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.

When issues are identified, responses are regularly associated with additional approval requirements or permits. Over recent decades, additional and more stringent approval processes have been introduced, particularly with respect to environmental outcomes and impacts on waterways. This creates additional burdens for those seeking to undertake activities that they may see as a ‘right to farm’ and which has historically not required approvals.

Conversely, when activities are allowed to be undertaken without approval or regulation, the direct or cumulative impacts can be significant on the environment, neighbouring land holders or the broader community. Key elements that have been raised with respect to ‘red tape’ include:

o approvals across the flood plain to river catchments o land clearing and complexities of regulatory responsibilities

The responses to issues within this Report therefore seek to take a careful approach to no creating additional burdens whilst highlighting key concerns.

74 See Clause 7.1(7) in Clarence Valley LEP 2011

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 generally, but particularly within the floodplain. Despite specific provisions within Council’s LEP, which apply only to the sugarcane industry74, there are a number of other approvals and permits that may be required across other land (often publicly owned) – including Crown Lands, NPWS, DPI Fisheries and Native Title among others (typically for works between the private property boundary and the receiving waters). These can include approvals under or consideration of the following legislation as part of environmental assessments:

o Fisheries Management Act 1994 o Water Management Act 2000 o Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 o National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 o Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 o Clarence Valley LEP 2011

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

environmental impacts on water quality from issues such as acid sulfate soils.

Given the statutory nature of floodplain works, ongoing improvement and clarity around approvals and maintenance requires co-ordination and effective working relationships beyond Council. Having a dedicated ‘Sustainable Agricultural Officer’ (or similar) within Council (as recommended) may assist in providing this link in the future.

8.2 Land Clearing

Clearing of native vegetation is legislated by the Local Land Services Act 2013 and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. On land under rural zones, LLS assess and approve the clearing of native vegetation. Assessment is based on the purpose, nature, location and extent of the clearing. On land under environmental zones, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 applies. Council also has a role where it is considers development applications unless the associated clearing exceeds certain thresholds under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Where unauthorised land clearing has been undertaken, Council, LLS and/or DPIE’s Biodiversity Conservation Division (DPIE - BCD) may undertake investigations, with both reporting and surveillance measures being used to identify these instances. Within the region, particular concerns have been raised around the presence and activities associated with intensive plant agriculture, with DPIE - BCD identifying the Clarence Valley as a hotspot at the current time.

75See https://berries.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ABGA-Blueberry-Industry-Code-of-

Practice.pdf accessed 02.11.21 These instances and concerns are particularly problematic in that intensive plant agriculture / horticulture is permitted without consent and therefore not subject to initial planning approvals. Codes of practice / conduct have been introduced in some industries (e.g. berries75), and whilst these have improved previous practices, use and enforcement remains variable.

Issues of clearing and environmental impact are also apparent across other sensitive lands, including wetlands, where the quality of mapping is often a subject of concern. The presence of a range of vegetation protection mechanisms within the Clarence Valley also requires improved recognition, as previously identified in Issue 2.1. Land clearing has also become a focus of some non-government organisations, such as the Environmental Defenders Office and World Wildlife Fund who are working on improving legal mechanisms to preserve remaining native vegetation following the 2019/2020 bushfire season76 .

RELATED RURAL LANDS STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS

Note: the recommendation numbers relate to those presented in the Rural Land Strategy document for ease of reference.

Elevate the importance of rural lands within Council and the community

Recommendation 13: In conjunction with LSS and DPIE - BCD, continue to work with land holders to facilitate education and understanding of vegetation clearing requirements

76 Refer https://www.edo.org.au/2021/04/15/defending-the-unburnt-a-landmark-legal-initiative/ accessed 26.11.21

Collaborative cross-agency programs that target identified high risk areas or land use types with propensity for vegetation clearing and educate rural land owners is critical to addressing unauthorised vegetation removal.

Engage with government and industry to leverage support

Recommendation 21: Lobby government to seek options to reduce delays and costs associated with drainage, floodplain maintenance and approval requirements

It is recognised that approvals often involve multiple agencies and can incur lengthy time delays. Council will continue to seek to work with State agencies, where possible, to facilitate improvements in these processes to avoid time delays and uncertainty in investment and industry progression.