GASFIELD BUFFER ZONES FOR CAMDEN AND GLOUCESTER

Residents in the Camden and Gloucester areas have concerns about the proximity of coal seam gas wells to their homes.  Elsewhere in NSW most residential areas have 2 km buffer zones between them and gas wells.

 

In Camden there are gas wells within 200 metres of homes.  These wells were approved before the Government introduced the 2 km buffer zone in response to a long public campaign to keep wells away from residential areas.  Camden residents are concerned that cracks in walls and subsidence may be due to the proximity of the gasfield.

Their concerns about the gasfield increased on August 31^st when a well near Spring Farm homes leaked noisily for several hours forcing residents to call in the fire brigade.  AGL's comments following this incident are unlikely to have reassured local residents.

Last month the State Government gave AGL (the same company operating the Camden gasfield) permission to frack four gas wells less than a kilometre from homes.  (Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process for releasing gas trapped in rock.)

An independent hydrogeologist, Professor Philip Pells, has warned of the high risk of fracking at Gloucester.  AGL's own hydrogeologist , John Ross, has also commented on  the high risk associated with fracking in these four wells.  

There is a major risk of aquifer contamination. Gloucester's position at the head of the Manning River means that any contamination could cause problems for the river and the drinking water for 75,000 people.

The approval of these wells is inconsistent with Government buffer zone policy. Why have a policy that you disregard?

The Lock the Gate organisation is calling on the NSW Government to provide the same rights and protections for Camden and Gloucester residents that everyone else in the state has.  

They are urging the government to do three things.  The first is to suspend AGL's approval to frack at Gloucester and to review all CSG approvals there.  The second is to decommission all existing wells within 2 km of homes at AGL's Camden gasfield.  The third is to investigate and prosecute all pollution incidents at AGL's Camden gasfield.

            - Leonie Blain

This article was published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on Monday 8th September, 2014.

NSW GOVERNMENT'S LATEST PLANNING SYSTEM DECISIONS CONDEMNED

Late last year the NSW Government failed to have its controversial new planning system passed in the Upper House, the Legislative Council. The Government is now intending to by-pass the legislature in order to implement planning changes which favour developers and disempower the general community. The Better Planning Network , an affiliation of over 400 groups around the state, condemned this move in a media release published on 28th February.
 
“The O’Farrell Government has failed to convince either the Parliament or the community of the merit of its proposed planning laws and now they intend to introduce them by the back door without any public scrutiny,” said Better Planning Network’s Corinne Fisher.

This Government came to power on the back of its promise for a visionary planning system that would enable the State’s necessary growth, guard against corruption, provide greater certainty and transparency, return planning powers to local communities and ensure that community views are again heard and respected,” said Ms Fisher. “However, the Minister has failed to deliver on these promises.”

“This Minister initially emphasised his willingness to listen and to consult with the community so it is very disappointing to hear that he is going to press ahead using his Ministerial power to implement changes the public doesn’t want.”

Ms Fisher pointed out that the overwhelming majority of 5,000 submissions on the White Paper rejected the Minister’s proposed Code Assessment and fast tracking of development. “Under the weight of public opinion, the NSW Parliament (Upper House) rejected the proposed legislation,” she said.

“We urge the Minister not to crash through using his existing Ministerial powers. What is needed now is a return to the drawing board and a genuine attempt to accommodate the community as well as the developers.”

The Better Planning Network believes that a way forward in planning is desperately needed and will host a forum on different ways to achieve this in NSW. The forum will include presentations by respected professionals and academics.

“We extend an invitation to the Minister to attend and hope we can work together on a genuinely collaborative approach to planning which will provide a healthy community, economy and environment.”


The proposed new planning system was discussed in a number of CVCC posts in 2013 including NSW Planning Bill Amended in the Upper House  (27 November).

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND THE NSW GOVERNMENT

The recent bushfires in the Blue Mountains and other parts of NSW have highlighted a serious problem which is likely to become worse as climate change gathers momentum.

Governments and the general community will need to develop strategies to adapt to the diverse challenges thrown at them by climate change - challenges such as more frequent and more severe bushfires.  Obviously this should be seen by all levels of government as a high priority.

It is therefore very disappointing that the NSW Government, which has a responsibility to prepare NSW for a future where climate change is a major issue, has made severe cuts to areas of the public service which advise government on climate adaptation. (For details of the cuts, see a report in The Sydney Morning Herald )

In a TV interview on the same day as the  newspaper report the NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell stated that he was concerned about climate change and that his slashing of the public service positions did not mean that there would be no research into adaptation as the government was providing funding for universities to undertake reseach into adaptation.

Whether the decision to do away with the scientific positions was ideological or whether the Government believed universities  would provide adaptation advice more efficiently or more cheaply is uncertain.

The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition believes that the most effective way of ensuring that timely information on climate adaptation is delivered across the range of government departments which need this information for future planning is by way of scientists employed by the state rather than through a hodge-podge of state-funded research programs in universities.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO NSW MINING LEGISLATION

The NSW Government is proposing to amend the State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) dealing with mining, petroleum production and extractive industries.

 

This appears to have been in response to the recent court victory of the Hunter Valley's Bulga community which opposed the expansion of an open-cut coal mine by mining giant Rio Tinto.

The decision in favour of the Bulga community is being challenged in court by both the mining company and the Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard.  Until the appeal is decided, the  Bulga community will have a further wait to learn if their community is to be saved from the open cut mine expansion.

The legislative changes, which will prevent another Bulga-type legal challenge, are in amendments to the State Environment Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries). The proposed changes were recently on public exhibition – for a mere fortnight (29 July – 12 August). The brief exhibition period indicates that the Government was not particularly interested in having extensive input from the general community - and it is the general community which is likely to suffer if the proposed amendment is legislated.

Under the proposed changes the “significance” of the “resource” to the economy becomes the central consideration in the approvals process.  This will mean that other factors of importance to the general community – the people the government is supposed to represent – will be downgraded.  Impacts on local communities’ amenity, their health and the natural environment will be relegated to minor considerations.

It also suggests that the NSW Government's measures to placate those in the community who are concerned about gas mining (CSG and other forms of gas mining) may be rendered null and void by this change.  For example will this change over-ride the decision to have a two kilometre buffer zone between CSG wells and residential areas?

The general community throughout NSW has already put the government on notice about its cosiness with the mining industry.  In the NSW Northern Rivers this has been notable in relation to coal seam gas mining.  The proposal to amend the mining SEPP seems to indicate that the government is either unaware of or indifferent to what the community expects in relation to an even-handed and fair approach to mining development proposals. 

CLARENCE VALLEY RESIDENT'S CRITICISM OF NSW GOVERNMENT PEST ERADICATION SCHEME

Incensed by the letter from NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker and Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson about the Government's new plans for using recreational hunters for "pest eradication" in National Parks, a Clarence Valley Resident emailed this response to the ministers.

Note:  The Ministers' letter was the subject of the previous CVCC post  Plans for Hunting in NSW National Parks Changed dated 18 July, 2013. 

 * * * * *

Who do you think you’re kidding?

Allowing red neck shooters into National Parks (which are intended as safe havens for wildlife and for recreation/leisure for humans) is hardly what I’d call “supplementary pest control”.

More to the point would be to have an efficient LHPA [ Livestock Health and Pest Authority] that has sufficient staff to deal with pest species on private properties.  As it stands our local LHPA has 2 rangers to look after the entire Clarence Valley plus Dorrigo.  You must be joking!!

In my area alone (radius of 5 km) in the past 2 years, wild dogs have killed/injured in excess of 50 head of sheep/goats/alpaca; almost 40 head of poultry; killed 2 pet dogs; attacked 5 pet dogs; and threatened 1 person – and that’s just the ones I know of.  And of course, there is no way of calculating the number of wildlife that have been killed.  There are 2 packs of wild dogs operating in my area that I know of.  That’s a lot of wildlife and domestic stock needed to provide them with regular food.

After living on my property for 35 years and walking my dogs through the bush all that time, I now have to pack my 2 German Shepherd Dogs into my car and drive 10 km to walk my dogs safely along a walking track on the edge of town.  Just exactly what do we pay our LHPA rates for?

Get serious.  If all these shooters need somewhere to go to shoot, get them to help farmers, etc eradicate pest species on their properties and leave National Parks for the benefit of wildlife and the public.

Just don’t think I’m going to believe the rubbish about “supplementary pest control” in National Parks.  When you get serious about eradicating pest species, I’ll be interested.

PLANS FOR HUNTING IN NSW NATIONAL PARKS CHANGED

Background

In May 2012 the NSW Government of Premier Barry O'Farrell announced it would be allowing recreational hunting in 34 of the state's National Parks, 31 Nature Reserves and 14 State Conservation Reserves. (The CVCC's initial comments on the proposal in an earlier post.)

The Premier's backflip from his pre-election promise that his government would not allow recreational hunting in the state's national parks system was part of a deal to get the minority Shooters and Fishers Party members (Robert Brown and Robert Borsak) in the Legislative Council to support further electricity privatisation.  The Government's spin machine claimed this would be a win for the national parks system because it would make much more effective the eradication of pest species such as foxes and pigs in the parks.

Implementation Difficulties

Those who value the state's reserve system were outraged by the sleazy deal and have since campaigned vigorously to have it overturned.  In addition to this opposition the government has been beset by a number of problems in trying to implement their deal.  There have been studies clearly expressing concerns about public safety and the safety of park workers and the NSW Game Council came under investigation for governance issues.

Dunn Report on NSW Game Council

The report on the review of the Game Council ( Dunn Review Report ) was so damning that the NSW Government has declared it will implement the report's key recommendations.  These are:

    Disband the Game Council
    Transfer the regulatory, enforcement, education, policy and licensing functions to the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI); and
    Establish an advisory Game Board that will undertake stakeholder engagement and advocacy.

Furthermore, it has suspended hunting in all 400 State Forests and on Crown Lands pending the transfer of functions to the DPI and the outcome of a risk assessment.

Just how effective the DPI will be in ensuring that hunting on community land is conducted according to the rules remains to be seen.

The New Hunting Plan

In addition to the changes outlined above the Government has recently announced a revised plan for allowing recreational hunters in national parks.  There's a new name for the hunting deal – Supplementary Pest Control.  In a letter sent out to those who have written to or emailed the Government about their concerns,  Environment Minister Robyn Parker and Primary Minister Katrina Hodgkinson have outlined the scheme to have "volunteer" hunters assisting National Parks staff in pest eradication activities in a trial in 12 parks and reserves beginning in October. According to these ministers the new program follows "a rigorous risk assessment process and expert advice" and will give the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) "additional volunteer resources to ensure pest animals are removed from the landscape".

Details of the plan as described in the Ministers' letter are below.

The program will operate under the strictest controls in Australia:

·         The program will be regulated and managed by NPWS.

·         To participate, volunteers will need to have the equivalent skill, experience and accreditation of our professional NPWS staff and contractors.

·         All pest control activities will be scheduled and carefully managed by NPWS.

·         All pest control activities will be announced in advance. NPWS will provide notification four weeks in advance and final confirmation to park neighbours and the public a minimum of 48 hours ahead of any activities.

·         Areas will be closed to visitors on the days of these pest control activities, with appropriate signage and road closures in place.

·         No person under 18 will be allowed to participate.

·         Bows and black powder muskets will be banned.

·         The program will not occur during school holidays.

·         The program will not occur in metropolitan parks and wilderness or World Heritage areas.

Eventually the program may be made available in up to 75 parks and reserves – less than 10 per cent of the total number within NSW. The majority of these parks will be in the State’s west where ground shooting is routinely undertaken for pest control on both public and private property.

(Extract from form letter from Robyn Parker, MP, Minister for the Environment and Katrina Hodgkinson MP, Minister for Primary Industries, dated 12 July 2013.)

A Few Comments

While this is certainly an improvement on the Government's initial "open slather" approach to giving the Shooters and Fishers everything they wanted, there are still serious concerns. 

    How thorough will the accreditation process be?
    Will the NPWS be adequately funded to operate the program without its management impacting on other NPWS activities and responsibilities?
     Which parks/reserves will be involved in the trial?
     How long will the trial run?
     How transparent will the review of the trial be?  It is significant that there is no reference to the program being abandoned and recreational hunters being denied access to the National Parks Estate if the review indicates there are serious problems with the program.