The synthetic turf surface at Charles Bean Oval in West Lindfield is now 12 years old and worn out so it is time to replace it. Ku-ring-gai Council has initiated a consultation process. You can:

• fill in a survey questionnaire
• make a submission by 16 December
• attend a forum on 3 December at 6.30 pm with industry experts Dr Mick Battam and Martin Sheppard

Mick (AgEnviro Solutions) has a PhD in agricultural science and is a professional advisor in soil scientist and irrigation.

Martin (Smart Connections) has extensive experience in advising on the installation and use of synthetic turf to sporting bodies at all levels.

Please make a submission

We have already outlined all the arguments in relation to Norman Griffiths (STEP Matters 232, 231, 229, 227, 225, 222, 220, 219, 217, 210, 208).

The soccer clubs will be marshalling their members to make submissions in favour of retaining a synthetic surface using the simple argument that there will be more playing hours. But that is not necessarily the case as they are using data of playing hours on natural grass fields that do not have modern techniques of site preparation and suitable soil and grass selection.

There are other factors to consider that are outlined briefly below. It is important that there many submissions taking into account the full gamut of arguments.

Location

Charles Bean Oval is not actually an oval. It is a playing field that is the size and shape of a soccer field. It is located at the edge of Lane Cove National Park. There is an excellent bushwalk through some magnificent forest from the oval down to the entrance to Lane Cove National Park entrance in Lady Game Drive.

Usage

The oval is used by soccer clubs for competition and training and the nearby Lindfield Learning Village and other schools for general sports. The people living in the apartment complex nearby are also regular users. There is also a community centre next door. Ku-ring-gai Council manages the facility and bookings.

Council information states that booked hours in 2024 were:

• Northern Suburbs Football Association: 2360 – equates to 47 h/wk (50 weeks assuming short summer recess)
• Lindfield Learning Village: 1336 h – equates to 34 h/wk during school terms (39 weeks)
• Casual: 55 h – equates to 1 h/wk

Council compares data for two grass fields (Wellington and Primula Ovals) of 1200 hours but these can be disregarded as we know nothing about the quality of the fields and how they are used. They are obviously not used during school hours.

Playing hours

The factor most commonly discussed and disputed about the alternatives is the comparison of playing hours. It is claimed that a synthetic surface has longer hours because it doesn’t become waterlogged and can be used in wet weather. The comparison of playing hours is often disputed because data for a grass field is often based on an old field that has been badly maintained and has unsuitable grass and drainage systems.

Costs

Reports by AgEnviro Solutions and Smart Connections show the comparison of costs in different ways and will take time to consider. Frankly, Smart Connection’s figures are incomprehensible. Hopefully more information will be provided at the forum on 3 December.

Heat effects

The field is located amongst apartment buildings, roads and other hard surfaces. The heat island effect will be apparent for players during warmer days. The data for a synthetic field does not allow for periods of hot weather when the surface can be up to 25°C hotter than the air temperature and unsafe for use even with an organic infill.

Heat impacts the school usage of the oval that is their only area of open space. It is unfortunate that the school was opened in 2019 after the synthetic surface was already in place.

Bushfire risk

As quoted in the Guidelines for Division 5.1 assessments: Addendum for synthetic sports fields (p 12) the Chief Scientist’s report states:

• Synthetic turf sports fields should not be located in areas of high bushfire and extreme flood risk.
• Risk assessments should be undertaken for extreme flood risk and high bushfire prone areas. Assessments and testing should be informed by relevant NSW government emergency response agencies as well as independent expert advice.
• Where synthetic turf sports fields are proposed on bushfire prone land, undertake detailed assessment of potential bushfire impacts having regard to the findings in the Chief Scientist’s review.

Microplastics and chemicals

Scientific research data on the risks to human health and wildlife from synthetic fields is developing all the time. This situation will still apply if the infill is changed from rubber crumb to an organic infill.

In September the NSW government presented legislation to radically rewrite the planning legislation in the form of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Planning Systems Reform) Bill 2025 that received royal assent on 11 November. Some amendments were made in the Upper House that reduce some of the scary outcomes but there are still many aspects that are of serious concern, particularly in relation to environmental assessment.

The legislation is passed but there will be opportunities to comment on regulations and planning policies that will give effect to the Act.

The main features of the changes in the Environment Planning and Assessment Act are outlined here. This is all very technical and the implications will be understood over time.

Objectives

New objectives have been added. Objective (a) is now:

To promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the state’s natural and other resources.

Objective (g) has been amended to include the ‘protection of the health and safety of the occupants of buildings’ as an object of the Act.

These objectives sound all very good but it is not clear how a better environment can be achieved when many of the developments and zoning will receive less scrutiny.

Bushfire

The initial draft bill removed the need for a consent authority to be satisfied that certain development on bushfire prone land conforms to Planning for Bushfire Protection, and for a Rural Fire Certificate to be issued to attest to that conformity. Fortunately common sense prevailed and this has now been reinstated – after the Black Summer bushfires how could such a change have been contemplated?

Housing Delivery Authority (HDA)

The HDA that was set up as temporary agency in January 2025 to facilitate the higher density housing developments is now formally incorporated into the NSW planning system. It examines major housing proposals and determines if they should be treated as state significant developments (SSD).

We already have a huge number of SSD projects undergoing assessment by the HDA especially in the TOD areas from Roseville to Gordon. According to the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment, in the first half of this year, 27 projects for over 4700 dwellings have been submitted. State wide, according to the Planning Department website, there have been 289 proposals amounting to more than 98,200 potential homes have been declared state significant.

Of concern is the power given to the HDA to expedite amendments to environmental planning instruments, such as local environment plans which the HDA considers ‘reasonably necessary’.

Such amendments could include spot rezoning that would have previously gone through a planning proposal process that provides for community consultation or external accountability. Site-specific rezoning with no safeguards is a major corruption risk that ICAC has repeatedly warned against.

Complying development variations

There is a new pathway to allow minor deviations from development standards (such as setbacks or landscaping requirements) without needing a full development application. Instead, a variation is assessed and approved through a fast-track variation certificate which must be issued by the council or a certifier within a specific timeframe (e.g. 10 or 20 days), otherwise it is deemed approved.

This could make the impact of the ‘McMansion’ complying developments on our streetscapes and tree canopy even worse.

Targeted Assessment Pathway (TAP)

If a council has a strategic plan and a consultation process in place larger developments can be processed via a new targeted assessment pathway. This is similar to complying development, which would prohibit consideration of environmental impacts, public interest or site suitability.

It is possible that this could be applied to low to mid-rise development near local centres such as Turramurra and St Ives; terraces and manor houses within 800 m and residential flats of up to 8 storeys in medium density zones within 400 m.

Removal of regional planning panels with only local panels to remain

This also applies to the Independent Planning Commission. Assessment will be made by panels that could have less experience and expertise.

Development Coordination Authority

Development applications that require referrals for expert advice and approvals from authorities such as the EPA, NPWS and Sydney Water will now be handled by the Development Coordination Authority. It will comprise the Planning Secretary and experts from the various state agencies. It will be authorised ‘to exercise the function as if it were the approval body’, including issuing general terms of approval. It is required to safeguard against the weakening of environmental protections and standards but it will have a huge workload.

The idea is to speed up the approvals process for larger developments but will there be enough time given to carry out proper surveys of threatened species, especially if they are only seen or flower in limited time periods?

The Act removes the requirement to consult with the head of the Environment Department before making an environmental planning instrument that would adversely affect critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats (by omitting s 3.25 of the Act). Unlike other changes to referral requirements in the bill, this specific referral requirement is being removed entirely (not transferred to the Development Coordination Authority).

Impact assessment

Under environmental impact assessment the requirements will be weakened so that only ‘significant’ likely impacts are considered instead of all likely impacts. This change may prevent the consideration of impacts material to the community, or cumulatively significant.

For infrastructure type developments the determining authorities currently is required to take into account to the ‘fullest extent possible’ matters affecting or likely to affect the environment. This has been weakened to taking into account matters in a manner that is ‘proportionate to the nature and risk of the activity’. This seems to eliminate consideration of the precautionary principle and is not an objective definition.

Conclusion

Together, these changes significantly weaken environmental and community protection, and disempower decision-makers from properly considering the impacts of all developments.

There needs to be responsive consultation on the regulations and planning policies (LEPs etc) that will give effect to the Act.

Graeme Samuel’s independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act (EPBC Act) published in 2020 made the fundamental conclusion that:

Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and facing increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change.

The Act is a barrier to holistic environmental management which, given the nature of Australia’s federation, is essential for success.

The review also recognised that the EPBC Act is not delivering for business with decisions on projects such as windfarms taking an inordinate length of time.

The fractured process of creating new federal legislation to preserve Australia’s unique biodiversity is still staggering along. Prior to the May 2025 election, the government tried to introduce legislation to implement some of the review’s recommendations but gave in to resistance from the WA government and mining industry.

The Labor government has been returned with a strong majority but this situation does not seem to be giving the new Environment Minister, Murray Watt, enough fortitude to stare down the powers of resistance and implement laws that will turn around the trends of decline in our environments.

The latest news is that the government has done a deal with the Greens and agreed to some amendments so the bill can be passed. We hope the summary below is up-to-date.

The main bills are the core Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 plus bills to establish the National Environment Protection Agency and Environment Information Australia. The essential part of the legislation, the National Environmental Standards are still being drafted but two have been released for comment.

The bills meet several of the recommendations of the Samuel Review but there are too many discretions and unclear wording that risk making implementation ineffective. If the legislation does not have sufficient powers to turn around the loss of species ultimately the nation will lose out economically as well as environmentally.

Background – jurisdiction of the EPBC Act

The Commonwealth only has powers to act on environmental issues that are covered by international conventions such as biodiversity, significant wetlands and world heritage areas. The EPBC Act applies to matters of national environmental significance (MNES) that come under these conventions.

The most broad-ranging is the biodiversity convention that brings in nationally threatened species and ecological communities. A species is eligible for listing as threatened in one of the categories under the EPBC Act after a rigorous scientific assessment of the species’ threat status is undertaken. Once a species is listed under the EPBC Act its recovery is promoted using conservation advice and recovery plans. However, the reality is that recovery plans have been developed for only about 40% of nationally threatened species but most have a conservation advice. This article doesn’t cover the biodiversity management aspects of the legislation.

Any development/activity that may impact a threatened species or other MNES is subject to the Act’s assessment and approval provisions. Hence the Act can apply to developments like mines, renewable energy projects and larger scale urban land clearing.

Development approval process

Under the new legislation, three basic tests for development approval will be:

• consistency with the relevant national environment standard;
• cannot have an unacceptable impact on a MNES; and
• any residual significant impact after any offsets are applied must pass the net gain test.

1.   National environment standards

The minister will have power to make standards that aim to create certainty for business and ensure quality and consistency. They should lead to recommendations of clear, enforceable outcomes that will lead to environmental protection. They will be subject to consultation before they are implemented. There are two drafts already completed but not publicly available; applicable to environmental offsets and MNES.

2.   Unacceptable impact

This is a welcome new definition that will determine upfront if a development cannot go ahead. An unacceptable impact is that a project will result in seriously altering a species ability to survive or recover in the wild or will seriously damage the species’ critical habitat. This needs clearer explanation. For example, what amount of clearing of critically endangered STIF and BGHF would be unacceptable when the ecological community is already highly fragmented? Developments such as housing that involve a small area of clearing are being approved all the time under NSW planning processes that ignore cumulative impacts.

Expert groups like the EDO question whether the intent will be overruled by the application of discretion.

3.   Offsets

The offsets framework will interact with new provisions in the EPBC Act that require:

• consideration of the mitigation hierarchy, which states offsets are a last resort after action to avoid, mitigate and repair impacts;
• that offsets cannot be used to overcome unacceptable impacts; and
• that offsets adequately compensate for ‘residual significant impacts’ to deliver a net gain.

The net gain can be achieved by an offset that results in a net gain for the MNES in question. One of the last minute changes agreed with the Greens was to remove the option to pay a restoration contribution charge into a separately managed fund that would buy offset credits.

There is a lot of criticism of the current offset system. The standard being developed needs to ensure genuine positive long term compensation for the residual impact.

National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA)

NEPA will be established to undertake regulatory and implementation functions under a range of Commonwealth environmental laws. Its primary roles will be to undertake regulatory, compliance, implementation and enforcement actions.

While the ultimate decision-making power for approvals will remain vested with the environment minister, they will be able to delegate powers to NEPA to (among other matters) undertake environmental assessment and recommendations to the minister.

The bills also provide two new compliance and enforcement options in the EPBC Act – compliance audits and environmental protection orders – and significantly increase maximum penalties the court can impose for breaking the law.

Environment Information Australia will be established to improve the availability and accessibility of high-quality information and data and to provide regular, comprehensive and transparent reporting, including on the state of the environment.

Another last minute change is that native forest logging and land clearing will now come under the national environment laws. However, several states still support native forest logging that is a key cause of environmental degradation. Queensland continues to allow large-scale land clearing that creates runoff that pollutes the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. It is not clear how state operations will interact with the federal law.

Significant omission – a climate trigger

The lack of a climate trigger is the most criticised part of the legislation. Carbon emission levels cannot be a factor in approval decisions. Proponents only need to disclose estimated scope 1 and 2 emissions and proposed mitigation measures that would assist with assessment under the separate Safeguard Mechanism. This would only apply once the project is up and running so there no power to limit emissions at the outset.

It is a huge shortcoming to be ignoring scope 3 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels extracted from Australia but exported. In this case the Act will be ignoring one of the major sources of environmental degradation in Australia and overseas.

Native forest logging continues to be permitted under Regional Forest Agreements and a ‘continuation of use’ clause. It is time that all states decided to cease this key cause of environmental degradation. Queensland continues to allow large scale land clearing that creates runoff that is polluting the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.

Criticisms of the bills

1. The basic structure of the legislation has been compromised by allowing discretions that will reduce their effectiveness. NEPA falls short of being an independent decision-maker as was recommended by the Samuel Review. The minister will still have broad powers to override or direct the agency.
2. Use of unclear language, e.g. most provisions involve a weaker test of ‘not inconsistent with’ criteria, rather than a positive test such as ‘in accordance with’ or ‘complies with’.
3. The minister will be able to declare certain projects to be in the national interest so that they do not have to satisfy the basic three tests and could be inconsistent with standards or have an unacceptable impact. This could apply to defence or strategic interest such as critical minerals. The Samuel Review envisaged that this situation would be rare but the bills place no limit on things the minister can designate as being in the national interest. The government has stated that coal and gas mining would not be included.
4. The bills fail to take broader steps to improve the conservation planning framework. The bills do not mandate requirements to make conservation planning documents and monitor progress. The implications provide a whole separate topic to understand.

Opportunity to comment on the bills

An inquiry is currently being undertaken into the draft provisions of the legislation by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Submissions can be made by up to 5 December. Even if the legislation is passed prior to 5 December it is worthwhile telling the government what you think..

There will be a lot of commentary to come as the legislation’s details become clearer.

This is the third book in the trilogy from writer Georgia Cameron and photographer/musician Michael Bianchino following their popular Mikey the Powerful Owlet: Saving Byles Creek Valley (2016) and Mikey the Powerful Owlet and Friends: Saving Byles Creek Valley and Beyond (2017).

In the first book, Mikey was just a cute little fluffy chick. In the second book he’d developed into a juvenile (or teenager) with some dark chevrons on his chest.

Now, Mikey is all grown up and is raising his own family. But, life is challenging – there’s a housing (or hollow) crisis in the valley due to habitat loss and there’s also a cost-of-living crisis (with ringtail in short supply) so he’s working two jobs. In addition, he’s struggling to protect his family from human-induced threats – climate change, hazard reduction burns, roadkill, rodenticide poisoning, electrocution on powerlines … the list goes on.

And his mates in the valley like Maggie the Magpie, Red the Blue Tongue Lizard and Sammy the Swamp Wallaby are also challenged with fake grass, roaming cats and dogs, light and water pollution as well as introduced species.

The latest book is a community collaboration based on Georgia’s highly commended 2024 Australian Wildlife Society wildlife fiction short story competition entry and Michael Bianchino’s impressive body of photographic work compiled over a decade of monitoring Powerful Owls.

The illustrations were created by Macquarie University Junior Science Academy students guided by local artists Melony Smirniotis of Gallery 11:11 and Jo Goodchild. It includes an inspirational foreword by acclaimed horticulturist and media personality, Graham Ross, and motivational afterword by the founder of Higher Ground Raptors, Peggy McDonald.

Through storytelling, music and art at a grassroots level, Georgia and Michael have educated, entertained and engaged both adults and children raising the next generation of citizen scientists, wildlife warriors and community activists.

This project takes their fundraising for Sydney Wildlife Rescue, BirdLife Australia’s Powerful Owl Project and other wildlife charities to $19,952 including 42 Secret Life of Powerful Owls shows to over 3,000 people plus large-scale events for National Science Week, busking and markets.

All profits ($10 from each book sold and proudly printed in Australia) are fundraised for Sydney Wildlife Rescue and BirdLife Australia’s Powerful Owl Project.

Click here to order your copy.