31 March Dear Sir / Madam

Transcription

1 Department of Planning and Environment Planning Legislation Updates Level 22, 320 Pitt St Sydney 2000 Via 31 March 2017 Dear Sir / Madam Our organisations collectively represent the vast majority of landholders in NSW. Changes to planning legislation have significant impacts on our members via the processes that landholders must follow in order to obtain development approval as well as the security and trust that our members have in the approval process of mining and CSG projects. While we have been briefed by members of the Department, our organisations have significant concerns regarding the roll out of the legislative updates. In particular we do not support the changes that are proposed for the operation of the Gateway Panel. The documentation which has been publically released fails to comprehensively detail at what point the Gateway Panel advice will be taken in to account or the timeframes for consideration of reviews and advice. We are collectively dissatisfied with this proposal which we believe will generate significant concerns amongst communities impacted by mining and CSG development. Changes to planning decisions for State Significant Developments As representative bodies, the Country Women s Association of NSW, NSW Farmers Association, NSW Irrigators Council and Cotton Australia are regularly approached by our constituency with significant concerns about the exploration and development of mining and coal seam gas projects. This is reflective of the increasing encroachment of extractive industries on agricultural, rural and regional communities. In recognition of the importance of filtering feedback to decision makers our collective organisations are all members of the Petroleum Access Group chaired by the NSW Land and Water Commissioner and NSW Farmers currently sits on the Department of Planning and Environment Resources Advisory Forum. We have actively contributed to policy discussions around the formation and implementation of the Gateway Panel since the policy s inception; the assessment of agricultural impacts as part of the planning process; and the various legislative updates relating to negotiation of land access agreements. We remain of the view that if it is accepted that strategic agricultural land and water is worth protecting, a decision on whether or not it falls within that protection should be made upfront. Page 1 of 5

2 Collectively, our organisations had strong input into the formation of the Governments Strategic Regional Land Use Policy (SRLUP), prior to the 2011 election. Indeed, it was the failure of Government at the time to implement what was promised, particularly as it related to the Gateway Panel, which led to a large rally being held in May 2012 outside the offices of Parliament. The message sent at that rally remains the same today. The current SRLUP framework, and in particular, the Gateway Process is a grossly inadequate instrument to protect high value farm land. We again refer to our joint previous, extensive submission on the issue of the SRLUP and the recommendations that are contained therein on the Gateway Process. As a group, we have continually highlighted how the Gateway Process in its current form is a divergence from stated Coalition Policy for a number of reasons which we restate below: 1. The Gateway process will not identify and protect sensitive areas upfront; 2. The Gateway process does not contain a process for cumulative impact assessment; 3. The Gateway process will not deliver certainty for industries or communities; 4. The Gateway process will not apply ahead of granting exploration licences; and, 5. The Gateway Panel are not afforded the opportunity to review compliance with their conditions. Given our previous engagement in these discussions we will be strenuously opposing the proposed legislative changes to the Gateway Panel and the Planning Assessment Commission. There is a lack clarity regarding the proposed changes that additionally appears to back flip on Government policy to consider impacts on Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) upfront within the planning process. When policy and legislation was updated in 2013, the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for Energy and Resources highlighted that the role of the Gateway Panel would be to: ensure that the impacts of resource development on agriculture and water are considered up front in the assessment process 1 The proposed legislative changes appear to remove this upfront assessment a change that may have significant impacts on community trust in the rigour and veracity of the planning process. According to our understanding the changes will result in: Members of the Gateway Panel being appointed as Commissioners The Gateway Panel forming a sub-committee of the Planning Assessment Commission (name to be changed to the Independent Planning Commission); and Gateway consideration of State Significant Projects will only occur following submission of the Environmental Impact Statement by the proponent. 1 Media Release NSW Government protects key farmland and homes, Thursday 3 rd October Issued by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for Energy and Resources Page 2 of 5

3 Despite these significant changes, and after considerable review of both the legislation and consultation documentation, the following details remain either unclear or unacceptable to our organisations: The requirement for the proponent to address impacts of the development raised by the Gateway Panel; The time that will be allocated to various Departments for consideration of information presented to the Commission by the Gateway Panel. It is our understanding that timeframes have been considerably shortened however this is still unclear; Potential for the Independent Planning Commission to undermine the legislative function of other statutory bodies A failure to highlight that public hearings occur as part of the current PAC Review process and the proposed process does not make public hearings mandatory as part of State Significant Developments (1) The Commission must conduct a public hearing if (and only if): (a) the Commission is requested to do so by the Minister under section 2.9 (1) (d), or (b) the Minister has determined in a gateway determination that the Commission is to conduct a public hearing into a planning proposal for provisions of a local environmental plan. Extracted from Section 3 (1) of the proposed legislative changes Timeframes for consideration of documents, information, reports between the various assessment processes remain unclear as part of the legislation The impacts of changes to the legislative process for State Significant developments on requests for advice through the Independent Expert Scientific Committee and consideration of advice have not been outlined either in the legislation or consultation documentation The relaxing of criteria requiring that gateway panel members have qualifications in agricultural science, combined with an overall reduction in the number of gateway panel members. The Gateway Panel has provided a critical source of independent scientific advice as highlighted in the advice provided on the Spur Hill project proposal and Caroona Coal mine. The Gateway Panel identified the need for additional hydrological modelling to investigate aquifer drawdown and impacts on near surface aquifers that were not addressed by the proponent due to deficiencies in modelling 2. Similarly, deficiencies in hydrological modelling were identified by the Gateway Panel in relation to the Caroona Coal mine particularly the cumulative impacts of the Upper Namoi alluvial aquifer and impacts on water resources as a result of subsidence 3. Our organisations believe that without the consideration of the Gateway Panel, and the early identification of these issues, some of these issues would not have been recognised early nor information made available to the landholders potentially impacted by these developments. 2 Conditional Gateway Certificate Spur Hill Underground Coking Coal Project, Denman, NSW. Issued 19 March Lamacraft, T. Gateway Panel flags problems with Caroona mine. 11 July Page 3 of 5

4 The independence and expertise of the Gateway Panel, and its role in identifying impacts early is highly valued by our members. We believe that changes to the process that alter the manner and approach in which the Gateway Panel functions will have a significant impact on our members. Notably, community members involved in making submissions regarding a State Significant Development will not have access to the scientific advice and information on potential issues or concerns identified by the Gateway Panel prior to the public exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement. While we understand it is a Government priority to reduce the number of days taken to consider development proposals, consultation documentation indicates that the potential savings in application timeframes will be 70 to 160 days. Given the significance of these developments, and the impacts imposed on the communities in which these projects operate, we believe that the changes are not justified due to the loss in rigour and the further deterioration in trust amongst communities that will occur as a result. We urge the Minister to strongly reconsider the need for the abovementioned changes to the Gateway Panel. Local Strategic Plans We are collectively concerned that the proposed amendments to the local strategic plans and Community Strategic Plans could interfere with other important licencing regulation relevant for food and fibre producers in NSW. The recent friction around a bottling facility in the Tweed highlights the potential conflict in this regards and raises concerns by our members. The Country Women s Association of NSW, NSW Farmers, NSW Irrigators Council and Cotton Australia want to seek the assurance that the proposed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act does not lead to perverse outcomes whereby Local Council are given the authority and priority to dictate decisions that are authorised and legal under the current legislative framework around water management. Notwithstanding the above, we note that the amendment proposals requiring decision makers to give reasons for their decisions will be welcomed by regional communities. We also would be pleased to see amendments which would simplify and consolidate existing frameworks. Should you have any questions regarding our submission, please do not hesitate to contact the following: Danica Leys, CEO, Country Women s Association of NSW (d.leys@cwaofnsw.org.au; ) Adair Moar, Environment Policy Director, NSW Farmers (moara@nswfarmers.org.au; ) Stefanie Schulte, NSW Irrigators Council (stefanie@nswic.org.au; ) Page 4 of 5

5 Felicity Muller, Cotton ) Kind regards Danica Leys, CEO Adair Moar, Environment Policy Director Stefanie Schulte, Policy Manager Felicity Muller, Policy Officer Page 5 of 5