FOKE supports Mayoral Minute 21 November, 2023


14 November 2023                    


Dear Mayor and Councillors


FOKE wishes to express its support for the Mayoral Minute of 21 November, 2023 that outlines his initial response to The Hon Paul Scully MP, NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces letter (dated 30/10/2023 and received on 9 November, 2023).


It is important that the integrity of Ku-ring-gai zoning controls or Local Environment Plans (LEPs) be upheld to ensure Ku-ring-gai’s environment, heritage, character and amenity, especially in its R2 Low Density Residential Zones, be protected for future generations to enjoy.


FOKE commends the Mayoral minute for its clarity and careful consideration on the challenges ahead for Ku-ring-gai.


FOKE strongly supports a rigorous and transparent public consultation process to allow residents to have a say.  We recommend that Council refer to the 2002 questionnaire sent to all residents that was used as part of the consultation process for the then Ku-ring-gai Residential Strategy.


FOKE shares the Mayor’s concern about the unacceptable loss of tree-canopy and asks that an audit be done on the cumulative loss of trees since 2004 as well as what planning controls are needed for climate-change resilience as we face increasingly dangerous bushfires, wild storms, flooding and extreme heat stress that will endangers the lives of residents and threaten the natural environment.

FOKE shares concerns townhouses in low residential areas in R2 zones would considerably alter the heritage character and environment of Ku-ring-gai.

FOKE shares the Mayor’s concern about significantly increasing Ku-ring-gai’s population without necessarily the funding for or provision of adequate infrastructure (transport, stormwater, education and recreation and environmental restoration projects) to support the increase.


FOKE requests that the four baseline studies (Heritage and Neighbourhood Character, Infrastructure, Environment and Traffic and Parking Studies) carried out for the preparation for the Ku-ring-gai Residential Strategy in 2002 be assessed in light of the development that has occurred since 2004.


For over twenty five years FOKE has argued that Ku-ring-gai requires planning controls that protect, threatened and endangered ecological communities, national parks and environmentally sensitive areas. 


We thank and commend this Mayoral Minute.


Yours sincerely


Kathy Cowley

President

PRESIDENT


cc  Matt Cross MP Member for Davidson

cc The Hon Alister Henskens SC MP Member for Wahroonga

cc The Hon Paul Fletcher MP Member for Bradfield

FOKE Thanks Mr McKee

FOKE President Kathy Cowley wrote to Jehn McKee, on 14 November 2023, thanking him for his service as Ku-ring-gai Council General Manager from 2006-2023.

Read FOKEs letter below:

Dear Mr McKee


FOKE wishes to thank you for your many years of service to Ku-ring-gai Council as its General Manager since 2006 and as its Director of Finance (2001-2006) since you first started working for Ku-ring-gai Council in 1998.  An enormous and respected legacy that is greatly appreciated.


We thank you for your leadership that has been important in protecting so much of Ku-ring-gai’s natural, built and cultural heritage from overdevelopment, forced amalgamation and higher density rezonings.


We greatly appreciate your determination to successfully oppose the NSW Government’s forced amalgamation agenda in 2017 and your record of sound financial management.


We recognise your significant achievements including your commitment to:


  • Heritage protection for Ku-ring-gai through the Gazettal of Heritage Conservation Areas across Ku-ring-gai Town Centres.
  • Environmental stewardship for Ku-ring-gai through an IPART approved Environmental Levy that provided $4 million a year for a range of environmental projects in 2019.
  • Establishing an award-winning open space acquisition strategy that has led to the creation of 15 new parks and playgrounds from 2006-2020.
  • Local government excellence as recognised by Ku-ring-gai Council winning the A R Bluett Award for best performing metropolitan council in NSW in 2014.
  • Ensuring Ku-ring-gai Council was one of the first councils to respond to the Greater Sydney Commission’s requirement for new local environmental plans with the adoption of Ku-ring-gai’s Local Strategic Planning Statement in 2020.
  • Implementation of a development contributions scheme to provide new community facilities in areas of high density development.
  • Sound financial management through a combination of rigorous debt reduction, increasing income, land purchases and strategic long-term planning.
  • Improving budget outcomes through the integration of Ku-ring-gai Council’s asset management, financial and operational planning and associated reporting.
  • Rate restructuring that provided $36 million for infrastructure renewal over 20 years.
  •  ‘Activate Ku-ring-gai Civic Redevelopment Program’ to revitalise Ku-ring-gai’s main centres.
  • $29 million multi-purpose recreational area for netball, soccer and golf for Ku-ring-gai residents.
  • $20 million fitness and aquatic centre at West Pymble.
  • Refurbishment and modernisation of Ku-ring-gai’s central library at Gordon.
  • Building a new Council depot at Pymble as well providing new headquarters for SES volunteer emergency services.
  • Provision of the large public space and underground parking for 130 cars at Lindfield.

We will not forget how you steered Ku-ring-gai Council through difficult State Government challenges.  Your successful management of Council’s financial performance ensured Ku-ring-gai Council was one of the only councils in NSW to meet the State Government’s financial criteria under the ‘Fit for the Future’ sustainability program. Nevertheless, the NSW State Government proposed merging Ku-ring-gai Council and Hornsby Council. When Ku-ring-gai Council resolved to oppose this merger, you led a successful legal challenge to the merger process resulting in a win in the Court of Appeal that maintained Ku-ring-gai’s independence.  


Thank you again for the huge difference you have made in leading, protecting and retaining so much of Ku-ring-gai’s natural, built and cultural heritage and in the strategic planning and delivery of new infrastructure for Ku-ring-gai.


We wish you the very best in your new endeavours ahead.


Yours sincerely

Kathy Cowley

President



PHOTO CAPTION: John McKee talking about how engaged his Senior Management team on a collective leadership journey for the Australian Applied Management Colloquium, 2014

Vale Dr Tony Recsei (1938-2023)

FOKE was pleased that a Mayoral Minute for FOKE member, Dr Tony Recsei.

Read it below:

KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL MAYORAL MINUTE: Vale Tony Recsei: Respected Volunteer and Community Leader


“On behalf of Council and the Ku-ring-gai community this Mayoral Minute pays tribute to well-known Ku-ring-gai resident Tony Recsei, who passed away unexpectedly last month while on holiday in South Africa.



Tony Recsei was a highly respected member of the Ku-ring-gai community and longstanding Warrawee resident. Born in South Africa, he was Managing Director of pharmaceutical company Pharmador which his father had started in the 1930s.

Being a successful businessman was just one part of Tony’s life however. He was passionate about flying, earning his commercial pilot’s licence at an early age and flying around Australia in the Piper Twin Cherokee that he owned.

Tony was a devoted Rotarian; eventually becoming President of Turramurra Rotary Club.  He was also a gifted pianist who was President of the Sydney Mozart Society; a not-for-profit organisation devoted to raising awareness of classical music.

Many will remember Tony for his activism on planning matters which he led on behalf of Ku-ring-gai and the wider Sydney community.

In 2000, he established the Save Our Suburbs organisation to oppose State government urban consolidation policies. He was staunchly opposed to forced rezonings in local communities, believing that they led to over-development and environmental degradation.

Right up to his death, Tony Recsei continued to call for governments to introduce planning reforms to protect residents from inappropriate development. He wrote several research papers on planning issues and engaged in discussions with the NSW Department of Planning and the Urban Taskforce, among others, to argue the case against over-development.

Tony married Greta Behrmann in 1960 and they remained together for more than 60 years until his death. He is survived by Greta, children Derek and Elaine, grandchildren Carl, Krista, Bryce and Giselle and great-granddaughter June. Our sincere condolences to Tony’s family on his untimely passing. He was a highly cultured and much loved family man, as well as being a tireless advocate for the causes he believed in. May he rest in peace.”

Resolved:

(Moved: The Mayor, Councillor Ngai)

A.      That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

B.      That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Tony Recsei.

C.      That the Mayor write to Tony Recsei’s family and encloses a copy of the Mayoral Minute.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY at the ORDINARY MEETING OF KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL, HELD ON TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2023, LEVEL 3, KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL CHAMBER

FOKE Submission: Opposition to rezoning Patyegarang/ Lizard Rock, Morgan Road, Belrose (PP-2022-3802)

FOKE opposes the rezoning of land at Patyegarang, Morgan Road, Belrose (PP-2022-3802), formerly known as ‘Lizard Rock’ on public exhibition until 7 November, 2023

FOKE wishes to express its strong opposition to the proposal to rezone 71ha of high conservation value bushland at Patyegarang, Morgan Road, Belrose (PP-2022-3802), formerly known as ‘Lizard Rock’.  If the 450 residential dwellings at Morgan Road, Belrose/ Oxford Falls are approved it would have a detrimental, devastating and irreversible environmental impact on the Northern Beaches’ biodiversity, climate, bushfire safety, strategic planning as well as setting a dangerous precedent for other bushland sites, some of which will impact on Ku-ring-gai’s bushland.   

Friends of the Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) is a community based organisation aimed at protecting and conserving the natural, built and cultural heritage of Ku-ring-gai. 

FOKE opposes the rezoning proposal of Patyegarang, Morgan Road, Belrose (PP-2022-3802) for the following reasons:

Negative impact on Biodiversity


NSW is facing an extinction crisis with over 1000 species on the threatened list, yet the Patyegarang Planning Proposal will clear massive areas of intact and pristine bushland that will destroy habitat and exacerbate NSW’s biodiversity crisis. 

FOKE notes that the planning proposal seeks to rezone 19.8ha of the site for C2 Environmental Conservation purposes but argues that this is inadequate in protecting the high biodiversity of the whole site. 

If approved the rezoning will lead to irreversible loss and local extinction of endangered species including powerful owls, red-crowned toadlets, bandicoots, lyrebirds, wallabies, threatened glossy black cockatoos and endangered heath monitors.

Negative impact on the Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

If approved the rezoning will create unacceptable increases in stormwater runoff that risks flooding the Wakehurst Parkway and Oxford Falls Roads. 

Excess stormwater runoff will also negatively impact on threatened species including the red-crowned toadlets and spotted-tail quolls and other marine animals living in and around the Narrabeen Lagoon.

Negative Impact on Sydney’s air quality, temperatures and carbon emissions
If approved the rezoning will exacerbate air pollutants, increase urban heat and reduce opportunities to capture greenhouse gases.

Urban bushland provides vital ecological services, such as oxygen, and water.  Urban bushland sites, such as Patyegarang “plays a key role in the climate system” providing essential carbon sinks to regulate Sydney’s temperatures and help store carbon. The NSW Government has a responsibility to commit to climate action and ensure it contributes to keeping  global warming to no more than 1.5°C as agreed in the Paris Climate Agreement.  Australia is one of twenty countries that is responsible for about 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Negative Impact on Life and Property during Bushfires
The site is located on bushfire-prone lands above a forested valley.  Northern Beaches Council has identified the site as having ‘extreme bushfire risk’ and evacuation problems with limited egress.

In a changing climate, bushfires are increasing in frequency and intensity.  It is no longer acceptable for new developments to be built in bushfire areas.   They pose unacceptable risks to the safety of residents, RFS and SES volunteers. Preserving bushland corridors are also vital escape routes for wildlife during bushfires.  If the NSW Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the ‘Bushfire Royal Commission’ it must reject this rezoning proposal.

Broader Strategic planning implications

This rezoning proposal is effectively a ‘spot’ rezoning and inconsistent with key aspects of the Greater Sydney Region Plan, North District Plan, Northern Beaches Local Strategic Planning Statement – Towards 2040, and Northern Beaches Local Housing Strategy, particularly in terms of the preferred location and type of new housing and impacts on the environment and Metropolitan Rural Area.

The site lacks infrastructure and appropriate services (schools, open spaces, sports fields, bus services, health services, libraries). 

Despite the proposal seeking a limit of 450 dwellings, it is highly likely that once approved, further rezoning applications will occur to increase the site’s density.

Unacceptable traffic and urban sprawl
Theproposal will add to traffic congestion along Forest Way, Wakehurst Parkway, Warringah Road and Mona Vale Road contributing to more greenhouse gases.  Evidence shows that long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution has detrimental impacts on human health.   

Precedent for further inappropriate overdevelopment

If the Patyegarang Planning Proposal is approved it sets a precedent for further rezonings of Northern Beaches Aboriginal Land that that includes the 135-hectare bushland site at Ralston Avenue in Belrose (only 3.5km from the Patyegarang/Lizard Rock site) adjoining the Garigal National Park and the Ku-ring-gai bushland suburbs of St Ives, East Killara and East Lindfield. Development on this site poses extreme bushfire risk with the presence of overhead power lines with electrical currents between 66,000 to 500,000 volts surging through them. 

Overwhelmingly community opposition to rezoning proposal
The Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) owns 912ha of bushland in the Northern Beaches, much of it permissible for residential development under the Aboriginal Land State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). Ownership has been made possible by the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 that supports First Nations people’s economic self-determination through property development. 

However, development needs to be assessed on its planning merits.  The proposed development is not ecologically sustainable and not in the public interest.

On 29 June 2023, a Northern Beaches Bushland Guardians petition, signed by 12,000 people, including FOKE members and Ku-ring-gai residents, was presented to the NSW Legislative Assembly calling for the NSW Parliament to “repeal the amendments to the State Environment Planning Policy (Planning Systems) so that 227 hectares of land in the northern beaches is no longer subject to the development delivery plan.”

Sydney is blessed to have this bushland site, Patyegarang, with its rich Aboriginal cultural heritage and high conservation value. This is something that the NSW Government should celebrate and protect.

FOKE thus strongly urges the NSW Government to reject the Patyegarang, Morgan Road, Belrose (PP-2022-3802) planning proposal.

Yours faithfully

Kathy Cowley

PRESIDENT

cc The Hon Paul Scully MP Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

cc The Hon Stephen Kamper MP Minister for Lands and Property

cc The Hon Jihad Dib MP Minister of Emergency Services

cc The Hon Penny Sharpe MLC Minister for Climate Change, Minister for the Environment

cc The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water

cc Ku-ring-gai Mayor and Councillors

cc The Hon Matt Cross MP Member for Davidson

cc The Hon Alister Henskens SC MP Member for Ku-ring-gai

cc The Hon Paul Fletcher MP Member for Bradfield

FOKE Submission: Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities

Read FOKE’s submission into the UNSW Legislative Council’s Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities

3 November 2023

Dear Ms Higginson


RE: Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities


INTRODUCTION


Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make a submission to the Inquiry.

Friends of the Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) welcomes this inquiry into the planning system.  The urgency to protect NSWs natural, built and cultural heritage has never been so important with the impacts of climate change.

FOKE was established in 1994 to protect and conserve the natural, built and cultural heritage in the Ku-ring-gai local government area, located on the northern ridge of Sydney. FOKE is a member of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and the Better Planning Network.

For over thirty years FOKE has called on successive NSW Governments to implement ecologically sustainable planning policies.  FOKE has also called on successive NSW Governments to limit urban densification rezonings in environmentally sensitive bushland suburbs such as Ku-ring-gai, as they have been key drivers of environmental degradation.  

The scale of the environment crisis has now intensified since FOKE was first founded in 1994. The cumulative impacts of urban densification policies have continued to degrade Ku-ring-gai’s environmentally sensitive areas as well as others across NSW. 




The scale and frequency of climate disasters continues to intensify with more extreme bushfires, flooding, storms, heat waves that are causing deleterious damage to human health and biodiversity resilience.  Yet the NSW Government persists with a developer driven planning agendas that intensifies these environmental crises. 



FOKE hopes that this Inquiry will result in ensuring that NSW has a planning system that can protect and restore natural environments and build resilient communities facing the climate crisis.

Successive governments have failed to implement strong environmental legislative protections in planning and environmental law.  Current laws are now so weak they are incapable of protecting endangered species and returning ecosystems back to health. Over 1000 species on the NSW threatened species list.

FOKE argues that NSW needs a stronger, more accountable and robust planning system that have objective of protecting environmentally sensitive urban areas including Ku-ring-gais remnant urban forests.

Land system changes from land clearing, tree clearing, deforestation and forest degradation are major causes of habitat and biodiversity loss in NSW. They also contribute to increasing greenhouse emissions and fuelling climate change with rising temperatures and increasingly frequent extreme weather events such as bushfire, floods, droughts and storms, and increases the spread of tropical diseases. Forests, bushland, trees and gardens play a major role in protecting biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions and curbing harmful climate change by capturing and storing carbon.

The planning system needs to ensure all new development is powered by renewable energy if we are to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The planning system should ensure the electrification of all new residential development with solar energy, batteries, heat pumps, non-gas stoves and affordable electric vehicles, and support existing households to make that transition.  Net zero emissions must be integrated into the planning system as well as sustainable practices including water tanks, recycling waste water and other sustainable practices. 

Ecologically sustainable development needs to be core to NSWs planning system where conservation and environmental restoration and key objectives.  Financial viability must not be the priority consideration for development.



Planning powers need to be returned to the local government with the required resources to do so.  Concurrence approval from different departments needs to be ensured in the face of more intense and frequent bushfire.



Rezoning for medium to high density is a key contributor to climate change as it involves more concrete (a major greenhouse emitter), more energy (and if powered by coal or gas – a major greenhouse emitter) and more water (with less water in dams during sustained droughts).


Ku-ring-gai, as an urban forested garden suburb, is well placed to mitigate the effects of Sydney’s heat stress.  Its unique remnant Blue Gum High Forests are some of the best carbon capture in Sydney that keeps the city cool as well as improving its air quality. Sydney is one of the few global cities in the world that is surrounded by bushland suburbs, and national parks, as in Ku-ring-gai.  They are also home to an amazing diversity of threatened species that rely on this habitat for survival.  

FOKE challenges the paradigm of continual growth.  FOKE views that continuing economic growth is an unsustainable[1][1] that will lead to catastrophic unrestrained climate change.   The indefinite pursuit of economic growth is destroying places of natural beauty and life forms. FOKE fears that Sydney’s population growth will cancel out most climate gains from renewables and efficiency. 

Sustainable ecological planning is urgently needed if NSW is to be safe, liveable and biodiverse.  

Planning reform must ensure new developments are climate neutral by supporting the rapid transition to renewable energy. 

Abnormally high temperatures, increased heatwaves and more dangerous bushfires mean that there must be ‘no go’ planning zones.

One of Sydney’s last remaining wildlife habitats is in Ku-ring-gai and this national treasure should be protected by the NSW planning system.

A. Developments proposed or approved: 

(i)  in flood and fire prone areas or areas that have become more exposed to natural disasters as a result of climate change 

Ku-ring-gai has become more exposed to high bushfire risks as it is surrounded by three national parks and has bushland reserves. With a hotter and drier climate, bushfires are expected to increase in intensity, duration and catastrophe many of its suburbs- North Turramurra, East Killara, East Lindfield, West Lindfield, West Pymble, South Turramurra St Ives and North Wahroonga are exposed to high bushfire risk areas.  These bushfire suburbs have limited road access.  North Turramurra is particularly susceptible to bush fire and when there is an unstoppable bushfire and urgent and immediate evacuation of residents are needed it is difficult with traffic congestion and evacuating a high number of vulnerable older residents living in aged care and retirement villages.

Ku-ring-gai’s bushland ridges and valleys landscape are also more exposed to flooding with severe storm events that bring heavy rain and cause flash flooding as seen by the 2019 tornado that swept through Gordon and Pymble felling trees.

With El Nino declared and a high bushfire risk upon us, Ku-ring-gai faces significant fire danger with Ku-ring-gai being surrounded by three national parks.

DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED:

The context of this is that Ku-ring-gai will be facing more threat from rezonings within bushfire pone areas and other urban areas.

The Lourdes Retirement Village Planning Proposal, 95-97 Stanhope Road Killara 2071 planning proposal

This proposes to demolish and rebuild as a seven storey ‘vertical’ building up to 6 storeys in height with 63 new town houses to be built along the bushfire flame zone for non-seniors. This poses threats to lives of its most vulnerable older residents and the lives of emergency rescue personnel. FOKE is concerned about inadequate and flawed assessments by the NSW Rural Fire Servicerelating to this planning proposal.

We attach the submission prepared by lawyer Catherine Brady which outlines in detail the concerns we have as objectors to the planning proposal.

Lizard Rock

FOKE opposes the ‘Patyegarang Planning Proposal’ at Morgan Road, Belrose, known as “Lizard Rock” rezoning proposal because it will destroy precious pristine bushland habitat, put lives at risk from bushfire, destroy wildlife habitat and set a precedent to destroy more bushland at a time when we need our bushland more than ever.

If approved, the Lizard Rock/ Patyegarang rezoning will bulldoze 45 sports fields of pristine bushland to build 450 new dwellings.

Successive NSW Governments have allowed the proposal to progress, despite opposition from the Northern Beaches Council.  If the rezoning for residential housing is approved, it will put lives at risk as it is a high bushfire zone.  It will pollute and degrade the Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment. It will bulldoze irreplaceable wildlife habitat. It will destroy Aboriginal rock art. It will exacerbate traffic congestion. It will contribute to more greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change. 

The public is overwhelmingly opposed to it, as indicated by a 12,000 signed petition to the NSW Parliament opposing the rezoning for residential housing in June 2023.

Approval sets a dangerous precedent for a total of 220 hectares of bushland across the Northern Beaches, including bushland at Ralston Avenue, Belrose.  This has devastating implications for bushland in Ku-ring-gai, as the Raulston Avenue site adjoins Garigal National Park and wildlife corridors leading to St Ives, East Killara and East Lindfield.

DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED:

North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) Sports Facilities

In October 22 the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel approved the NSFA’s development application (DA) to construct a large, 50m long building at the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA), to house a grandstand, NSFA headquarters and other unrelated amenities, including an exclusive gym, café and media room. This was despite massive local opposition via petitions and submissions to Council.

This DA to build a 200 seat grandstand at the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) in an area that is an E4 environmental protection zone (bushfire prone). This structure is expected to result in increased out of area traffic and increased noise, create a bushfire evacuation risk and further monopolise the site by one sports group. The structure will also further reduce the greenspace at the NTRA, by adding to the existing, large synthetic field. North Turramurra, a peninsula suburb, adjoins the Ku-ring-gai National Park and is in a high bushfire area a single access road, in a high bushfire area with the difficulties of access roads and evacuating older residents living in retirement villages.

Ku-ring-gai Council approved a Synthetic sports field on Norman Griffith Oval, West Pymble, near the Lane Cove National Park and in a high bushfire area. Residents took the matter to the Land and Environment Court but it was defeated.

The population pressure on local sports fields is now becoming acute with pressure to cover them with synthetic turf fields as has been approved at the Norman Griffith Oval, West Pymble which is surrounded by Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest in the catchment of the Lane Cove National Park. This has been enormously contentious as it is located in a high bushfire area and the concern about micro plastic pollution run off into the Lane Cove River in the Lane Cove National Park.

(ii)in areas that are vulnerable to rising sea levels, coastal erosion or drought conditions as a result of climate change, and


DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED:

The context of this is that Ku-ring-gai will be facing more high density and medium density rezonings from the State Government and is under threat.



DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED:


Too many canopy trees are being removed from the approval of development applications and from the result of the 10/50 Tree Clearing Code.  Trees are also dying from drought conditions and disease.

(iii)  in areas that are threatened ecological communities or habitat for threatened species

Ku-ring-gai local government area is surrounded by three national parks and threatened ecological communities of Blue Gum High Forest, Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Duffy’s Forest.

Ku-ring-gai is a place of environmental sensitivity.  It has three threatened ecological communities – Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIFF), and Duffy Forest and habitat for threatened species.

NSW’s planning system provides insufficient protection of Ku-ring-gai’s nationally significant vegetation. The National Trust (NSW) has identified conservation areas combined with Blue Gum High Forest and outstanding 20th Century architecture and yet LEP 2015 – other planning instrumental together have treated Ku-ring-gai as a standard local government area.

Restoration, rewilding and regeneration needs to be key to the planning system.

Planning powers of local government have been drastically reduced. As well, the powers to review, amend, revoke or repeal development approvals that damage the environment are difficult to win at the Land & Environment Court.

DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED:

The context of this is that Ku-ring-gai will be facing more high density and medium density rezonings under order from the State Government and is under threat.

DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED:

Since 2004 Ku-ring-gai has contributed over 16,000 new homes in the form of high-density developments, medium density and seniors living proposals.  The rate of development is becoming ecologically unsustainable as most of the development is being focussed within environmentally sensitive and wildlife corridors within Ku-ring-gai.

(b) the adequacy of planning powers and planning bodies, particularly for local councils, to review, amend or revoke development approvals, and consider the costs, that are identified as placing people or the environment at risk as a consequence of:

(i) THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT

FOKE has witnessed the cumulative degradation and destruction of Ku-ring-gai – one of Sydney’s most environmentally sensitive local government areas since it was formed in 1994. 

The cumulative impacts of multiple LEP rezonings (LEP194 + LEP200 + Ministers’ Sites LEP 2015) for medium density housing have transformed large areas of Ku-ring-gai with the removal of its distinct giant tree canopy.  Massive areas have had their soil and seedbank removed, covering it with hard surfaces that removes the capacity of the land to be regenerated and rewilded in the future – thus condemning this urban forest to extinction.  The soil and its geology have evolved over millennia and its removal is irreversible.  

As one of Sydney’s most environmentally sensitive areas it has had cumulative impact of multiple LEPs that have destroyed its canopy cover, gardens, green spaces, seed banks, habitats, and fragmented wildlife corridors.  Entire neighbourhoods have been bulldozed and replaced by concrete medium density apartments. The loss of trees has exacerbated the drying out of the soil, removing wind breaks and removing vital hollows for birds and wildlife.

FOKE has argued against NSW’s urban consolidation policies since it was formed in 1994.  Since then, the population of Sydney has increased significantly putting more demands on housing and the environment. Ku-ring-gai has experienced a 25% population increase since 2000.

As a consequence of ongoing urban densification pressures, Ku-ring-gai has had much of its garden and bushland suburbs and urban forests transformed into hard surfaces, loss of tree canopy and the loss of its remnant urban forests. Entire streetscapes and neighbourhoods have been transformed to hard surfaces with the loss of gardens, canopy trees and wildlife habitats. Soil and seed banks have been removed by excavations for underground car parking.  Vital habitat for its birds and other small marsupials has been destroyed. Ku-ring-gai’s remnant Blue Gum High Forests (Browns Forest/Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve, St Ives & Sheldon Forest, Turramurra) and STIFF risks extinction if this is to continue, as the largest remnants are along the Pacific Highway ridge and Northern railway corridor. It is reported that there is less than 1% remaining of the critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest left in NSW and the world.

Blue Gum High Forest is located on the Pacific Highway and North Shore railway line (that includes two State Heritage listed Railway stations) are located on the main Pacific Highway and North Shore railway line (that includes two State Heritage listed Railway stations) that has been targeted for higher densification.  It also contains some of the nation’s best 20th Century domestic architecture.

Ku-ring-gai is renowned for its Federation and interwar garden suburbs surrounded by bushland reserves and three national parks.  Its environmental sensitivity should have stronger planning and environmental protections. However the planning system for over thirty years has been geared for economic development rather than ecological conservation.

Stormwater and pollutants from developments run off into Lane Cove National Park due to the nature of the steep slope topography of Ku-ring-gai.

The significant impact of the 10/50 Tree Clearing Code has allowed the removal of hundreds of critically endangered trees which would normally require application for approval, and have been removed without transparency and accountability measures in place.

Razing of blocks of land and building energy guzzling McMansions approved under the Complying Development codes with limited land available for soft landscaping and deep soil areas for planting canopy trees.

Building retirement villages should not be allowed to be built in high bushfire risk areas.

Ku-ring-gai is home to an important maternal colony of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, located in the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve, Gordon. The colony consists on average of about 30,000 to 40,000 bats during summer.  Heat waves kill flying fox colonies. There is considerable concern with climate change that flying-foxes will be vulnerable to periods of extreme heat: panting, fanning, shade seeking, and then with mass fatalities reported at temperatures of 43° C and above.  The changing fire regimes threaten wiping out other threatened species such as pygmy possums.

Increased urban densification creates conflict between humans on the bushland interface – smell of flying foxes; cats and dogs, traffic killing wildlife on busy roads; removal of trees because of perceived threats of tree branches falling on homes.

(ii) CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Unprecedented heat waves being exacerbated by increased hard surface from medium density developments.

(iii)    BIODIVERSITY LOSS

·       NSW’s biodiversity is in peril and rapidly declining.
Sydney needs Ku-ring-gai’s trees and remnant forests to help cool it during times of intense heat waves.

·       Ku-ring-gai’s environment is important for the environmental health of Greater Sydney in keeping temperature clean, air health and absorbing greenhouse gases.

·       Ku-ring-gai is renowned as being the ‘green lungs’ and keeping Sydney’s temperatures cooler and air quality cleaner as well as capturing carbon.  In Europe most people live in areas of high fine pollutant particle pollution. Sydney is lucky to have places like Ku-ring-gai with its tall Blue Gums, Blackbutts to keep Sydney’s air quality clean.

·       We need a planning system that values biodiversity protection if we are to stop the extinction.

·       The natural environment is a dynamic and interconnected system.  As such the protection of Greater Sydney relies on the protection of Ku-ring-gai’s Blue Gum High Forests located along the Pacific Highway and Railway line along the North Shore ridgeline.

·       What happens in Ku-ring-gai has consequences for other parts of Sydney. Removing Ku-ring-gai’s remaining tree cover risks intensifying heat traps in Western Sydney. The Powerful Owl is at home in western Sydney as it is in northern Sydney.  There are the migratory birds that fly across Ku-ring-gai and other suburbs of Sydney.

       BIODIVERSITY LOSS FOR KU-RING-GAI

·       Ku-ring-gai’s biodiversity has declined with the loss of wildlife and habitat corridors have been fragmented by development.

·       Ku-ring-gai is the catchment area for three national parks and as a result of densification with stormwater runoff from hard surfaces this has had negative impacts on the health of these national parks.

·       FOKE has no confidence that the current planning system is capable of protecting biodiversity loss for Ku-ring-gai.

(iii) a. RAPIDLY CHANGING SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

·       FOKE argues that the planning system needs reform that is people and nature centred, rather than profit centred. 

·       Local government planning powers have been massively reduced where its residents’ democratic rights have been diminished.

·       At a time of increasing mental health, nature is more important for future generations.

     b. RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES

·       Housing unaffordability is at crisis.

·       Despite repeated claims that the planning system and densification will improve housing choice, housing affordability and livability these have not been delivered.  The economic imperative of property development is the driving priority of the planning system and this must be reversed.

·       The current NSW planning system is not fit for purpose.  With the escalating and existential crisis of climate change the NSW planning system is an abject failure.

·       Neoliberalism economics have pushed the privatisation agenda of selling public land. The cumulative sell off of schools and public land have been lost opportunities for wildlife corridors, community land and more parks and playgrounds.

·       Historic properties such as ‘Hillview’ (owned by NSW Health) has been a model of ‘heritage demolition by neglect’ and shows the failure of the planning system to insist that heritage owners (including the government) maintain their properties.

·       Economic growth is a key threatening process. We need a new economic model of sustainable economics if we are to survive. 

     c.  RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES

·       Critical urgency and irreversibility of biodiversity extinction and climate change.

·       FOKE has no confidence that the current planning system is capable of protecting Sydney’s environmental values in a rapidly dangerous escalation of climate destabilisation, unless planning reform happens.

·       Climate change is bringing hotter and longer weather and more severe storm, wind, and flooding incidents.

(c) SHORT TERM planning reforms that may be necessary to ensure that communities are able to mitigate and adapt to conditions caused by changing environmental and climatic conditions, as well as the community’s expectation and need for homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure.

·       FOKE urgently calls for an emergency, concerted, multidisciplinary effort to transition away from fossil fuels and rezonings for more medium density that will increase consumption, pollution and waste that is no longer appropriate with climate change and biodiversity collapse.

·       Policies to stabilize house prices to ensure affordability, including retaining small houses from being demolished and being replaced by ‘McMansions’. Other models may include cooperative housing schemes such as Ku-ring-gai Old Peoples Welfare Association (KOPWA) that provides affordable housing for older residents.

·       Removing influence of developers in wield too much power in the planning system

·       More environmental education is urgently needed.

·       Simplifying the language of planning.  It is almost impossible to read and understand planning documents.  They are incomprehensive for ordinary citizens to read and comprehend.

MEDIUM TERM planning reforms that may be necessary to ensure that communities are able to mitigate and adapt to conditions caused by changing environmental and climatic conditions, as well as the community’s expectation and need for homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure

·       More land acquisition and rezonings for environmental protection.

·       Protecting Crown Land and other public land being sold off.

·       FOKE believes the best way the planning system can best serve people and the natural and built environment is to ensure that the planning system works and is administered by a public service that prioritises the community public interest planning system and environment before private commercial interests.

·       FOKE also says more research is needed into environmental protection and  extinctions, the impact of climate change on microorganisms, the freshwater biodiversity crisis of its creeks and rivers, endangered food webs, invasive species, tree extinctions

·       Once renewable transition occurs, we need to address the more complex issues of ecological overshoot and reduce consumption and increase public transport. 

LONG TERM planning reforms that may be necessary to ensure that communities are able to mitigate and adapt to conditions caused by changing environmental and climatic conditions, as well as the community’s expectation and need for homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure.

·       Stabilising Sydney’s population and immigration numbers.  Population growth is having considerable impact on housing shortages, unaffordable housing, ecological collapse and climate change.

OTHER LEGISLATIVE REFORMS NEEDED



·       The Henry review of NSW’s Biodiversity and Conservation laws found the survival of biodiversity is impossible without significant change to how we value nature in NSW. The government will need to respond to the Henry Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act.

·       FOKE endorses The ‘World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency’ report, endorsed by 14,859 scientists from 158 countries, that proposed a range of measures for restoring and protecting natural ecosystems, conserving energy, reducing pollutants, reducing food waste, adopting more plant-based diets, stabilising population and reforming the global economy.

CONCLUSION

CHANGING LANDSCAPES:

The landscape of Ku-ring-gai has dramatically changed over the last 30 years. The cumulative impacts of land clearing and rezoning for urban densification has dramatically degraded much of the Ku-ring-gai landscape. Many suburbs of Ku-ring-gai have lost their low rise residential garden suburb character and its gardens, canopy trees and critically endangered vegetation and wildlife.

Ku-ring-gai is a place where many environmental pioneers such as Annie Wyatt (founder of the National Trust), Charles Bean (founder of the Parks and Playground Movement), Paddy Pallin (founder of the national parks movement) called for a vision that protected Greater Sydney’s green, forested and gardened suburbs.

FOKE is concerned that the cumulative impacts of poor planning decisions are now being intensified by climate change.  The crisis is dire.  FOKE fears we are at tipping points that will trigger new and devastating and irreversible environmental loss.

FOKE hopes that following this inquiry the NSW Government will reform the planning system so that it protects NSW’s natural and built heritage from climate change impact and changing landscape.



We need to end the nexus between property developers and commercial interests who have captured the planning system with political donations.

Climate change is threatening the fabric of our lives. FOKE looks forward to concerted emergency action to ensure our NSW’s planning system can keep us safe.

We look forward to the Committee’s deliberations and the results of the Planning System Inquiry.  It is hoped that the State Government will take the Inquiry outcomes into full consideration, so that the NSW planning system going forward can ensure that people and the natural and built environment are protected from climate change impacts and changing landscapes.

Yours faithfully

Kathy Cowley

PRESIDENT
cc Ku-ring-gai Mayor and Councillors
cc Matt Cross MP Member for Davidson
cc The Hon Alister Henskens SC MP Member for Ku-ring-gai
cc The Hon Paul Fletcher MP Member for Bradfield


[1][1]Overshoot is defined as the human consumption of natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, and entropic waste production in excess of the Earth’s assimilative and processing capacity.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00368504231201372

Submission: Lourdes Village – inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change

FOKE thanks Catherine Brady for her submission to the Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities, 3 November, 2023

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission. I write as a concerned citizen with a background in environmental law and more than 20 years’ experience in the NSW public service – including in the
Land and Environment Court and Department of Planning. I am prompted to write out of concern that the current planning system is overly biased in favour of developers and their short term profit maximisation goals. Access to justice provisions that once made the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 a model piece of legislation have been substantially eroded over the years. The planning system is also substantially weakened by provisions that excuse non-compliance with government policies, including those designed to manage climate change impacts. While ever these systemic issues remain unaddressed, the planning system’s ability to sensibly manage climate change impacts will be significantly compromised, and the potential benefits of any reforms proposed by this Inquiry will be limited.

To address this, both general and targeted reforms are required to the planning framework. Adequate
resourcing of regulatory authorities is also required so staff have sufficient time and knowledge to understand and manage the detail of complex projects. If resourcing is inadequate, regulatory authorities will continue to rely too heavily on proponents for analysis of submissions etc. This will prevent them from acting as truly independent and objective decision makers, capable of delivering balanced outcomes in the public interest.

My concern about such issues has grown in the course of responding to a planning proposal (2022-658) relating to Lourdes Retirement Village (95-97 Stanhope Rd, Killara) where my father lives. I have
used this as a case study to illustrate the shortcomings of the current planning system, particularly in relation to bushfire risks.

Lourdes Retirement Village Planning Proposal – a case study

The site of Lourdes Retirement Village is designated as bushfire prone land. It sits atop a ridge, is surrounded by bushland on three sides, and is at the end of a narrow cul de sac. The village operator
has sought approval to redevelop the site since 2017 and bushfire risks have been a key reason why approval has not yet been granted. The initial proposal to amend the relevant Local Environmental
Plan (Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015) was rejected by Ku-ring-gai Council in 2018, including due to Council’s significant concern about bushfire risks. The developer then sought a rezoning review by the Sydney
North Planning Panel (SNPP). A history of the proposal is available on the Ku-ring-gai Council planning proposal tracker here.

“If at first you don’t succeed”: planning system supports developers but not residents

In November 2018, the SNPP supported the proposal to progress to Gateway, subject to conditions (including the need to obtain Rural Fire Service – RFS – concurrence before the proposal could be publicly exhibited). Discussions regarding bushfire risks continued for nearly two years. In August 2020, a Department of Planning officer phoned to inform my father that the RFS could not support the proposal and the Department would not be forwarding it to Gateway – the proposal was “at an end”. In response to proponent pressure, however, the Department then changed its position, giving the proponent until the end of the year to come up with an approach that would be acceptable. While the proponent was given until December 2020 to develop an acceptable approach, the revised planning proposal was not submitted until August 2022. (I understand the Department of Planning is currently finalising its post-exhibition assessment report for consideration by the SNPP.)

The current proposal seeks to increase permissible building heights by 130% (from 9.5m to 22m) and increase the floor space ratio (FSR) by 150%. These changes are designed to allow a doubling of the
site’s resident population. In addition to rebuilding the current retirement village in vertical form (in buildings up to 6 storeys tall), the latest iteration of the proposal includes 63 non-seniors townhouses
on the site’s southern perimeter, adjacent to steeply sloping bushland and within the flame zone. This has reduced the amount of seniors’ housing in the proposed redevelopment and created additional
risks for all residents, and emergency personnel.

The length of time the process has been on foot (at least 6 years) has caused enormous uncertainty, stress and anxiety for elderly residents. The current planning system gives developers recourse to rezoning reviews when they are knocked back, and to assistance from the Planning Delivery Unit within the Department of Planning. (It is tasked with helping to progress proposals that are “stuck” in the system.) However, there is no equivalent process or team to protect the interests of residents who have to endure seemingly endless development proposal processes. This is grossly unfair. At some point, proposals that lack merit or are unsafe should be rejected outright.

Evident pressure on planning authorities to approve proposals

Even more concerning is the evident pressure on planning authorities to allow this proposal to proceed, purportedly on the basis that it will contribute to addressing the housing crisis. The Lourdes proposal will not solve the housing crisis. The latest iteration will actually reduce the number of dwellings on the site. But even if it did boost dwelling numbers, it should never be acceptable to locate 63 townhouses in the flame zone (as is currently proposed), with a minimum setback of just 3m from the fire hazard. (Retirement village developments should normally include a 100m asset protection zone to protect vulnerable residents.) A 3m APZ on this high risk site is laughable. It is even less than the setback included in the draft DCP that was exhibited with the planning proposal.

If approved, this proposal will put residents and emergency personnel in harm’s way, particularly given the lack of a defendable space to enable firefighters to protect property and residents. In
addition, it would create a terrible precedent that developers elsewhere would seek to follow.

Examples of pressure to approve the proposal are evident in correspondence published with the planning proposal (which is available on the planning portal here), and in documents made available in response to GIPA applications. Appendix M to the Planning Proposal sets out correspondence between the Department of Planning and the Chair of the SNPP, Mr Peter Debnam.1 (In 2018, the SNPP had included a requirement that “the concurrence of the RFS be received in relation to the proposal prior to exhibition.) In April 2021, Mr Debnam stated:

“I can see our words three years ago would have made it a little difficult for the RFS. Consequently, I agree the latest RFS advice of no objection to the Planning Proposal”satisfies our point 1 words regarding “concurrence of the RFS” with the detail to be assessed
at the DA stage and final concurrence provided by the RFS at that time.”

This is concerning. It appears to reveal a willingness to water down previous conditions in order to facilitate progression of the planning proposal. It also shows a lack of understanding of the process that the RFS should follow with respect to planning proposals. In accordance with the RFS document, Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019, the RFS is required to assess proposals in detail at both the
strategic planning phase (i.e. the current planning proposal stage) and at the development application stage. It is wrong to suggest, as Mr Debnam did, that detail need only be assessed at the DA stage.

Worryingly, email correspondence between the Department of Planning and the RFS reveals a similar lack of understanding by RFS staff of this two stage process (see “Appendix M – Bushfire
Correspondence – Rural Fire Service” on the planning portal). This highlights the need to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained and resourced to administer government policy in an appropriately robust
way.

Further evidence of pressure to progress the proposal is evident in correspondence made available in
response to a GIPA Application to the RFS by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc. (FOKE). Emails between Planning and RFS staff in January 2023 include comments such as “sorry to be persistent, but the pressure is coming from above the food chain”.

Developers have access, meetings; residents, community groups are being ignored

While there is evident pressure to progress the proposal as quickly as possible, there is no corresponding pressure to respond to residents’ concerns. Indeed, my father and I – along with several residents and community groups – have written numerous letters to the Minister for Planning without receiving any response. (Even the local MP, who has made representations on our behalf, has received no response to his letters.) Letters have also been sent to the Minister for Emergency
Services and others. More than four months later, we are yet to receive a reply. This raises important questions about the accountability of decision makers and whether their decisions are striking the
right balance between the competing interests of developers and the community.

While departmental doors seem to be always open to proponents, concerned residents or community groups are most often being ignored. So long as this pro-developer bias remains, decisions will
continue to be made that privatise gains and socialise losses – both in the form of costs incurred by future governments (e.g. the financial cost of boosting emergency response capacity) and community
members (e.g. economic cost of property damage or mitigation works, risk of injury or death due to climate driven natural disasters).

Failure to consider Ku-ring-gai Council submission
Of great concern is that the RFS appears to have ignored the 241 page submission by Ku-ring-gai Council which includes three expert reports on bush fire risks and evacuation issues, and concludes that it would be negligent to approve the proposal. (Council’s submission is available on the planning portal under the documents tab.)

In response to FOKE’s GIPA application, the RFS has released no documentation showing that it considered the Council submission. The documents that have been released make no mention of the
submission, and the advice provided to the Department of Planning is expressed as being “based on the proponent’s analysis alone. It appears the RFS has unquestioningly accepted the proponent’s
analysis, which contains errors and relies on outdated data, and has ignored Council’s up to date and site specific modelling and analysis, which contradicts the proponent’s analysis in many critical
respects. (Further detail is at Appendix A).

The failure to consider the Council submission constitutes a failure to consider relevant material, making the RFS position legally unreasonable as a matter of administrative law. We have sought to
bring this to the attention of decision makers, so far without success. If the proposal is approved, it would appear that concerned residents’ only recourse will be to bring judicial review proceedings. This
would be prohibitively expensive, with limited prospects of success. As such, it is not a viable option.
We need better processes to ensure that decisions are evidence-based and balanced. Strengthening decision making frameworks must be part of your deliberations about how to improve the capacity of the planning system to manage climate change impacts.

Also concerning is that there are no minutes of RFS meetings with the proponent and its consultants. Such a culture is not well suited to produce decisions that, in the face of worsening climate change
impacts, prioritise resident safety over the interests of developers.

Failure to consider climate change impacts

Several submissions in response to the Lourdes planning proposal expressed concern that climate change will increase bushfire risks. Submitters said it is inappropriate to double the population on a bushfire prone site (particularly when many of those residents will be vulnerable elderly), and to build 63 new townhouses on the very edge of the site, adjacent to the fire hazard. FOKE’s submission also expressed concern that “climate change has not been considered in the bushfire risk analyses”.

The proponent’s planning consultant, FPD, has prepared a Response to Submissions. (The RFS released this in response to the FOKE GIPA Application and can be made available to the Committee
on request. It will also be published on the planning portal in due course.)

Addressing concerns regarding climate change, the Response to Submissions states:

The Bushfire Consultant, Blackash, has advised the following:
The site is not considered a high bushfire risk area.
The site is in a locality that has not had widespread wildfire (nothing within 2km of the site) and is never likely to experience this as the vegetation is confined to relatively narrow pathways in directions that are not exposed to widespread and major bushfires (i.e. a bushfire attack from the northeast to southeast).

Development will be designed and engineered to provide outcomes well above current regulations and standards. The design can adequately protect against fires up to Fire Danger Index (FDI) 100, consistent with current regulations which do not design for fires above FDI 100. Therefore, any increase in fire weather because of Climate Change is not a consideration of the regulative (sic.) framework or fire fighting /emergency management practices. (FPD, Response to submissions, December 2022, p42 and repeated on p71. Emphasis added.)

The Response to Submissions does not mention the Council submission’s discussion of climate change. The Council submission notes the importance of taking a long term view as part of strategic
planning decisions, stating:

There is evidence that under a climate change future, fire events will become hotter and more intense under increased fuel loads, increased temperatures and increased drought conditions. There is also a greater likelihood of ignition in the landscape due to a potential
increase in lightning strikes. A re-zoning such as that proposed requires a strategic assessment of potential fire behaviour over the lifetime of any likely future development.

There is a particular challenge in planning emergency response strategies around vulnerable members of the community under the climate change scenario of hotter and more intense fire behaviour. … The opportunity exists within the redevelopment on site to respond to climate change by creating a more adaptive and resilient future community.

Climate change is a relevant consideration for this Planning Proposal and should be included within any Strategic Bushfire Study prepared. (From pp83-84 of Council submission PDF)

Given that decision makers are required to consider all submissions, and that several submissions raise climate change concerns, climate change is a factor that should be considered. However it is notable that the RFS document, Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019, does not mention climate change. This should be remedied and PBP 2019 should adopt recommendations of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. I urge the Inquiry to address this aspect of PBP 2019 as part of your recommendations.

The Commission recommended: “state, territory and local governments should be required to consider present and future natural disaster risk when making land-use planning decisions for new developments” (Recommendation 19.3). The Commission also noted: “Good land-use planning decisions can mitigate future risks. Decisions about new developments should be based on the best information available on current and future risks.” (para 19.60) It appears that, in the case of the Lourdes planning proposal, this recommendation has not been followed: the RFS position with respect to the proposal has been based on decade old data, rather than the up to date and site specific modelling prepared by Council.

Department, not just proponent, must assess submissions

The above discussion makes clear that the proponent’s Response to Submissions is inadequate. Yet, based on the outcome of various GIPA Applications, this Response to Submissions appears to be a key document that will inform the post-exhibition report being prepared by the Department of Planning. This is most concerning.

The Response to Submissions has been prepared by a consultant engaged by the proponent. This is not an independent party who can be expected to prepare an even handed and thorough assessment of submissions. For example, the response to submissions deals only briefly with the Council submission. It does not mention any of the detailed recommendations in the submission, nor Council’s conclusion that it would be negligent to approve the proposal. The conflict of interest is clear.

Set out at Appendix B is a table showing how the proponent’s response to submissions is circular and self-serving, simply reiterating statements made by the proponent and failing to grapple with conflicting evidence in submissions. This highlights the importance of ensuring that the Department of Planning is adequately resourced to conduct its own detailed and impartial analysis of submissions. (Documents released in response to GIPA applications suggest the Department had not undertaken such analysis, at least at the time the application was processed.)

While it is appropriate for proponents to be able to respond to submissions, the proponent’s Response to Submissions document should not be the “source of truth” when it comes to preparing advice for a planning authority such as the SNPP. The Department must review all submissions in detail and reconcile conflicting material (such as that provided by the Council and BlackAsh: see Appendix A).

Provisions that excuse non-compliance weaken the planning system

There are many provisions in the planning framework (and other regulatory frameworks) that are designed to protect decisions from challenge on the basis of technical non-compliance. While preserving flexibility is a valid objective, such provisions can fundamentally weaken regulatory frameworks, including those designed to manage climate change impacts such as bushfire risks.

Two examples that have come to light in connection with the Lourdes proposal are the final clause of Ministerial Direction 4.3, Planning for Bushfire Protection, and s9.1(5) of the EP&A Act.

Ministerial Direction 4.3 sets out requirements for planning proposals relating to bushfire prone land. These include the provision of appropriate asset protection zones (APZ), or other performance-based

measures designed to protect residents. For “special fire protection purpose” (SFPP) developments such as retirement villages, the Ministerial Direction states that APZ requirements must be complied

with and that performance based alternatives are not acceptable. (This is because SFPP developments accommodate vulnerable residents and hence appropriate APZ are essential to mitigate fire risks and enable safe evacuation.)

However, the final clause of the Direction allows a proposal to be inconsistent with the terms of the Direction if the Commissioner of the RFS advises in writing that the RFS does not object to progression of the proposal. In the case of the Lourdes proposal, this clause has been relied on to enable the proposal to proceed notwithstanding its failure to include an appropriate APZ. (For SFPP developments on a high risk site such as Lourdes, an APZ of 100m would normally be required. The current proposal proposes a setback of only 3m between the proposed townhouses and the vegetation/fire hazard. This allows no defendable space and will put residents and emergency personnel at grave risk.)

Similarly, section 9.1(5) of the EP&A Act states:

A local environmental plan (or any planning proposal or purported plan) cannot in any court proceedings be challenged, reviewed, called into question, prevented from being made or otherwise affected on the basis of anything in a direction under subsection (1) or (2).

The effect of this provision is to undermine the requirements imposed by Ministerial Directions. This section was referenced by the Commissioner of the RFS in responding to stakeholder concerns that the RFS had failed to comply with Ministerial Direction 4.3. (In other words, while there may have been non-compliance with the Direction, we could do nothing about it because of s9.1(5).)

Such provisions should be removed or heavily qualified to ensure that departures from requirements in Ministerial Directions or similar documents are:

 only permissible where absolutely necessary,

 minimised as far as possible,

 fully justified by reference to clear evidence, and

 achieve equivalent or better outcomes

Left unchanged, such provisions will continue to erode the rigour of the planning system and thwart efforts to improve management of climate change risks.

Conclusion

As I watch the fire season unfold with strong winds, record breaking temperatures, and emergency resources stretched across large numbers of uncontrolled fires, it seems unthinkable that the Lourdes planning proposal will be approved. If approved, the redeveloped village will be in place for decades and climate change impacts, which are already evident, will only get worse. Yet approval of the project is what appears likely to happen based on the experience of the last 5 years, and the information made available in response to various GIPA applications.

If we are going to make sound, evidence-based decisions to mitigate climate driven risks, we must ensure that the public interest, and the interests of residents impacted by planning proposals, are given due weight in the planning process. Currently, the process is stacked in favour of developers. When they don’t like a decision, they can seek a review, get more time etc. When a resident or community group doesn’t like a decision, it has few if any options. This needs to change.

We also need to ensure that the public service is resourced to discharge its duties to stakeholders in a robust and impartial manner. Over the past 20 years, there has been a gradual erosion of public service capability and capacity, and increasing reliance on analysis by proponents with strong vested interests. This must also be addressed. Provisions that excuse non-compliance with policy requirements must also be amended so that departures from regulatory requirements are minimised rather than routinely allowed.

Finally, targeted reforms are needed to ensure that the framework governing the management of bushfire risk grapples with the challenge of climate change and adopts a precautionary approach to future fire risks.

I wish you well with your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Catherine Brady BA LLB LLM