Issue 8: Addressing red tape Concerns regarding the processes of approvals and regulation around undertaking of land use activities are frequent across almost all forms of land use planning – and rural lands activities is no different.
8.1
Floodplain agriculture permits
There are a range of approval authorities and legislative requirements that are required to facilitate the operation of agricultural enterprises
When issues are identified, responses are regularly associated with
generally, but particularly within the floodplain. Despite specific
additional approval requirements or permits. Over recent decades,
provisions within Council’s LEP, which apply only to the sugarcane
additional and more stringent approval processes have been
industry74, there are a number of other approvals and permits that
introduced, particularly with respect to environmental outcomes and
may be required across other land (often publicly owned) – including
impacts on waterways. This creates additional burdens for those
Crown Lands, NPWS, DPI Fisheries and Native Title among others
seeking to undertake activities that they may see as a ‘right to farm’
(typically for works between the private property boundary and the
and which has historically not required approvals.
receiving waters). These can include approvals under or consideration
Conversely, when activities are allowed to be undertaken without
of the following legislation as part of environmental assessments:
approval or regulation, the direct or cumulative impacts can be
o
Fisheries Management Act 1994
significant on the environment, neighbouring land holders or the
o
Water Management Act 2000
broader community. Key elements that have been raised with respect
o
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
to ‘red tape’ include:
o
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Clarence Valley LEP 2011
o
approvals across the flood plain to river catchments
o
o
land clearing and complexities of regulatory responsibilities
o
The responses to issues within this Report therefore seek to take a careful approach to no creating additional burdens whilst highlighting key concerns.
This complex web of approvals is somewhat offset by annual and ongoing permits that are provided for works on drains, but continues to be further complicated by funding restrictions and priorities (see Issue 7.2 for more details). There is also a real or perceived concern around conflicts between agency views about agriculture on the floodplain, which is identified prime agricultural land, versus the
74
See Clause 7.1(7) in Clarence Valley LEP 2011
Clarence Valley Council Rural Lands Strategy – Background Paper
Page | 93
