Mission Beach development update

Photo Ron Darlington- 19 May 12

Lot 11 SP171882 Explorer Drive,
Sth Mission Beach

There is a lot of concern, or to be more correct, disbelief being expressed by community members as they watch a hillside lot at South Mission Beach being developed.

The approval of an eight residential lot development within prime cassowary habitat has resuslted in the destruction of an important cassowary corridor at Mission Beach.  It was approved on all levels of government, the outcome being totally contrary to the promises in the application referred to the federal government environment department.  It highlights the lack of planning that allows this shocking, unacceptable practice to continue.

How the development approval system works (or not)

Local Government CCRC (JSC and CSC Planning Scheme)
Lot 11 is within the urban zone in the Cardwell Shire Council Planning Scheme.
It was 'code assessable' which means it did not go out for public  comment.
Originally the development was for 10 lots which, normally, if a subdivision was 10 or more lots it would be submitted to Council for discussion.  The Planning director gave this development the stamp of approval  on 22nd June 2008 without sending to Council for the public record.

Boundaries of lot 11 are outlined on the orange - Click map to enlarge

State Government  - Vegetation Management Act (VMA)
Although wholesale clearing of natural vegetation was halted through the development of the VMA in 1999, developments such as this one show how the Act continues to allow clearing of remnant vegetation and essential habitat.
  
Under the VMA, remnant vegetation is categorised by the percentage of that particular ecosystem that remains  in the entire Wet Tropics;                 

            'Endangered'(less then 10% ),
            'Of Concern' (betwen 10-30%) and,
            'Not of Concern' (30% or more).

If a species is listed as endangered under the State Nature Conservation Act it's habitat is mapped as essential habitat which must be taken into account when clearing permits are issued.  It states in the referred development application, the surrounding properties are zoned conservation with the vegetation on site described as 'of concern' essential habitat under the VMA.

The VMA does not apply to any lot smaller than 2000 sq metres nor land zoned urban for residential or industrial purposes so the state department concerned with clearing did not become involved in this decision process.  It is worth noting the purpose of the VMA is to regulate clearing of remnant vegetation, not protect it.

Federal Government  - The EPBC Act 
Landowners are obliged to refer any activity on their land that is likely to have an impact on a matter of national environmental significance (NES)  i e World Heritage or any species or ecosytem that has been listed as endangered. This development was referred to the federal government on Jan 2009 because of the impact it may have on  3.1(d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities, the site is identified as potentially containing habitat for 12 threatened terrestrial fauna species (matters of NES)including the endangered cassowary.  The development was approved with conditions on 24 May 2011.

click to enlarge

During the assessment process the numbers of house sites were reduced from 10 to 8 lots from the orginal Council approved development. The lots were  placed within the existing cleared areas.  (see photo left)

The subsequent reconfiguration of the development placed the house lots over the remaining patches of remnant vegetation between the cleared areas and added another large area at the entrance (now cleared) to be 'rehabilitated and landscaped'

The referral document reinforces the value of the vegetation in the following;

And here,the proponents claim minimal impact by maximising protection of the ecological values.

The Environment report recognised the importance of the vegetation on site to the endangered cassowary.   Despite the recognition, ludicrous statements and reasoning can be quoted from the report and approval conditions. 

There certainly appears to be some disparity between what the Act seeks to protect, and the outcome of the assessemnt process we are reminded by the Minister and his department, is "rigorous".

Explorer Drive entrance 19 April 2012

A more detailed account showing the change in reconfiguration is covered in this article  posted in June shortly after clearing began on the development site and during the confusion in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi. 'Cyclone clean up' has been mentioned in relation to the lack of action to the 'slightly' over zealous clearing but generally it looks as though the majority of clearing was undertaken with full approval of the federal environment department under the EPBC Act.

In the environment report, reputable scientists state the remnant vegetation patches are highly utilised by cassowaries and the lot is likely to be a good nesting and cyclone refuge area.  And yet they suggest it may be better for the cassowary if this vegetation was removed because the Cassowary Recovery Plan advises cassowary/people interaction poses potential harm to both people and this endangered species.

Photo Tracey Chamlin - 2 April 12

The outcome makes a joke of the process when prime cassowary habitat is allowed to be removed on condition native vegetation is reinstated at a later time.

The changes to the reconfiguration during the assessment process were confusing.  One would have to crutinise   every detail during the long process to be aware that they actually increased the impacts by included clearing of the high value patches of cassowary habitat both at the entrance and between the house lots.  It would be only natural to assume any changes during the process would be to reduce the impact of the development not increase it! 

There are countless volunteer hours spent in an attempt to inform the assessors of on ground information.  It is the responsibility of those in the hierarchy of the department to apply the so called 'rigorous assessment process' of the EPBC Act by being as well informed as possible to obtain the best possible outcome for mattters of NES.

The large public response to authorities about this clearing is being noted, with a rather sheepish response that no-one thought it would be so extensive.  With the Cassowary Coast Planning Scheme being developed now, the more Council hear from the public voicing their views about appropriate planning to protect land such as this, the more it will make a difference.

I think we have been well and truly hoodwinked and by professionals!   It is certainly worth bringing to the Minister's attention.  He will be reminded of his public announcement after the review of the EPBC Act that it is his intention to protect biodiversity by listing important habitat corridors as matters of NES giving cassowary corridors at Mission Beach as an example.

Liz Gallie

---