Please go and see the documentary The Koalas to get a graphic view of the ridiculous situation in NSW where koala habitat destruction is being sanctioned by the government and our planning laws. It is not only koala habitat under threat, native forests all over the state that are essential for our welfare are still being destroyed. There are screenings of the film in many locations.

For many years conservation groups have been attempting to make the government accept the reality that the native forestry industry cannot continue to destroy our biodiversity, wildlife habitats and carbon sinks. Victoria and WA have finally ceased logging in native forests and have initiated transition plans for the forestry industry. However, all along the coast of NSW, state forestry operations are continuing and they are flouting the regulations under the Regional Forestry Agreements that are intended to provide protection of the biodiversity of these forests.

Glider populations ignored

It is not only koalas under threat. The Forestry Corporation of NSW is flouting regulations by failing to do proper surveys of wildlife to ensure they avoid cutting down habitat trees. Earlier this year South East Forest Rescue published evidence that Forestry has failed to comply with the most basic of regulations – to survey for the nocturnal greater gliders at the time when they are emerging from their dens.

The Environment Protection Authority, the body meant to be enforcing these regulations, has refused to prosecute or extend stop work orders in response to this clear violation of the law. Instead, they have weakened the regulations even further. The new requirements have significantly reduced when and where Forestry must survey glider dens during the periods they are active.

Logging of koalas’ forests accelerated

Our koalas are now declared an endangered species with a prediction that they will be extinct in the wild by 2050 if current habitat destruction continues.

The Minns government made an election promise to create the Great Koala National Park in the north-east, an area that would contain one-fifth of the state’s koala population. But the government is stonewalling on putting this into action. It has established a long-winded process to determine the boundaries of the park leaving most of the area subject to ongoing intense logging by Forestry in the meantime.

Based on Forestry’s own maps as at 25 June 2024, of the 20 active logging operations on the north coast from the Hunter to the Queensland border, more than half were in the Great Koala National Park footprint. That’s despite the proposed park area containing just one-fifth of state forests in the region. Dalian Pugh from North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) said:

The Minns Government is allowing the state owned logging company to target the proposed park to take as many trees as they can, degrading the proposed park before it’s even established.

Forestry’s planning portal shows the forest compartments on the chopping block before the Great Koala National Park boundaries are finalised.

The NCC has developed an interactive map showing past and planned logging. Their analysis shows that up to 19,000 hectares of forest in the proposed Great Koala National Park is at risk of destruction by Forestry before April next year.

This situation is outrageous. Taxpayers are paying for this environmental destruction. The public native forest hardwood division of Forestry is also costing millions to keep it afloat. It made just $400,000 profit in 2019–20, and in 2020–21 it ran at a loss of $20 million. Forestry is predicted to lose $15 million a year between 2022 and 2024.

Until now legal action has been unsuccessful

Legal action by citizen groups against Forestry operations has been limited by the existence of the Regional Forestry Agreements as they bypass normal federal environmental scrutiny. This situation may have changed when in November 2023, the Land and Environment Court rejected that position when a case brought by NEFA, with the help of the EDO, was successful.

NEFA lodged an application for an urgent injunction to stop Forestry logging vital koala habitat in two state forests in north-east NSW. While NEFA was not ultimately successful, the court confirmed for the first time that the Forestry Act does not prevent persons with a special interest from taking legal action over forestry operations, including disputing logging approvals.

This decision has emboldened the South East Forest Rescue to sue Forestry over their inadequate protection of glider populations referred to above.

Sydney’s koalas are also threatened

Lendlease is currently developing 3,300 homes on the Gilead Estate, south-west of Sydney near Campbelltown. Their website claims that:

Our proposal prioritises areas for environmental conservation upfront providing a unique opportunity to improve biodiversity and conservation outcomes throughout the life of the project and into the future.

The Planning Panel that assessed the development imposed a condition for a wildlife corridor along Menangle Creek that the Chief Scientist advised should be at least 425 m wide in order to facilitate movement between the Georges River and bushland along the Nepean River and underpasses under busy Appin Road. Most of the clearing has occurred without the underpasses being built and the corridor is less than the required width.

Rainforests in Britain? Surely not! What have you been smoking? Well, please buy and read this book and blow your mind in other ways – on some astonishing facts collated by a sharp and inquisitive mind. This book will appeal especially to anybody with British or European links or interests, including ex-Poms like my wife and I who grew up in the manufactured English landscape and hardly thought otherwise that this wasn't how it had always been.

The word ‘rainforest’ usually evokes images of the Amazon Basin, or North Queensland's tropical rainforests, though it hopefully may also conjure images of our local coachwood canyons and valleys, or of the Antarctic Beech forests of Barrington Tops or Western Tasmania. The latter are temperate rainforests of course but they're just as much true rainforests. So surely forests growing in similar climates, in rain soaked Western Britain, are likely also to be rainforests. Britain hosts different native trees to down here of course, but ‘English oaks’ and other tree species like hazel, ash and rowan grow happily festooned in lichens, mosses and ferns in rain-drenched glens and hollows in South West and North West England, Wales and Scotland.

Such forests once covered vastly bigger areas, and this is where the author has put his body and mind into tracking and collating a huge amount of current and historical data to create a full picture of survival and losses, even exploring ancient Celtic myths and legends. This has involved interacting with professional and amateur botanists and ecologists, environmentalists, local historians, landowners, governing and management authorities and the media.

In May 2016 we made a point of visiting one of the best known rainforests or Atlantic oakwood remnants featured in his book – Wistmans Wood near Two Bridges on Dartmoor. Dartmoor has many connotations, from wild moorland and its famous prison to Arthur Conan-Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles. However it seems it wasn’t always like today – its open granite terrain of 400 to 600 m elevation was once extensively forested. Wistmans is a gentle 2 km walk from Two Bridges Hotel (nice place to stay) and is classic rainforest, absolutely, but just a surviving remnant of only 3.2 hectares. Look at the top picture: it might appear straight out of Tolkien but they’re actually pedunculate oaks, Quercus robur, the same English oak of Sherwood Forest and tall ships fame, but gnarled and supressed by the bleak Dartmoor climate – though richly festooned by rainforest mosses and lichens.

The heart of Wistmans is fenced in, so look closely at the bottom picture – at the vegetation contrast on either side of the boundary fence. This striking difference is largely down to sheep grazing! The trees outside the fence can’t propagate because sheep eat the seedlings and saplings – then the parent trees eventually die and the rainforest retreats! Shrubsole highlights this, and that of deer grazing (deer, native and introduced, are out of control) as one of the most damaging causes of rainforest decline in Britain.

Clearing of forest by man going back past the Bronze Age is even bigger of course, but there are many modern man-made scourges. Rhododendrons, highlighted by the author, are widely planted, some say beautiful in flower, but highly invasive to rainforest – seeding, layering and suckering to create dense, dark, impenetrable thickets suppressing all other vegetation. Scottish landowners (many are actually wealthy English ‘pseudo-lairds’) have planted them widely as shelter for their precious grouse (which they then shoot and call it sport).

So why review this book? Britain has a very different landscape and flora to down this way. But domestic grazing by stock is hugely damaging to natural vegetation here too. So are invasive plants – not rhododendrons but multiple other nasty species. So what’s the big deal with rainforests? Well it isn’t just cutting and burning the Amazon – rainforest loss is a huge issue everywhere, all the more so given climate change. This Sunday Times best seller may well be one of the most important works on British ecology ever written, and it reflects and stimulates thinking on rainforest status everywhere. And it has strong messages for anywhere that European (or Asian) style ‘fell, clear and farm’ land management has been adopted or imposed.

Guy Shrubsole, William Collins, 2023
Paperback, 326 pp

Review by John Martyn

The Lost Rainforests of Britain won The Wainwright Prize for Writing on Conservation in 2023 and was shortlisted for the Richard Jeffries Award in 2022. It was also the Sunday Times Science Book of the Year for 2022.

National Tree Day is on Sunday 28 July. It was co-founded by Planet Ark in 1996 and it has since had more than 5 million people participate and plant over 27 million native trees and shrubs. National Tree Day is Australia’s biggest community tree-planting and nature care event.

Tunks Hill, Lane Cove National Park, 10 am to 2 pm

Tunks Hill is just off Riverside Drive (accessed via Delhi Road or Ryde Road). It is a flat easily accessible site with picnic tables and toilets.

The planting will help contribute to screening between the park and the development on the Eden Gardens site. There is still no news on the outcome of the Land and Environment Court case about the proposal to build an 18 storey commercial tower on the site.

The organiser, Friends of Lane Cove National Park, will provide a delicious sausage sizzle and refreshments.

If you are able to help with catering or planting contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or register here.

St Ives Showground, 10 am to 1 pm

Ku-ring-gai Council will oversee the planting of trees, shrubs, groundcovers, grasses and vines to expand the endangered Duffys Forest ecological community. Many areas of Duffys Forest at the showground are badly degraded due to overuse.

Tools will be provided but please bring gloves and wear closed shoes. Free BBQ afterwards!

No booking required but you can register here.

The Great Southern BioBlitz (GSB) is an exciting international initiative that embarks on an intensive biological survey during the vibrant spring season of the southern hemisphere. The GSB was established in 2020 during the global pandemic by a group of bioblitz enthusiasts in Australia. The goal of the GSB is to document the flora, fauna, fish and fungi of the southern hemisphere while providing a platform for groups, associations, local governments and individuals to encourage engagement in citizen science. This collaborative effort is facilitated through the online platform iNaturalist.

In the past three years, GSB has proved to be a resounding success in engaging individuals with nature and expanding their knowledge of local flora and fauna.

iNaturalist

iNaturalist is one of the world’s most popular biodiversity observation platforms. It is an online, biodiversity-focused, citizen science platform and app. Its main goal is to create a nature-based social network where like-minded users can share photos of interesting organisms they've observed. iNaturalist has evolved over time to become a valuable biodiversity database tool and is used by more than 2.5 million people globally, including amateur naturalists, museum curators, and world experts in their field.

Every observation you upload becomes a valuable data point representing an encounter with a species at a point in space and time. Anyone, anywhere in the world, with a smartphone can download the app and start posting images and descriptions of their observations. Artificial intelligence narrows down the ID first, and you can share your findings with others to confirm it. A large community of identifiers helps to confirm the species observed, after which it becomes labelled as ‘research grade’. Research grade observations are then piped into databases like the Atlas of Living Australia and the Global Biodiversity Facility where they can be used by scientists, schools and more for research.

Want to learn more about iNaturalist?

• Join the Introduction to iNaturalist workshop
• Detailed guide to iNaturalist for Australia
• Getting started guides on iNaturalist

Participate in the Great Southern Bioblitz 2024

• Join the iNaturalist community – download the iNaturalist app or upload your photos onto iNaturalist Australia. After you have signed up by entering a username and password your observations will be automatically recorded under the project for the locality where the recording occurred.
• Make nature observations from 20 to 23 September. You can upload your observations until 7 October 2024.
• Register as a Great Southern BioBlitz participant to receive project updates and a certificate at the end of the bioblitz.
• Join your local council Great Southern BioBlitz project page, see what has been observed and help identify species:
  • Ku-ring-gai Council
  • Hornsby Council

We don’t tend to associate bats with winemaking except to consider that flying foxes or fruit bats might happily eat grapes. But microbats wouldn't – they're insectivores – so I was fascinated by an article in AgJournal, a supplement published in The Weekend Australian and taken from The Weekly Times. This featured a vineyard in the Strathbogie Ranges in Victoria which is one of several involved in a research project with University of New England (UNE).

The vineyard, a significant producer of 2,500 t of grapes per year, is Fowles Wines and the business mantra of proprietor Matt Fowles is ‘to farm in nature's image’. The partnership with UNE was triggered by his observations that the vines and fruit in locations with microbat populations were thriving and healthier than those elsewhere on the property.

The UNE research is led by Dr Xenon Czenze and Dr Heidi Kolkert whose research had already established that bats play a vital role in pest control in New England vineyards. Fowles Wine has more than a dozen acoustic detectors arranged around the vineyard, a significant bat-monitoring system, and also has a partnership with Euroa Arboretum, with insectariums established to catch and monitor insect comings and goings. Not all insects are bad, and information on the good ones is also essential! All this is capped by attention to and encouragement of the native flora, from bordering bushlands and forests to grasses growing beneath the vines to cool the soil and roots.

We made only one submission in the last two months. This was in relation to a public hearing on a Ku-ring-gai Council Planning Proposal to change the classification of land at 1192 Pacific Highway, Pymble from community to operational.

This land is commonly known as the Secret Garden. It is a small block (974 m²) that contains several mature trees such as Blue Gums and Blackbutts. It is classified as Blue Gum High Forest, a critically endangered ecological community. About half the land is subject to easements for Sydney Water infrastructure. To get access one has to go down several steps that were installed for Sydney Water’s use. According to council the land is not suitable to be used as public open space.

The land itself is weed infested but could quite easily be regenerated with a native shrub layer. Apart from the steps the land is inaccessible with the railway line below and private land either side. On the northern side the apartment block residents benefit from the views over the forest in contrast to the heavy traffic of the Pacific Highway. On the southern side there is an old house that is ripe for redevelopment in line with the high density zoning.

Council argues that retaining the site as community land will be a continuing expense with little benefit to the community. If the land were to be classified as operational, council could sell the block. Its value would be realised if it could be amalgamated with the block next door and allow a larger apartment development of the old house using a floor space ratio combining both blocks. For this reason council has been keenly supporting the reclassification.

Land reclassification process

The land reclassification involves several stages. We won‘t go into the detail. The proposal has reached the stage of being considered by an independent commissioner. The commissioner has to consult affected agencies (eg Sydney Water and Transport NSW), invite public submissions and hold a public hearing. The commissioner then writes a report that is reviewed by council that then decides whether the proposal should go to the Department of Planning that will make the necessary amendment to the local environment plan.

Seventeen public submissions were received opposing the reclassification and one in favour.

Outcome of the consultation process

The commissioner’s report recommended that the proposal should not proceed for several reasons including:

• it would risk compromising Sydney Water’s access to these critical assets for maintenance;
• a development application or subdivision/ amalgamation could negatively impact the values of the site state heritage registered water reservoirs in nearby Telegraph Road (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
  _1_and_No._2);
• the majority of the site is mapped on the biodiversity values map, which identifies land with high biodiversity value that is particularly sensitive to impacts from development and clearing;
• the site assists with urban cooling in the vicinity due to shade from the mature trees which contributes to Ku-ring-gai’s urban tree canopy in the Urban Forest Strategy.

Commissioner’s recommendation

The commissioner recommended that the land remains in council’s ownership and as community land, and that it is ‘improved’ as a rest area and wild garden. This would ensure:

• the land is available to the whole community for informal recreation
• retention of the Sydney Water easements
• no structures are placed on the land
• the elements of the land that the local residents and community value, ie the leafy green outlook and wildlife habitat, would be retained
• minimal maintenance required by council because interested local residents could assist with maintenance

What happens next?

It is still up to council to decide whether the planning proposal for the reclassification should be submitted to the Department of Planning, but they have to consider the submissions and the commissioner’s report that concluded that it should be withdrawn.

The prolonged process of applications to redevelop the Lourdes Retirement Village in Stanhope Road, Lindfield (explained in (explained here) culminated in a Planning Panel hearing in December 2023. The panel rejected the proposal so the next stage was for the Minister for Planning to consider the panel’s recommendation.

It has now been announced that the minister has accepted the panel’s advice that the proposal was not appropriate because issues such as bushfire risk and ecological impacts had not been adequately addressed.

Nevertheless, the owner, Levande, still has the right to develop the land. The most telling evidence against the proposal came from Ku-ring-gai Council. The Department of Planning has acknowledged this by stating that any new proposal should only be developed in close collaboration with council to address the unacceptable risks.

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.