’s proposed future growth areas still stand.  These areas were identified through Council’s 20 Year Shirewide Structure Plan process with considerable community consultation, however the NVCA lacks confidence in the Community Reference Group established to inform Council on community views regarding the plan, as it was established without clear criteria and lacked any conservation representative to balance the views of participants with obvious pro development objectives. 

 

·         NSC’s Structure Plan was based on previously identified future growth areas which were established many years earlier without the benefit of contemporary knowledge of ecological values, planning standards or considerations such as climate change impacts.  The NVCA was disappointed that areas clearly unsuitable for development continued to remain in NSC’s proposed growth areas despite considerable community feedback as to their ecological sensitivity and biodiversity values.  As a result we now are faced with a new layer of planning being based on poor, ill informed and outdate planning decisions of the past.

 

·         We hold little confidence in assurances that Future Growth Areas are over allocated to allow for ‘no go’ areas to be established within them at a later date.  Neither the State Government nor NSC has yet even commenced preparation of promised conservation plans.  Indeed there is no certainty as to whether a Conservation Plan will ever be prepared, let alone which areas might (if ever) be identified for ‘no go zones’.  This is a most disappointing and worrying outcome.

 

·         Without up front criteria for protection of biodiversity values, there is no certainty that those lands within identified Growth Areas will be subsequently unavailable for future rezoning for development, as such they may be more vulnerable to destruction following adoption of the Regional Strategy, than they are currently. 

 

In Summary

The NVCA is most alarmed at the enormous increase in area allocated for future development in the draft Growth Area Maps, compared to the figures in the draft MNC Regional Strategy and urges a major adjustment down to realistic and sustainable levels.

In fact we believe that allocating land for future development should only be undertaken following sustainability assessment of resources available within each catchment particularly in terms of water resources.

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in this important process.

Yours sincerely
Georgette Allen
Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submission to Planning NSW on Proposed Planning Reforms to the DA Process
8 February 2008

Snapshot of the NSW Planning System

This table aims to highlight the amount of Development Applications (DAs) processed by local councils and the time taken by councils to decide those applications.

It is said that 12 councils took an average of over 100 days to process DAs while the state average is 75 days.

This table ignores the fact that the majority of the councils with time problems are city councils while the country local governments are doing much better. The Kempsey Shire Council, for instance has achieved process in 20 days and 34 days is the average across the Mid North Coast Group of Councils. This is despite rural local government having to deal more frequently with environmental constraints and to resolve sustainability issues arising from growth in the coastal areas.

NCEC contends that where the time taken in processing DAs is a result of the need to consider environmental issues, then that is time well spent and an essential part of responsible planning. Taking 20 or 34 days to properly assess environmental impact of development is inconsequential compared to extinction of threatened species.

It is probably going to be even more important that local councils retain approval rights for development in the light of the raft of development-enabling policies coming from the State Government.

Recent Planning Improvements in NSW.

NCEC notes that while the Improving the NSW Planning System document highlights planning reforms as progressive we have grave concerns about such instruments as the EP and A Act, Part3a which allows interference with scientific assessments of biological importance to allow development.

The Strategies are also identified as providing improvements to the planning process but in fact are not protective of the environment and have allocated areas for development far beyond projected population needs.

Similarly, the BioBanking scheme allows variation of the red flag assessments by the relevant minister and seriously threatens protection of the environment. This amendment to the Threatened Species Conservation Act is in fact aimed at facilitating development rather than conserving threatened flora and fauna.

Together with other State plans and policies the proposed planning reforms to the DA process form a raft of development-enabling policies and legislation. It is felt that the development lobby has had far too much success in weakening aspects of environmental protection which were not even sufficient in previous planning instruments.

Community Input can be ineffective.

NCEC notes that the document complains that often community input is adversarial. This in itself shows that there is something drastically wrong with the way current planning favours development over social and environmental rights. To further impinge on public rights by largely removing their elected local government from the process and pushing the assessment procedure with unrealistic time constraints will satisfy no-one except the development lobby.

Process and outcome, complexity, consistency and effective use of resources.

It is noted that Planning has a problem with the processes which it has itself incorporated in the regulations through its gradual facilitation of a development policy which has eroded environmental protection.

If there were strict environmental protection controls at the gateway stage a lot of this time, consternation and legal effort would be avoided.

A one-size-fits-all prescription of environmental protection would be too difficult when the biological variation in each CMA of flora and fauna population and percentage of vegetation type cleared is considered.

It is apparent that rural councils at least are actually managing an efficient use of staff resources.

NCEC has often been horrified at the excesses of local government in favouring developers. Rather than replacing them with certifiers and committees though, a more accountable and sustainable code for the DA process is favoured.

Letter from the NSW Coalition for Planning Reform

This Planning information production proudly examples the letter from a development lobby calling for reform of the DA. The list of member groups is astounding (a veritable rogues gallery of developer interests) and a clear indication of the influences upon the Minister’s thinking.

However it is noted that the group have stated that:

DA reform ……is about better design and community input into strategic planning. It is about a strong and more strategic local government. Importantly, it is about long-term solutions and sustainable development.

At last! Even though no letters to the Minister from environment groups are published here, and no environmental group is listed in the Coalition’s letter, there finally appears the word “sustainable.”

New Ideas for Planning Forum

It is stated that there were about 600 stakeholders present at the forum and their ideas are listed.

 As there are no ideas for environmental certitude it must be presumed there were no environmentalists there.

It is recognised that an unprecedented alliance of groups opposed the 1997 planning reforms including:

It is wondered if any representatives of these groups were invited to become members of the 600 stakeholders group or the influential NSW Coalition for Planning Reform? The bias in the Planning Reforms is remarkable.

To proceed with a planning strategy without even a pretence of environmental concern for sustainable development is a mistake which will bedevil the Reforms unless they, and the whole raft of development-enabling legislation policy and legislation, are reviewed.

To ensure strategic planning underpins the LEP process is only acceptable if the Strategy realistically targets development land allocation to uninflated population growth projections and protects environmental land from “development with constraints” zoning. Such zoning is considered unsupportable given the state of the environment already and the absence of demand for so many lots.

The replacement of local government participation in the LEP creation in favour of Gateway Strategy will be replication of effort and time wasting as well as likely to be seriously deficient in effort and expertise as the broadbrush zoning of the Strategy has already shown.

The call for assessment panels has been heeded by the government and has been implemented to accommodate larger development applications. The composition of the panel is crucial and there is real danger of a public perception of the group being stacked with developer interests instead of a science base. Worse than that, there is a real potential for corruption.

Setting a target of 50% of DAs being settled as complying development ignores the natural conclusion that they would be now if they complied, but they do not. To artificially enforce such a result would be unfair upon councils and the public they represent.

Principles for a better Planning System

Sustainability

Too many weasel words here. One gets the distinct feeling that Ecologically Sustainable Development has been traded for sustainable development with an implied certainty of development. (Like the candidate for Kempsey Shire Council who ran for election on a platform of sustained development!)

Words like “cautious approach” instead of “precautionary principle”, and “serious” environmental consequences provide scope for interpretation.

Transparency

It is agreed that “a transparent system is clear, predictable and easily understood. There is a high level of community acceptance and confidence in its operation and in the outcomes being sought.”

However it is very doubtful that there will be a high level of public acceptance of this system’s  operation with certifiers and assessment panels, reduction in powers of its elected local representatives and staff, and Strategy delineation of growth areas and the ultimate outcome of increased development at unacceptable environmental and lifestyle cost.

A very recent customer satisfaction survey by Nambucca Shire Council showed, despite a high unemployment rate, that the majority of