10 July 2018
7 min read
The biodiversity conservation reforms introduced sweeping changes to the NSW planning system and have significantly altered the way in which biodiversity is assessed, managed and offset. The reform package introduced a raft of new statutory instruments, including:
This new legislation had the effect of repealing and replacing previous biodiversity legislation, including the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, the Native Vegetation Act 2003, and parts of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
While the reforms commenced back on 25 August 2017, the effects of these changes are only now being felt, particularly having regard to extensive savings and transitional provisions.
In the recent decision in Kate Singleton Pty Ltd ACN 106 774 001 and S J Connelly CCP Pty Ltd ACN 125 970 783 (trading as Planners North ABN 56 291 496 553) v Ballina Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1306 (Planners North), the Land and Environment Court (Court) rejected a council’s attempt to impose a condition of consent requiring a biodiversity stewardship agreement (BSA) to be entered into in relation to land that was the subject of a development application.
The case raises a number of important matters that should be considered, particularly when navigating this transitional phase of the reforms and also when considering the appropriateness of any requirements for permanent conservation measures during the DA process.
The main point of contention at the hearing was Council’s proposed condition which required that a BSA be entered into in relation to each of three lots within the proposed residential development.
The applicant argued that the obligation to enter into a BSA was unreasonable, and that the condition should be deleted, because:
The respondent council submitted that the condition should be retained because:
The Court upheld the appeal and rejected the proposed condition. Importantly, it noted that the appeal had been lodged prior to the commencement of the BC Act on 25 August 2017, and thus under the Savings Regulation the BC Act did not apply. The Court also accepted that a BSA is a voluntary mechanism, and the applicant could not be required to enter into one in order to comply with the DCP or the TSC Act. Moreover, there was no certainty that the Office of Environment & Heritage would agree to enter into a BSA on the site. Without greater certainty, the Court considered that the inclusion of such a condition would not be appropriate in any approval.
The case raises a number of important matters, including a consideration of what is a BSA and the requirements under the BC Act governing a BSA.
The Biodiversity Offset Scheme
One of the key aspects of the BC Act is the establishment of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS). Where a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species, the BC Act provides that the BOS will apply.
Put simply, the BOS is a system for offsetting the impacts associated with development or clearing through the purchase and retirement of ‘biodiversity credits’. The BC Act sets out when the BOS applies and the assessment requirements for various developments. The credits are generated by people who have entered into BSA establishing a biodiversity stewardship site (stewardship site) on their land.
What are BSAs?
Similar to a biobanking agreement under the previous TSC Act, a BSA is an agreement between a landholder and the Minister for Environment, whereby the landholder must carry out certain ‘management actions’ at a site which are funded by payments to a Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund.
As a result of undertaking these management actions, landholders are able to generate and sell credits to developers who are required to purchase and retire credits to offset the impact of their development under the BOS. These credits essentially represent the improvement to biodiversity resulting from the protection and management of the site.
However, a BSA cannot be entered into with respect to any land, and there are requirements that must be satisfied before a stewardship site can be established on this land, as set out below. Furthermore, the costs and implications of entering into a BSA are not negligible and, therefore, a landowner should seek detailed advice prior to deciding to enter into a BSA.
Eligibility criteria
Section 5.5 of the BC Act states that:
(1) The Minister may enter into an agreement relating to land with all the owners of the land for the purpose of establishing a biodiversity stewardship site (a biodiversity stewardship agreement).
(2) A biodiversity stewardship agreement may designate any eligible land to which the agreement relates to be a biodiversity stewardship site for the purposes of this Act.
(3) The Minister must consult with the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy before entering into any biodiversity stewardship agreement.
This section of the BC Act is extracted to emphasise that BSAs are voluntary agreements which may only be entered into with respect to eligible land.
In addition, a site cannot be a stewardship site if the Minister is of the opinion that, for example:
(a) the proposed used of the land is inconsistent with biodiversity conservation;
(b) the proposed use will prevent relevant management actions from being carried out; or
(c) the owner of the land is already under a legal obligation to carry out biodiversity conservation measures.
Ministerial discretion
Section 5.9 of the BC Act outlines certain requirements which must be satisfied before the Minister is permitted to enter into a BSA. This includes, for example, that all landowners must be party to the agreement, all mortgagees and tenants/lessees must consent to the agreement.
The Minister may also decline to enter into a BSA for a range of reasons, including where:
Accordingly, as the Court highlighted in Planners North, numerous factors need to be considered before a condition requiring a BSA to be entered into is imposed.
For example:
While BSAs might be used as a form of a permanent conservation measure, detailed advice should be first obtained, including a consideration of whether a BSA can in fact be entered into. Other ways of securing permanent conservation outcomes might be more appropriate, depending on the circumstances.
Should you require any assistance in understanding the BOS and the BC Act, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Authors: Breellen Warry & Georgia Appleby
Contact:
Sydney
Breellen Warry, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0420
E: breellen.warry@holdingredlich.com
Disclaimer
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this newsletter is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.