When we make roads, houses or farmland, we often find large old trees in the way. Our response is often to lop off offending branches or even cut the tree down.

One of the Albanese Government’s promises was to take action to halt the alarming decline in our biodiversity and rewrite the ineffective laws that were highlighted in the Samuel Review into the Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In December 2022 the government announced what was dubbed the Nature Positive Plan with a comprehensive list of actions that are intended to be implemented.

The key part of the plan is to implement national environmental standards that will set the outcomes that the laws are seeking to achieve.

The timing of the introduction of the plan was to carry out consultation in stages and release an exposure draft of the legislation by the end of 2023. We are nowhere near that objective; in April the Minster for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, announced that legislation will soon be presented to parliament to set up two new agencies:

• Environmental Protection Agency, to act as a national watchdog for nature
• Environmental Information Australia so everyone has access to authoritative data on our environment

But these are the easy parts. The major parts of the plan have been deferred with no time frame.

What use is a watchdog with no standards to enforce? The government appears to have given in to the mining lobby. There are also reports of warnings from the Western Australian Labor government of a backlash in the electorally critical state. This is so frustrating when the need for comprehensive action is so urgent.

The major environment groups that were involved in the consultation process are worried that the process will be drawn out for a long time. The government has made a promise so we must be optimistic that the steps outlined in the Nature Positive Plan will be implemented. But how much more destruction will occur in the meantime?

Currently several coal mine expansions are up for approval that will cause loss of important habitat. An example is the Moolarben mine near Mudgee owned by Yancoal. The expansion application before the NSW government would make the mine one of the largest in Australia. Even according to the mine manager it would destroy 113 ha of critical koala habitat. The company says they will create offsets on their own land. Development assessments should be made in the context of the total cumulative impacts on habitat.

Multiple threats to koala habitat

Koala habitat is under multiple threats from forest logging, mining and urban expansion. The promised Great Koala National Park is one area where logging is continuing. Plus, there is a sustained attempt by the logging industry to ‘redefine’ the borders of the park. Little is known about koala habitat being cleared on freehold land – there is no accurate data or independent assessment required.

Actions that are being taken

Nature repair market

Legislation to roll out a ‘nature repair market’ was passed in March 2024. This legislation aims to facilitate voluntary or philanthropic investment in conservation projects by giving them a definable value with government-backed quality assurance of processes to manage the market for these biodiversity credits.

To make these credits worthy of investment and tradeable, they need a governance framework, measurement systems, certification, registration, contracting, trading, monitoring, reporting, accounting, auditing, and a bureaucracy for administering, consulting and advising on all of it. All this is still in the process of being established. The CSIRO has been engaged to lead a research collaboration to design and pilot an ecological knowledge system for the market.

This all sounds like an offset system that has a bad reputation from the experience of the biodiversity offsets that enable destruction of habitat under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Greens made sure the legislation prevented the credits from being used as offsets.

Environment Protection Agency

This authority will be responsible for:

• issuing permits and licenses
• project assessments, decisions and approval conditions
• compliance and enforcement

It would be able to issue stop-work notices, fines and be able to audit businesses to check their compliance with developments approvals. It will also oversee enforcement of other environmental laws such as animal trafficking, recycling and sea dumping.

Environment Information Australia

This agency will:

• provide government and public with authoritative data and information about the environment
• develop an online database to help give business quicker access to data
• publish State of the Environment reporting every two years
• report on progress towards environmental outcomes

The NSW government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) plans came into effect on 1 April. We provided an outline in the previous issue of STEP Matters. Ku-ring-gai Council has been trying to negotiate a softening of the impositions imposed by the plans with little success. Basically, the TOD means that 6 to 7 storey flat buildings can be built in all residential zones within 400 m of the Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville stations or 8 or 9 storeys if an affordable housing component is included.

Council has been trying to negotiate with the Minister for Planning, Paul Scully, and the Department of Planning to reduce the impacts, particularly on heritage conservation areas and tree canopy. The specifications for the building size (floor space ratio of 3 to 1) and minimum land area mean that here is no room for any trees in addition to the building footprint.

Council has argued that they need 12 to 18 months to plan a housing strategy properly and in accordance with guidelines from the department – a 6 month extension has been offered. Ideally planning should also encompass the other part of the announced changes to provide for low to mid-rise housing within 800 m of all railway stations and St Ives centre. An idea of the target for new housing numbers would also be a help.

Council also tried to take one of the TOD stations, such as Killara, off the list and shift the numbers to the other TOD stations. The 400 m radius around Killara is the area with the greatest proportion of heritage houses and it doesn’t have any shops.

Paul Scully would not consider any of these arguments. So there is now a stalemate.

The current situation is that the TOD State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) is being imposed on Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville from 1 April. Council has still not received a copy of the document (the SEPP) that acts as the regulation of the planning rules that are supposed to guide the implementation of the policy.

Meanwhile the developers are ready to pounce from the middle of May.

The low to mid-rise housing changes are due to come into effect later this year. Targets are yet to be revealed although the 42-page Explanation of Intended Effect provides sufficient detail to conservatively anticipate the doubling of Ku-ring-gai’s population as a combination of both the TOD and low to mid-rise housing SEPPs.

The standoff continues on the major issues with the TOD plans:

1.     Heritage conservation areas

There are still conflicting statements being made about the application of the new housing to heritage conservation areas. The government has stated in the media that current council heritage provisions under the LEP and DCP can continue to apply. Demolition would not be permitted of heritage buildings or those that contribute to the heritage value of the conservation area. They optimistically state that there will be opportunities to build new housing consistent with the heritage values of the TOD area. How can that be possible in an area like Killara with 80% of the TOD area being heritage conservation areas?

Many high rise buildings will be required to achieve the target of at least 4,500 to 5,000 new homes over the next 15 years in each TOD area. The minister states that council will still be the consent authority and will be able to conduct merit assessments of development applications. But these assessments will have to comply with the new standards that conflict with the Ku-ring-gai DCP specifications. It doesn’t make sense!

2.     Traffic

The mayor’s concerns about local traffic are dismissed. The minister seems to think that the railway line is all that is needed. What about all the people that need to travel to the north along Mona Vale Road or Warringah Road and to the south via Lane Cove Road or Mowbray Road? They have to use the already highly congested Pacific Highway to get to these roads that are located some distance away from the TOD stations.

3.     Local services

As the mayor points out in his letter, the people living in all these new dwellings require amenities such as parks, libraries and community spaces. It is unlikely that developers will include space for health and education needs. So, the council has to cover the cost but the government has not offered any funding. The council had almost finalised plans for the Lindfield Village Hub when the government withdrew its agreed contribution.

There are various development contribution schemes but no certainty about how the money raised will be distributed.

Land values have already increased markedly since the new housing plans were announced making it more difficult for council to buy land to be used for new amenities.

4.     Tree canopy

State and all local governments are proceeding with tree planting activities in the hope of achieving the target of 40% urban canopy by next decade. Ku-ring-gai is trying to better this target. However the TOD mid-rise housing specifications leave no room for trees. The low to mid-rise housing specifications require only 15 to 20% deep soil space so the 40% target would not be achievable.

There will be no room for trees unless there is room on the nature strip but with all the disturbance from construction of these buildings and their underground car parks trees of any size large enough to provide shade are unlikely to survive.

The Urban Forest Strategy points out that 70% of urban trees are on private land. Council has limited capacity to increase tree cover to meet the target and the housing proposals make this even harder or impossible.

Upper House enquiry

The Legislative Council initiated an enquiry into the TOD proposals that is due to report by 27 September. This has called for submissions on the investigations and consultations prior to the TOD announcement into the appropriateness of the chosen locations and the impacts on heritage, capacity of infrastructure and on local amenity and environment.

There are already over 180 submissions on their website pointing out problems with the proposals. The committee has a big job on their hands to distil these submissions. How much notice will the government take?

Construction of the synthetic turf field at Norman Griffiths Oval in Bicentennial Park, West Pymble commenced in August 2023. You will recall the controversy about the use of this site for synthetic turf with its proximity to Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Quarry Creek, the waterway that runs under the field and flows through to Lane Cove National Park. The bushland along the creek has been transformed by bush carers working over many years.

One major issue with the choice of this location for synthetic turf is that the field acts as a stormwater detention basin. Water from rainfall events runs from the surrounding slopes into the field and into pipes and a detention system then would gradually drain ultimately into Quarry Creek at various locations. There was also a pipe running under the field taking water from the nursery on the other side of Lofberg Road into the detention system.

The installation of synthetic turf creates an area where rainwater can seep through but heavy rain will flow rapidly across the field and into Quarry Creek. Flood models were commissioned that determined that a new drainage system was required. This comprises a large area of porous aggregate which allows for vertical, filtered drainage and stormwater detention. Once the water has filtered through this detention basin it will go into a bio-retention basin where it then flows gradually into the current stormwater pipe system under the aquatic centre carpark.

There have been repeated incidents of muddy water running down Quarry Creek usually after rain since construction started. It seems the runoff from the field is not being controlled. A broken pipe is blamed so the detention system is not working. The EPA is investigating.

Now the stage of construction has been reached where there are large piles of aggregate and dirt across the site. Then there was very heavy rain on 5 and 6 April with over 200 mL. The construction site became a lake as it seems there was too much water for the drainage system (see image at the top of the page).

There have been repeated episodes of muddy water in Quarry Creek but the latest incident is the worst. A solution has to be found to pump out the water from the muddy lake. It can’t go down Quarry Creek. There is already a build-up of silt on the bed of the creek. We are trying to find out who is responsible for cleaning this up.

Meanwhile construction activity has ceased.

Muddy water flow into Quarry Creek, 150 m from oval, 6 Nov 2023

In Issue 221 we reported on the Chief Scientist’s report into Synthetic Turf Study in Public Open Spaces. One of the recommendations was a call for an accessible and reliable source of verified information that distilled the vast amount of data that is available. It also called for further research on the impact on human health from heat generated by the plastic surface and chemicals in the turf/infill and environmental impacts such as microplastic loss into waterways and the loss of habitat for local wildlife.

The government’s response was a promise to produce guidelines to assist decisions about the installation and use of synthetic turf. Nine months later they have been released but they are a huge disappointment. Submissions were invited up to 29 April so we hope for a significant rewrite.

The announcement on the Department of Planning website states that:

The guidelines will help decision-makers, planners and sports field managers who may be considering synthetic turf as an alternative to natural grass.

There are lots of lists of what to consider but little actual guidance and references to sources of information plus many important matters are missing.

Lack of information about natural turf alternative

The first issue is the lack of information about natural grass practices to enable comparison with synthetic turf. There should be information on where to find data on modern science-based techniques for soil and drainage preparation and grass choice. The guidelines say these techniques are not well known but this statement is false. There are references in the guidelines to management guidelines that was produced as long ago as 2007 but nothing about construction.

There should be a moratorium on new installations

The Chief Scientist’s report highlighted the multiple areas where further research is needed into the environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf particularly under the Australian climatic conditions. This includes the breakdown and escape into waterways of plastic blades and infill that include PFAS and microplastics. Many countries overseas that have been using synthetic turf for many years are starting to phase out its use particularly with rubber tyre crumb as infill.

Organisations like the Total Environment Centre (TEC) are calling for a moratorium on synthetic turf installations for five years until more data is available. The TEC has been working with Macquarie University on the AUSMAP: Australian Microplastic Assessment Project that is monitoring microplastic pollution in waterways.

Information missing from the guidelines

• There are many aspects of the current use of synthetic turf where the data is clear that practices should be changed. This includes the use of rubber tyre crumb as infill and the need for collection systems for microplastic runoff.
• The government has not taken action to develop standards for materials used in synthetic turf and infill, particularly imported products. There are standards in place for most other materials for public use but this essential consideration has been neglected in respect of synthetic turf.
• There are Australian standards in place for installations that impact surrounding wildlife such as the lighting systems but the draft guidelines do not mention them. The Australian government's Department of the Environment has lots of information.
• There is no clear statement of locations that are unsuitable for synthetic turf such as areas with bushfire and flooding risk and environmentally sensitive areas with nearby endangered vegetation and wildlife.
• There is little coverage of the approval process required under the planning legislation. Given all the environmental and social impacts of synthetic turf the standard for project approval should be an Environmental Impact Statement.
• There is insufficient emphasis on the need for consultation with local communities that will be affected by the installation of synthetic turf that is usually fenced off and restricts future use to specific sports so that casual recreational use is no longer possible.
• There in no mention of planning regulations requiring consultation with NPWS for developments near a national park.
• Impact on local environment from a large area of plastic that excludes wildlife (birds and insects) and amplifies the heat island effect is not covered.

Finally, the structure of the guidelines is not useful. For example, there are long explanations of how to plan the demand for sporting fields and development of council strategies that are irrelevant to the actual analysis of whether to use synthetic turf. It would more useful to have checklists of actions and considerations with references to sources of information.

We have observed several trees in Turramurra and Warrawee that seem to have died of natural causes. Here is one example in Cherry Street.

We would like to collect a database. Please send photos and information about the type of tree (if possible) and location to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

On 26 March Ku-ring-gai held a forum on the management of trees. It was very well attended with over 150 people at the council chambers or on-line.

The objectives were to inform the public about tree management in Ku-ring-gai, to hear concerns about loss of local trees and ask for suggestion of solutions.

Click here for slides from the presentations and a recording of proceedings and here for more information.

Tree removal hotline

A hotline (9424 0400) has been set up to report illegal tree removal, pruning or damage.

First check council’s map viewer to see if the listing for the address has approval for tree removal. If approval is NOT shown:

• report the illegal removal online (select report unauthorised tree works option (photos cannot be submitted online so email your report and photos); or
• call 9424 0400 (it’s a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week service); or
• email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Our talk on 27 April was presented by Shannon Kaiser, PhD researcher into the impact of aerially deployed fire retardants on bushland ecology. This is another example of action being taken with an aim to reduce a risk without full understanding the potential environmental consequences. The 10/50 legislation is one example where trees have been removed that will have no benefit of reducing fire risk but for other reasons such as increasing views and property values.

Fire retardants have been deployed from aeroplanes in California for many years in fighting forest fires and are used by the Rural Fire Service but not usually in urban areas. There was much publicity when NSW authorities decided to use it in the Turramurra fire in November 2019. Shannon decided to investigate the impact on the local ecology.

Shannon’s work was mostly done in the lab. The components of the retardant are mostly ammonium phosphates with some ingredients that are trade secrets. He found that the concentrations used in the environment were at a level much higher than safe levels. This had the potential to impact basic measures of water quality such as increasing acidity, turbidity and salinity and reducing dissolved oxygen.

He tested a range of concentrations on tadpoles. He found the higher concentrations would have affected the survival of tadpoles by slowing and reducing their movements. The vulnerable Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) was more susceptible than the more common Striped March Frog (Limnodynastes peronii).

The next step is to discover the level of retardant that ends up in our waterways. The trees in our bushland are very different to the pine forests in California so the chemical can fall through the open canopy of Australia’s forests to the shrub and ground level.

Our fauna are also different, there being no marsupials in the United States. Shannon will be ready to discover this contaminant information when the next bushfire occurs.

We are pleased to announce that the recipient of this years’ award is Solomon Maerowitz-McMahan for his project entitled Exploring Mycorrhizal Resilience: Insights from Post-Hazard Reduction Burns in Ku-ring-gai Chase Forests.

Solomon is a PhD candidate at the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, specialising in fungal ecology. His work aims to quantify soil functions across diverse ecosystems and advocating for the preservation of natural resources on a global scale. Through investigating fire-induced adaptations of mycorrhizal fungi, he endeavours to inform land management practices that nurture ecological resilience.

The intersection between fire and fungal ecology is largely unexplored, with little functional understanding of the mechanisms through which fire impacts fungi. While previous research has shed light on the unique attributes aiding plant and animal survival in fire-affected ecosystems, studying fungi in the soil poses distinct challenges, often requiring indirect methods. Mycorrhizal fungi, forming symbiotic relationships with plants, play pivotal roles in these landscapes, influencing decomposition, nutrient cycling, and plant productivity. This project aims to highlight the role that mycorrhizal fungi play in fire-affected ecosystems and the methods that can be used to study these fungi. Drawing insights from forested sites across the Sydney basin, including Ku-ring-gai, and spanning Australia, we aim to untangle the direct and indirect effects of fire on mycorrhizal fungi and enhance our understanding of their impact on ecosystem recovery post-fire.

In December, just as we were looking forward to a peaceful holiday break, the NSW government released plans for new policies aimed at increasing housing density to cater for the massive increase in demand brought about by recent and projected high levels of immigration. We all understand the need to boost housing supply in the right areas to avoid adding to the existing suburban sprawl but the way the government is going about it is totally unacceptable.

The explanatory document, the Explanation of Intended Effects: Changes to Create Low- and Mid-rise Housing (the EIE), makes some grandiose statements. It claims that:

The changes will give NSW households more choice and promote vibrant, sustainable and liveable communities …. Our longer term aim is to enable better planning that is led locally.

This all plain spin.

The reality is that a new planning system is being imposed without opportunities for local input. Council local environment plans (LEPs) and controls will be overridden by ‘non-refusal standards’ determined on a one-size-fits-all basis.

The headline description of the new housing typology is that they will be well-located and well-designed. However, the standards in most of the redevelopments will create housing that leaves only room for a small or medium size tree in a small garden. Existing mature tree canopy will be severely reduced so all the government rhetoric about creating ‘liveable’ communities in the face of climate change will become meaningless. These mature trees and their environmental benefits cannot be replaced.

The EIE applies to the Six Cities Region that covers the Illawarra, Blue Mountains, Sydney and Newcastle and lower Hunter with the exception of dual occupancy provisions that apply to the whole state.

Transport Oriented Development (TOD)

Another announcement was made in December that has potentially drastic implications for the established suburbs of Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville. No consultation with the public is to occur and Ku-ring-gai Council has had limited opportunity to have their say to the Department of Planning. This development standard is to be implemented from 1 April. More detail is further on in this article.

When will this all happen?

First of all the government has to finalise the new State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) that governs the implementation of the policy. The intended effective date is mid-2024. So time is tight.

The government did invite feedback from the public, councils and stakeholder bodies. This is currently being considered and a response will be published. Whether they will modify the policy to recognise the outpouring of criticism remains to be seen.

The intention is to ‘fast-track’ the new housing plans so it is likely that the problematic complying development process with private certifiers will be used. In 2022 only 48,000 new homes were completed in NSW. The goal of this new policy is to build 75,000 new homes over each of the next 5 years in accordance with the new housing accord agreed between the states and federal governments.

How will it happen?

That is the big question that will determine whether the intended large increase in the number of dwellings does actually occur. It appears that developers will be knocking on doors with generous offers to buy people’s houses. Alternatively landowners will put their place on the market. The take-up response is unknown so the outcome is unpredictable.

The normal process is for councils to be given new housing targets over a wide time frame and they then carry out strategic analysis and community consultation to identify where the increases should occur by rezoning areas for higher density housing development. Controls are defined taking into account local conditions such as existing infrastructure, topography, local character and heritage, biodiversity protection and bushfire risk. They aim to avoid issues like overshadowing and increased stormwater flood risk. This provides certainty for all parties that enabled long-term planning.

Non-refusal standards

This time the state government proposes new ‘non-refusal’ standards – if types of development are compliant with such a standard, they cannot be refused. As these are to be implemented under a SEPP, they can overrule LEPs or Development Control Plans. These standards are outlined in the EIE.

In recent budget estimates hearings the Minister for Planning claimed that councils will retain their powers to control development. Yes okay, but only if the council controls are similar to or more permissive than the non-refusal standards in terms of the housing outcomes. This is obviously unlikely.

The implementation of the EIE is undermining the government’s own existing statutory strategic planning framework that coordinates new housing plans. The government is working on new regional and district plans to be released in 2024 that should inform local council plans. In June 2023 the government abolished the Greater Cities Commission that had the role of determining these plans. This function has been brought back to the Department of Planning. So currently we do not have a holistic plan allocating when and where the increased housing numbers should go together with the associated infrastructure needs.

Higher density standards

There are three types of higher density housing that are to be implemented:

• dual occupancy in R2 (low density) residential areas
• low-rise housing in R2 zones within 800 m of railway stations and local centres
• mid-rise housing in R3 (medium density) zones within 400 m of railway stations and local centres

1.     Dual occupancy in all low density (R2) zones in the whole of NSW

This change may have the most significant impact in the character of our cities and towns. Currently many councils do not allow dual occupancy in R2 zones. This includes Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai. If this option is taken up by many landowners then the tree canopy cover of all our suburban areas will reduce significantly.

Under the non-refusal standards, any block that is at least 450 m² could be converted to dual occupancy. Another house can be added to the existing one on the block or an existing house can be knocked down and replaced with two houses. Larger blocks that are common in northern Sydney of over 900 m²could be sub-divided into two blocks and then two dual occupancies could be built – four houses in all. Currently the local trend is to knock down established houses and replace them with a much bigger single house. Will this trend continue as well?

In either case established tall trees and gardens are being cleared and replaced with smaller trees and hedges that will be of limited value for cooling the environment and providing habitat for wildlife. The EIE prescribes a minimum number of trees be planted depending on the size of the block but they only need to be a small tree (5 to 8 m – bottlebrush size) for a medium size block and medium tree (8 to 12 m – jacaranda size) for a larger block of over 600 m².

2.     Low-rise housing close to local centres

Low-rise housing as defined in the EIE is to be permitted in R2 zones within 800 m of railway stations and local centres (zoned E1). The definition of local centre is up for discussion. It is intended to apply to places with a good range of services such as a full-sized supermarket and restaurants. In our area it would apply to St Ives. It is also intended to apply to centres with good access to public transport. St Ives has poor public transport and frequent traffic congestion.

Low-rise housing will include:

• manor houses – two-storey flat building – can be four or more flats depending on land area
• terraces – row of dwellings
• townhouses or villas – multi dwelling housing

Manor houses

Terrace

The specifications for maximum floor space ratio and minimum site area will mean that the space remaining for gardens and trees will be very limited. The minimum tree canopy target for larger blocks is 30% assuming the trees will reach maturity compared with the current guideline of 40%.

The greater density will increase the need for car access. This means more driveways with less space for street trees.

It appears that sub-division will be encouraged so that the normal sized lot in the northern Sydney area could be sub-divided and replaced with two or three low-rise developments.

3.     Mid-rise housing

Mid-rise housing is to be permitted in E1 (local centres) and R3 (medium density) zones within 800 m of railway stations and local centres. This is defined at residential flat buildings or shop-top housing. The maximum height allows for building up to six to seven storeys (maximum height 21 m) within 400 m of the station or town centre and up to four to five storeys (maximum height 16 m) in the 400 to 800 m radius.

Developers can add extra floor space if affordable housing is included. If 10 to 15% of the gross floor area is allocated to affordable housing then the height can be increased by 20 to 30% respectively. This means a six to seven storey building can be increased to eight to nine storeys.

Mid-rise housing

Transport oriented development

Four station areas, Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville have been identified as places appropriate for Transport Oriented Development (TOD); 31 areas in total have been identified for the TOD in the Six Cities Region. This Imposes mid-rise housing (six to seven storeys) within 400 m of these stations to be applied to all residential areas. Some of these areas already have higher rise development but the majority of areas are low density. Not only that, but 40% of these areas have a concentration of heritage housing.

The minister claims that the non-refusal standards can be avoided if Ku-ring-gai Council does their own strategic assessment and works out planning controls that will enable the new housing numbers to be accommodated before the TOD requirements are implemented. But they come into effect on 1 April and the government advice on the expectation of new dwellings has not been provided.

The government proposals have been roundly condemned

There is a long list of problems with the government’s denser housing proposals. Ku-ring-gai Council’s website contains their lengthy detailed submissions. On 3 February an extraordinary meeting passed a resolution that:

• Condemns the State Government for its irresponsible approach to planning for the future of the built and natural environment in
• Rejects the proposed changes to planning controls and demands that they be withdrawn with genuine consultation to be undertaken with councils and their communities, as intended by the National Housing Accord 2022.

Brief summary of issues

The proposals basically do not conform with the Environment Planning and Assessment Act and the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s analysis of the higher-density development configurations for mid-rise housing shows do not even conform with the government’s own SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

Government claims that there will continue to be opportunity for genuine merit assessment of developments, taking into account local character, biodiversity and heritage matters are meaningless. As currently announced the two SEPPs will apply a top-down one-size-fits-all approach.

The landscaping and building parameters prescribed in the non-refusal standards are not suitable for established suburbs. The planning system must continue to allow the consideration of issues such as consistency with existing built form, tree canopy targets, topography, bushfire risk with the need for asset protection zones and stormwater management.

As announced, development types will be determined by the developer resulting in a mishmash of housing styles throughout Sydney particularly in the areas near stations and local centres.

The mid-rise development of up to seven storeys near railway stations along the Pacific Highway from Roseville through to Wahroonga is very concerning. This will create a wide strip of development about 1 km wide that will be a barrier for wildlife movement between north to south bushland. The land falls away sharply on the southern side of the highway where the impact of the ridge barrier will be emphasised. These areas retain the seedbank and soils that are essential for the survival of the last remaining areas of remnant critically endangered forests.

Councils must be able to limit the amount of clearing on properties when additional dwellings are added so that mature trees are retained. The blanket dual occupancy approval provisions must not proceed.

The two proposals for ‘transport-oriented development’ and ‘low and mid-rise housing’ together endanger more than 4,000 heritage properties (items and sites within heritage conservation areas).

Myrtle rust is an invasive species of fungus that threatens plants in the Myrtaceae family. Researchers want to know more about the extent of the problem, and they are asking for public help.

Alyssa Martino, a PhD student at the University of Sydney who is studying myrtle rust infection and leads the iNaturalist Gum Tree Guardians project says reports of myrtle rust will give the team a broader understanding of the extent of the disease.

If you see some myrtle rust please upload photos using the iNaturalist app and provide other information such as the species of the host plant, age of the plant and how much it and other nearby plants are affected.

Click here for more information.

According to 2020 data Ku-ring-gai currently has an urban forest canopy cover of 45%. The Urban Forest Strategy is to increase this to 49% by 2036. However the level of canopy cover is going the wrong way and there is increasing community concern about tree destruction, both legal and illegal.

In recent months there have been some extreme examples of tree destruction in Middle Cove (over 250 trees) and Longueville (about 300 trees and shrubs). There are many examples of trees being removed in order to ‘improve’ views or increase property value as the size of a home rebuild is increased.

There is some dispute about the level of canopy loss. Council’s measures are that 1.4% of canopy has been lost over the two years to 2022. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald quoted data from a study compiled by consultancy group ArborCarbon for the state government and analysed by the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue. This claimed that the Ku-ring-gai had lost 8.2% between 2019 and 2022. The discrepancy is so large that the baseline or methodology needs to be examined.

The article stated that, altogether, Greater Sydney’s tree canopy barely changed; trees covered 21% per cent of the city in 2019 and, in 2022, cover was 21.7%. That’s a long way off from the government’s target of 40% coverage by 2036. That target will totally unachievable if the housing proposals go ahead as announced (see previous article). A large proportion of the increase needs to occur on private land. Only so many trees can be planted along streets and in parks.

Responses by local councils

Several local councils presented motions to the local government conference in November 2023 calling for increases in penalties for tree vandalism and illegal removal. The motion passed called on Local Government NSW to:

• Urgently undertake a review of the legislative regime for tree protection and seek increased penalties and deterrents, including significantly increased fines and community service for the destruction and vandalism of trees in NSW. The review is to include the destruction and vandalism of vegetation in environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian zones, areas of high biodiversity value and foreshore protection areas. The review should identify opportunities to better coordinate tree protection across NSW, along with improved education and awareness around the importance of tree protection to build stronger community support.
• Advocate for effective reform to improve collaboration and coordination in education and enforcement to combat tree vandalism in NSW.

Upper house petition – please sign

The Legislative Assembly of the NSW parliament has put up a petition calling on the government to significantly increase penalties for urban forest tree vandalism. It also calls for the recognition of trees as 'natural assets' in the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework of the Local Government Act.

Click here to sign the petition.

The preamble to the petition explains that councils lack resources for thorough criminal investigations, hindering effective prosecution. Despite the illegality of tree vandalism under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, only 19 cases were prosecuted from 2018 to 2022.

The petition also asks the Legislative Assembly to call on the government to amend the NSW Local Government Act to include trees in councils' asset registers as 'natural assets', allocate a budget for a collaboration of councils to undertake pilot projects to integrate natural capital/asset reporting in balance sheets and develop natural asset data capture and management standards. Recognising trees as 'natural assets' helps us appreciate their true value including their role in combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.

What’s Ku-ring-gai doing?

1. Strengthened tree regulations

Council is now enforcing strengthened tree regulations.

Residents who breach the conditions of their DA or Complying Development Certificate through illegal tree removal, will be required to replace them with a like tree in addition to fines. Residents undertaking works on their land should expect to be monitored and conditions enforced in accordance with their development approval.

2. Illegal Tree Removal Community Forum

Tuesday 26 March, 6 to 8pm
Ku-ring-gai Council Chambers,
818 Pacific Highway, Gordon

This text comes from council’s website.

Council invites all community members and groups to a public forum addressing the critical issue of illegal tree removal in our neighbourhoods. This growing problem threatens our tree canopy - an invaluable community asset we must protect.

We will discuss the challenges faced in curbing the threat, as well as potential solutions. Most importantly, we seek to hear from you - the community - regarding your insights into the problems and opportunities before us. What actions can we take together to protect our trees and urban forest?

The session will concentrate on three crucial aspects:

• the primary obstacles in sustaining and enhancing our tree canopy
• compliance and regulation – measures that can be taken to prevent or remedy tree removal
• education – discouraging people from wanting to remove trees

By registering now, you can share your views in advance of the forum. This will aid in guiding the forum discussion by addressing questions on the above topics in the registration form.

This is a call to all who care about saving our trees to get involved. Join the forum and make your voice heard in developing community-driven strategies to turn the tide on illegal tree loss in Ku-ring-gai.

3. TreeCare

A group of concerned citizens has been working with some of the councillors and staff on ways to ensure that our iconic trees are cared for. The plan is to set up a TreeCare group that will install protection measures such as and information signs around significant trees on public land. The angophora at the edge of the car park at the St Ives Showground has been suggested as the first site.

4.     Tree Watch

A new community action group has been formed called the Voices of Ku-ring-gai with goals of lifting the standard of integrity, environmental protection, transparency, accountability, and community-mindedness of Ku-ring-gai Council.

One of their first initiatives is to set up a scheme called Tree Watch. Community members who opt into Tree Watch can download a poster for their community notice board or place a plaque on their fence or gate. This alerts the neighbourhood to the fact that the person who lives there places a high value on the precious and sensitive ecosystem in the neighbourhood.

The group will share information about tree losses and how to report to council if someone spots tree loppers in action and council’s website shows that the tree removal has not been approved. However, their main objective is to educate the community about the benefits provided by maintaining our tree canopy.

A planning proposal for the redevelopment of the Lourdes Retirement Village at the end of Stanhope Road in Killara was first submitted in February 2018. The proposal was to rezone the site from R2 low density to R3 medium density residential. The proponent also sought to amend the usual R3 maximum building heights to heights ranging from 9.5 to 22 m; and amend the maximum FSR from 0.3:1 to 0.75:1 under Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015.

The key objective of the planning proposal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to increase the number of dwellings for seniors housing and make improvements to the current facilities that are very rundown.

Ku-ring-gai Council refused the application mainly on the grounds of bushfire risk and its inappropriate location for the planned expansion of seniors housing including a building six to seven stories. Therefore the application had to go through the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP).

The proposal was reviewed by the SNPP and progressed into the gateway determination process in November 2018. The Department of Planning then engaged in discussions with the proponent, Levande, aimed at addressing some of the concerns about the project. In May 2022 the department made a gateway determination that the planning proposal could proceed to the development application stage subject to a long list of required amendments and consultation with authorities and public exhibition. These were to be submitted to the department for review and endorsement prior to public exhibition in September 2022. Finally, prior to the final panel hearing, further amendments were made including a change to zoning of the site to include a strip of C2 land (environment conservation) and updates on reports.

Throughout this prolonged process Ku-ring-gai Council has pointed out shortcomings in the plans particularly in relation to bushfire risk. They disagreed with the consultant’s statements that the site has low fire risk and that satisfactory protection measures can be engineered during the detailed DA stage.

These statements were effectively endorsed by the RFS without any independent review. The RFS did not explain the basis for their support and did not object to the plans stating that issues could be sorted out in the DA stage.

The protection measures involved the construction of townhouses that would act as a special fire protection facility. In other words, a buffer protecting the high rise part of the site that would be an aged-care facility. However, the purchasers of these townhouses could have the same dependency and accessibility issues as the residents of the aged-care component of the site.

The final SNPP hearing occurred in December. Many residents of Lourdes and members of community groups including FOKE and STEP presented to the hearing. Ku-ring-gai Council made a detailed presentation criticising the bushfire reports and many other aspects of the project plans and consultants’ reports.

We were all relieved when the panel decided to reject the proposal unanimously and requested that the previous decision to agree to the gateway determination to amend the LEP no longer proceed.

The SNPP reason for their decision was primarily that the solution for bushfire risk was not appropriate. They did acknowledge that the site provided desirable facilities and needed to be upgraded and made some suggestions of alterations that could improve the planning outcome.

This is not the absolute end to the proposal. The minister makes the final decision about what happens next.

Domestic cats and dogs pose a serious threat to wildlife because of their natural hunting instincts. With a large number of unowned (stray and feral) and free-roaming cats and dogs, it’s important to manage domestic pets to minimise the damage that can be done to other, more vulnerable species.

It’s difficult to estimate the impact domestic cats have on wildlife, however studies suggest a suburban domestic cat can kill and bring home anywhere from 5 to 30 native and non-native animals each year.

Pet owners should:

• keep cats inside, even if it’s just at night when native animals are most active
• keep dogs inside at night, or confined to a secure space on the property
• provide a safe environment for wildlife in their garden and encourage a wildlife-friendly backyard
• identify pets with a collar, tag or microchip
• add collar bells for cats
• de-sex their pets

If a pet brings in an animal, if possible take it straight to a vet. The saliva of dogs and especially cats, contains bacteria that is toxic to wildlife. It is known amongst WIRES carers and rescuers that animals bitten by a cat or a dog have a small window (usually a few hours) where antibiotics must be administered, or the animal is unlikely to make it.

Lizards such as Blue-tongues often reside in backyards and can have around 15 gardens within their territory. It is likely the lizard has lived in the area for some time and is adept at avoiding hazards such as cats and dogs. However the rescue office receives a large number of calls for Blue-tongued Lizards who have sustained injuries such as puncture wounds or broken backs from domestic animal attacks.

This article has been contributed by Andrew Little. It is a transcript of presenter notes by Jess Styan, WIRES Rescue and Care of Wildlife on the North Shore, as part of WildThings NSW Forum on Sunday 15 October 2023.

The Ku-ring-gai Bushcare Association (KBA) came up with the idea to run a competition to encourage cat owners to keep their cats inside and protect wildlife. Residents were provided with information about the risks to wildlife and cats if they are allowed to roam outside. They were invited to submit photos of their cat safely inside and have a chance to win a $500 voucher to install cat enclosures for their pets. Over 130 entries were submitted so it was a difficult task to select the winners.

The competition was funded through an Environmental Levy Grant and was a partnership between Ku-ring-gai Council, Catnets and KBA.

The KBA was established in 1994 to represent bushcare, streetcare and parkcare volunteers at Ku-ring-gai Council. The KBA committee meets monthly with council to provide input into native vegetation management issues and assist with organisation of activities such as convenor forums.

This book is delightfully easy to read but not so easy to review in a limited space as it moves widely from topic to topic despite being embraced by a common theme, being Australia’s incredibly diverse tree flora and the human interaction and exploitation both pre- and post-European occupation.

An early chapter captured and intrigued me right away because we lived in Perth for nine years, and he writes through the eyes of a First Nations woman as she traversed Perth's original landscape with its native trees, now changed largely beyond recognition. But the portion of that chapter that deals with Rottnest Island was an eye opener for us who visited the island regularly and actually had our honeymoon there. The brutal incarceration of Aboriginal prisoners and the gradual destruction and thinning of the native flora meant that what we saw on visiting bore little resemblance to its original state.

One chapter features the Leichhardt Tree Nauclea orientalis, a member of Rubiaceae or the coffee family. The so-named tree in Mackay is probably 200 years old and has survived incredible danger and destructive forces like tropical cyclones, has lost all its neighbouring companion flora, but has survived the destructive fate of so many native trees. So-named because it was encountered and recorded by explorer Ludwig Leichhardt, the author highlights its cosmopolitan distribution in the south-west Pacific and its recognition by Melanesian islanders of the Kanaka slave trade as a reminder of home. But of course it was also part of the largely lost native flora of the Yuwibara First Nations inhabitants of the Mackay region and part of its rich history.

The previous paragraph was a brief 10 pages, illuminating and dense with information, but numerous other chapters follow comparable themes with diverse species and settings. For example, having worked inland and encountered isolated palm groves – oases in the middle of nowhere – I was fascinated to learn of the possibility that these had been brought south by First Nations travellers from closely related tropical palm groves, and had only modestly diversified and evolved to fit their new homes.

He touches a number of times on the huge diversity of eucalypt species, highlighting Dean Nicolle’s Currency Creek ‘tree museum’ in South Australia. He intertwines this with Murray Bail’s Eucalyptus novel, a story in the vein of that country and western song Wolverton Mountain. Coming from Britain which has only 15 or 20 truly native tree species, you can spend a lifetime learning only a small fraction of what Australia has to offer even if you never get beyond the eucalypts.

What author Dave Witty’s professional qualifications are or what he does for a living when he’s not writing books or articles never came clear (he has been awarded a Nature Conservancy nature conservation prize and has published articles in Meanjin and Griffith Review among other journals). But it’s made clear he grew up in Britain and migrated here, and had a long standing relationship that failed after 12 years. The latter arose as an uncomfortable backdrop on several occasions in the book though it did tend to soften and humanise it, and it was good to learn he subsequently met and married a new partner and they have a young daughter.

Dave Witty, Monash University Publishing (2023) 284 pp (reviewed by John Martyn)

Hornsby Council is making good progress on the development of the Hornsby Park and Quarry site with works almost completed on the landform of the roads, pathways and stabilisation of the surrounding walls and slopes. A lot of new planting will be required. They hope to complete the park by the end of 2024.

Council is currently going through a process of deciding a name for the new park. This involves consultation with focus groups, indigenous groups and the broader community. It will be a long process even before a proposal goes to the Geographical Names Board.

Council is looking for a name that reflects the history and also gives a sense of the future direction of the place. There are many historical elements at the site, such as the quarry (geological), Higgins Family cemetery (heritage) and the Crusher Plant (industrial) as well as the aboriginal custodianship and rare Blue Gum Diatreme Forest. Send suggestions to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Welcome to the annual report on the 45th year of operation of STEP Inc. There is a brighter outlook for the environment in 2023 following the election of the Minns Labor government. But we have to be vigilant in advocating for stronger action.

The report on the NSW Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act was scathing about the loss of biodiversity over the past
5 years that was supposed to be conserved under this Act. Strong action is required in implementing the recommendations. The same applies at the federal level as we await release of the revision of the EPBC Act.

A change of attitude towards coal and gas mining, native forestry and land clearing is vital for progress on climate change and loss of biodiversity.

Activities

Talks

Our post AGM talk in 2022 was given by Professor Michelle Leishman on creating resilient urban green spaces in the face of climate change.

So far in 2023 we have held talks on the aboriginal heritage of the Ku-ring-gai GeoRegion, Powerful Owls and the future approaches to bushland management in Hornsby Shire. We will be hearing about Ku-ring-gai bushland management in a talk by Jacob Sife on 25 November.

Walks

We scheduled 7 walks that featured national parks and the variety of vegetation that is a feature of northern Sydney bushland. John Martyn also introduced us to new reserves in outer Sydney; well worth a visit. With the period of hot weather lengthening we are reluctant to schedule walks during the November to February period. We thank our volunteer leaders, David Roberts, John Martyn, Helen Logie and Mark Schuster who shared their local knowledge and Beverley Gwatkin who has organised these walks.

Publications

We are still offering a year’s free membership to anyone who buys a book or map. Sales of our maps is still strong and there is a steady demand for our books.

We printed an updated version of the Middle Harbour North map. There is still a demand for paper maps that give a big picture for planning of potential walk itineraries.

Committee

The STEP committee has, as always, been a great group of people to work with. We owe a huge thank you for all their efforts.

We thank Jim Wells for keeping track of our finances and compiling monthly finance reports. Trish Lynch continues to keep Facebook up to date and find news of local activities and wildlife discoveries. We have closed down our Twitter account because the decline in its popularity. John Burke did a great job of highlighting environmental issues while Twitter was a strong source of commentary.

There have been several issues to review this year, often this is in association with other groups such as the Natural Turf Alliance. The committee members work well together in organising activities, responding to questions from the public and, writing submissions.

Newsletter

We are continuing to publish five issues of the newsletter each year.  We have ceased providing hard copies of STEP Matters with members receiving a pdf version via email. Links to individual topics are also included in the email and are on our website so anyone can pick out particular articles of interest. These articles also have links to previous articles on related topics and all our past newsletters are on our website.

While the newsletter concentrates on local issues and events we also cover broader national environmental issues that affect us all. We aim to be educational but not too technical. I hope they are of interest, but feedback is welcome. Also, contributions from members about local events and developments can be published in the newsletter or on Facebook. If you have read a book that you think will be of particular interest to our members, please send us a review.

Accounts

The net cash balance at the end of the financial year reduced compared to last year because we awarded three research grants (see more detail below).

The Environment Protection Fund (EPF) balance is on-hold in case a major issue arises. We need to maintain this separate fund that is part of our deductible donation status. The fund’s purpose is to support our environmental objectives. We received a total of $365 in donations in the past financial year.

Our general fund can be used to support educational projects as well as the EPF. We are keen to support more environmental projects so please contact us if you have any ideas.

Again we thank Allan Donald, chartered accountant for his completion of the audit on a pro bono basis.

Education and research grants

The John Martyn Research Grant supports student research in an area relating to the conservation of bushland. The grant for 2023 was awarded to Margarita Gil-Fernandez to support her research on anthropogenic disturbance and its impact on mycorrhizal fungal diversity.

STEP will also award an ad hoc research grant for worthwhile projects. Vanessa McPherson and Michael Gillings gave a talk to members last year about their research into coral fungi that has ramifications for improving strategies for bushland restoration. We awarded a grant to Vanessa that will help progress her research.

For many years STEP has been donating a prize in the Young Scientist Awards run by the NSW Science Teachers Association. The selection of a winning project out of a wide range of ecological issues is an interesting exercise. We are still judging this year’s entries with help from Syd Smith and Gaye Braiding.

Advocacy

Synthetic turf and the Westleigh Park development with its extensive ‘unsanctioned’ mountain bike trails in endangered turpentine forest were again our main areas of attention. It is concerning that the current government sports grant system is facilitating the installation of synthetic turf instead of improving natural grass with the result that the field is effectively no longer a space for community use and other sports. The Chief Scientist’s report on synthetic turf highlighted the environmental harm and potential risks health from the use of this product. STEP, as part of the Natural Turf Alliance, is calling for a moratorium on its installation and awarding of grants until guidelines are issued by the NSW government and further research can be carried out.

There were many issues with the approval process carried out by Ku-ring-gai Council in relation to the synthetic turf at Norman Griffiths Oval but its installation is proceeding.

We made submissions on the major Hornsby Council development plans at the quarry and Westleigh that currently do not provide protection for this high quality bushland.

Submissions were made on some Ku-ring-gai Council plans of management and the Urban Forest Strategy.

The Mirvac development at West Pennant Hills continues to need scrutiny and submissions. There are still concerns about excessive development plans at North Turramurra Recreation Area, Lourdes and Eden Gardens that have not been resolved.

Conclusion

A community group like STEP works best with many lines of communication. We enjoy a good relationship with other community groups and local council staff. Information sharing is an important part of our work. To that end we appreciate feedback from our members and reports on local issues that we may not be aware of. It is becoming harder to keep track of local developments as the local newspapers have shrunk considerably.

Jill Green, President
29 October 2023

Those of you who attended Ian Dunlop's STEP AGM talk on 4 November may have ended up distressed by the implications for the future from human-induced climate change, and frustrated by the slow progress of political action. As such you may not want to read any more bad news having also had more than enough from the current global scene. But I’m still strongly recommending this book, for quite a variety of reasons.

We’ve all heard of the IPCC, and maybe also read or heard the climate-sceptic’s nonsense: that it’s just a bunch of academics in ivory towers massaging dodgy data on screens to predict disasters that will probably never happen. Well Joëlle Gergis is a fully fledged climate scientist, an academic currently linked to ANU, who's a true insider on IPCC reporting, and her story is telling, compelling and very personal. In various contexts she highlights the intense scrutiny and work, often at night and into the early hours and mostly unpaid, by the thousands of scientists from all over our besieged planet. If there is any better evaluation of this ground-breaking global organisation I’ve yet to come across it.

But there’s much more to this book because it’s a personal journey by somebody who’s professional, dedicated and almost obsessive in her devotion to her science and its message. The implications of hers and the IPCC’s work have left her depressed and almost suicidal at times but she soldiers on under a worsening climate and its disasters. In this respect, the content of the book may seem repetitive at times but I never wanted to put it down. I can think of many public figures for whom it should be compulsory reading. But it does end on a hopeful note, that the means of fixing things are widely available, and work is in progress on many fronts.

Joëlle Gergis, Black Inc (2022) 325 pp (reviewed by John Martyn)

At our AGM on 4 November, Ian provided a clear message about the future of the Earth and humankind. He summed up with a quotation from a statement made in 2021 by Sir David King, former UK Chief Scientist:

What we do over the next three to five years will determine the future of humanity.

The talk was about global warming. It was also about the urgent need to change the paradigm of growth and capitalism that underpins our economic systems.

Firstly, here is some background to his arguments.

Club of Rome – limits to growth

Fifty years ago, the Club of Rome created a computer model that projected trends in the variables that define human society: population, food production, industrial output, pollution and use of non-renewable resources.

At the time all these variables were increasing and were assumed to continue to grow exponentially while the ability of technology to increase the efficiency of use of finite natural resources grew only linearly.

The model predicted that the continuation of these trends would lead to a limit in the second half of this century. The most probable result will be a sudden and uncontrolled decline in population and ecosystems with flow on effects on industrial capacity and the supply of our basic needs.

Many studies have shown that the trends predicted are proving to be realistic. The limit of available non-renewable resources is being reached which will affect our capacity to continue our current lifestyle. Our civilisation only works if it grows, but that growth is now destroying the resources that maintain the civilisation.

The most obvious limit – our climate

The recent extreme weather experience in many locations around the world and the reports from the scientific experts highlight that we are getting close to a situation where temperature increases will exceed the ideal set in the Paris Agreement of 1.5°C and the fall-back position of 2°C is becoming harder to achieve.

We are already reaching tipping points, namely changes in the Earth’s systems that will be impossible to reverse, such as melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and boreal permafrost. Once these changes are set in train the trend of temperature increases and sea level rise will be even harder to reverse.

The climate system has a strong level of inertia so any response to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will take several years to have any effect on temperature levels.

If emission levels are not reduced urgently to zero, not just net zero, we are on a path to temperature increases of 3°C or even 5°C that will make human life on our planet unliveable for most people. Zero emissions is required to reduce the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is the driving force behind climate change.

How can we turn around these frightening prospects?

There is a lot of optimism expressed about the ability of technology to slow down emissions. But implementation of these technologies is too slow. Forget about the conflict that we are experiencing. These security threats and the need to build up military capacity are less urgent. What we need is radical change in the economic system. Is this possible?

Ian Dunlop is a member of the think tank called Earth4All that focuses on systemic change for global well-being. They are presenting two scenarios:

• Too little too late – what if we continue on our current destructive path?
• Giant leap – what if we achieve the fastest transformation in history?

Earth4All has gathered leading thinkers to advice on the economic ideas that show the most promise to unite societies and bring long-term prosperity to the majority. The current trend of an increasing gap between rich and poor has to change. Instability will be the outcome if the poor have to bear the brunt of impacts from climate change.

There are five core changes that are needed:

• poverty – more government planning and less market influence in economic development
• inequality – transfers from the few rich to the many poor
• empowerment – education, health, contraception, and opportunity to all women
• food – regenerative agriculture, higher efficiency, fairer distribution
• energy – shift from fossil fuels to renewables, higher efficiency, carbon capture and storage

Forces working against change

The free market will not solve the problems. However, what the world needs is not profitable from the investor perspective using conventional criteria.

Existing jobs are threatened – we need to move from jobs creating emissions and using natural resources to jobs restoring nature and re-using materials

Government measures will not be popular. These will entail such measures as higher taxes and more regulation.

Ian Dunlop suggests that the disparity in wealth means that the richest 10% could pay to make these changes happen.

Change remains possible and solutions exist if we choose to take them. Cooperation, not conflict, is the essential ingredient.

Communities must speak out loudly, bluntly and frequently about the urgency for change.

Ian Dunlop has been a writer and activist on climate change for about 50 years and he is chair of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group.