SENT: 8 February 2017

Friends of the Earth Far North Queensland
POB 795
Kuranda QLD 4881

 

The Honourable Jackie Trad MP
Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment
c/- State Interest Feedback
Planning Group
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning
PO Box 15009
CITY EAST QLD 4002

Sent via email to: planningpolicy@dilgp.qld.gov.au

 

Dear Deputy Premier,

Submission on draft revised State Planning Policy, State Development Assessment Provisions and draft Planning Regulation

Friends of the Earth Far North Queensland (FoE FNQ) is an environmental and social justice group. We are proud to be part of both FoE Australia and FoE International and part of the biggest environmental and social justice group in the world.

One of the key things we campaign for in Far North Queensland is more sustainable planning.

At the moment we are disappointed to see that the KUR-World proposal for a mega resort and satellite suburb in the ecologically sensitive Myola valley is being considered for planning approvals.

 Queensland planning regulation urgently needs to be tightened and meaningful enforcement of the regulation ensured.

DRAFT STATE PLANNING POLICY (SPP) and STATE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS (SDAP)

  1. General need to strengthen environmental protections, especially for biodiversity

As reported in the 2015 Queensland State of the Environment Report, the damage to ecosystems and the number of threatened species in Queensland is growing. [1] We need to work towards repairing the damage we have done to our environment with strong protections through these State policies. The State Planning Policy (SPP) declares the matters the State Government considers most important to protect in Queensland in planning decision making, being State interests.

The State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) provide the criteria by which impacts to those State interests are assessed. The SPP and SDAP are powerful in that they can dictate the result of many development decisions that affect matters of prime importance to Queensland. They therefore need to be used more boldly and clearly by the State Government to ensure that these key matters are adequately and consistently protected across Queensland.

(a) Strengthen wording to increase certainty of protections

There are several ways in which environmental protection is weakened:

  1. Too often in the SPP and SDAP, impacts are required to be avoided, but if that’s not possible, impacts can then be minimised or mitigated or even offset. Avoid must mean just that or there is no certainty in the protection of the environment.
  2. Adverse impacts are qualified as needing to be significant– the word significant needs to be removed as this weakens the protection
  3. Environmental legislation needs to be considered not complied with. Using complied with provides certainty about the meaning and is a better wording with stronger protection for the environment.

Examples of the above:

State interest – biodiversity

1.Development is located in areas to avoid significant adverse impacts on matters of national environmental significance and considers the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Remove the word significant to read: Development is located in areas to avoid adverse impacts…

Replace the word considers with complies with to read: …..and complies with the requirements of…

 

3)Development:

(a) is located in areas that avoid adverse impacts on matters of state environmental significance; or

(b) minimises and mitigates impacts, where they cannot be reasonably avoided.

Remove 3(b)

(b) Need more positive requirements to enhance environmental values, not just maintain

While there is often reference at a general level to an intention to maintain or enhance a State interest, the requirement to enhance environmental State interests is frequently not then reflected in the actual policy or code provisions. In fact, the current SPP contains more requirements to enhance environmental interests than the new draft version, for example:

  • Matters of state environmental significance (MSES) are currently required to be protected and enhanced. In the new draft SPP, MSES are now only required to be identified and protected and not enhanced.
  • Ecological connectivity, including wildlife corridors, is currently required to be maintained or enhanced. In the new draft SPP, the equivalent ecological processes and connectivity are required to be only maintained, and not enhanced.

For the government to ensure that our environment State interests are enhanced, this must be specified in the detail of the policies and codes.

(c) Need to better reflect the principles of ESD in policy, such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity – no mention in any of these documents

There is no mention in the SPP or the SDAP of the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), which form a key part of the purpose of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), due to come into force on 3 July 2017, and therefore must be reflected through the entirety of the planning framework. It is appropriate that these principles be referenced in the SPP, at very least in the ‘Purpose’ and ‘Guiding Principles’ to ensure that decision makers are consistently reminded of the need to integrate important principles, such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity, into planning decision making.

(d) List of Matters of State Environmental Significance should be extended

The new draft South East Queensland Regional Plan introduces a new concept of ‘regional biodiversity values’ which have been mapped for the region, and include:

  • large tracts of vegetation;
  • aquatic connectivity;
  • areas of species richness and diversity;
  • areas of ecosystem representation and uniqueness; and
  • climate adaptation zones and refugia.

These values are said to be critical at a regional scale to protect ecosystem functions.[2] ‘Regional biodiversity values’ could be better protected if this new concept was entrenched in the SPP and protected as a Matter of State Environmental Significance (MSES), with a requirement to map and protect these values from development in each region.

Also, our ‘endangered regional ecosystems’ are some of the most threatened ecosystems in Queensland and should be listed as MSES with other matters protected under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld) and provided with protections from development with adequate buffers, regardless of their location to watercourses or wetlands.

(e) Natural Hazards and Environmental Destruction

State interest – natural hazards, risk and resilience

(2) A fit for purpose risk assessment is undertaken to identify and achieve an acceptable or tolerable level of risk for personal safety and property in natural hazard areas.

Add: Environmental protection must not be compromised. Where there is a conflict between matters of environmental significance and natural hazards, development must not occur.

(4) Development in bushfire, flood, landslide and storm tide inundation natural hazard areas:

(a) avoids the natural hazard area;

or

(b) where it is not possible to avoid the natural hazard area, development mitigates the risks to people and property to an acceptable or tolerable level

Add: Environmental protection must not be compromised. Where there is a conflict between matters of environmental significance and natural hazards, development must not occur.

 

Development assessment requirements – natural hazards, risk and resilience

All of the following requirements are assessment benchmarks for the development:

(1) Development avoids natural hazard areas, or where it is not possible to avoid the natural hazard area, development mitigates the risks to people and property to an acceptable or tolerable level.

Add: Environmental protection must not be compromised. Where there is a conflict between matters of environmental significance and natural hazards development must not occur.

Example to warrant suggested changes: Often bushfire hazard areas overlap with remnant vegetation. In Koah FNQ, the remnant vegetation is largely made up by the EPBC listed endangered Broadleaf Tea Tree. To mitigate bushfire hazard, 20m wide perimeter fire breaks have to put in, according to Council. That can lead to damage of an endangered species or excessive clearing of otherwise protected remnant vegetation especially when reconfiguring a lot.

 

g)The MSES mapping does not include corridors to connect different protected areas or wildlife habitat areas.This increases the risk of fragmentation and loss of species.

Thus an extensive network of wildlife corridors is urgently required to be included in the MSES mapping. 

 

2. Climate change and supporting renewable energy

(a) Good that climate change now recognised in State planning instruments; need to reflect climate change commitments, and transition to renewable energy in SPP

It is an improvement that the SPP and SDAP now provide better recognition of actions we need to take to adapt to climate change, particularly around coastal development and likely sea level rise. The planning framework is also an ideal place to map out our pathway in transitioning away from fossil fuels and moving to renewable energy. At very least, we suggest there should be mention of our State and federal climate change commitments in the SPP, as strong action is needed across the planning framework for us to meet these climate change commitments.

(b) Need more support for renewable energy industry – mapping and protection of ideal sites needed, as provided for mineral resource areas

Currently the Energy and water supply SPP states a requirement for development of renewable energy to be ‘enabled in appropriate locations.’[3] This is a good start, but much more should be done to support the renewable energy industry. Not only is this industry flourishing, it is an essential part of our country meeting its climate change commitments made in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Queensland Government protects ‘Key Resource Areas’ which hold unexplored minerals from any incompatible development under the SPP. This same level of protection should be given to ideal renewable energy sites around Queensland to ensure a smooth transition to renewable energy.

3. Great Barrier Reef water quality protections could be strengthened

(a) High-risk agricultural, commercial and residential development could be regulated under planning to avoid highly-sensitive Reef catchments

Currently, agricultural development is not well regulated under our planning framework, and yet it can have a high impact on our environment, particularly on our Great Barrier Reef. Australia and Queensland have made international commitments to improve Reef water quality. Regulating the location of high-risk agriculture to avoid highly-sensitive environments, like sensitive Reef catchments, could assist in helping us improve water quality to the Reef. This could be achieved by making certain high-risk agricultural activities assessable development and then restricting the development of those activities upstream of Reef catchments, either as prohibited development or through strong assessment benchmarks.

The above is also true for commercial and residential developments.

(b) Non-port dredging and offshore disposal activities could be strengthened

The government has restricted port activities to limit impacts to Reef water quality, however there are not sufficient protections for the Reef from non-port activities, such as large marinas. To this end, development involving capital dredging or offshore disposal in the State area of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area over a certain threshold should be declared prohibited development under the Planning Regulation or better regulated under SDAP.

DRAFT PLANNING REGULATION

  1. Access to information could be improved through more online access

The new draft Planning Regulation specifies a detailed list of documents which must be made available to the public either by inspection and purchase, inspection and/or on a local government or assessment manager’s website. This list must ensure the public can access all necessary information to be meaningfully involved in planning decision-making in an easy, inexpensive way.  Given the pervasive use of the internet for seeking information today, there should be a greater requirement for documents to be made available online, e.g. the register of development applications made to a ‘chosen assessment manager’ should be provided online. [4]

See Schedule 24 – What information do you think you have the right to access, and how would you like access? If this isn’t provided for in Schedule 24 – put it in your submission!

  1. Longer public notification periods for complex/high risk developments should be provided

There is a power in the new Planning Act 2016 that a regulation can provide for a requirement for longer public notification periods.[5] Currently there is nothing provided in the draft Planning Regulation to enact this power. Prior to 2013, the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 (Qld) (SPR) provided for certain high risk developments, such as development within 100 metres of critical habitat or applications for large tourist resorts, were required to undertake public notification for at least 30 business days.

Schedules 16 and 17 of the previous SPR which provided for these further notification periods were quietly repealed by the previous government in March 2013. These schedules should be replaced in the new Planning Regulation to ensure adequate public notification is provided for the community to respond to applications for complex, high-risk developments.

  1. Support that requirement to assess applications against SDAP now in Regulation

The new requirement that development applications which trigger assessment of State interests must be assessed against the SDAP is welcomed, to replace the discretion provided to the assessors in the current SPR whether to use the SDAP. This increases the certainty, transparency and accountability behind how State interests are assessed.

 

Yours sincerely

Sarah Isaacs

 

[1] Queensland Government, State of the Environment Report 2015, https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/state-of-the-environment/.

[2] Queensland Government, draft South East Queensland Regional Plan, October 2016, 73, http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/noindex/shapingseq/draft-south-east-queensland-regional-plan.pdf.

[3] Queensland Government, draft State Planning Policy, November 2016, 50, http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/state-planning-instruments/state-planning-policy.html.

[4] Draft Planning Regulation 2017, schedule 24 item 6(1)(b).

[5] Planning Act 2016 (Qld), s53(40(b)(ii).