Media release
 
>From Sylvia Hale, Greens spokesperson for Planning
 
6 August 2010   – For immediate use
 
Catherine Hill Bay plan a fix for Labor mates
 
The Greens have slammed the new draft State Environmental Planning
Policy (SEPP) for the South Wallarah Peninsula at Catherine Hill Bay.
 
“When the Land and Environment Court threw out the original development
application for Catherine Hill Bay by Rose Property Group and others and
described the proposal as being based on a ‘land bribe’, the Government
should have listened to the community and abandoned the massive
development of the area,” said Sylvia Hale MLC, Greens spokesperson for
Planning.
 
“Sadly, the Government has taken the expected route of sticking up for
its donor mates by supporting an expanded version the original proposal
and proposing a SEPP that allows developers to maximise building on the
site.
 
“This is simply a disgrace.
 
“The Greens welcome the proposal to give Catherine Hill Bay and Middle
camp villages the highest level of heritage protection. This is a great
victory for hard working local residents who have campaigned tirelessly
in opposition to the Rose Group’s plans to develop the area.
 
“But that protection is little more than spin when Government then
moves to support development to the south and west of the village.
 
“The Government’s proposing to overturn the existing coastal
protection SEPP to allow for significant development of the headland is
an appalling precedent and one that will irrevocably detract from the
heritage significance and ambience of the area.
 
“The proposal to add significant low density residential development to
Catherine Hill Bay and nearby Gwandalan and Nords Wharf is deeply flawed
and unsustainable.
 
“Coal and Allied (C&A), the promoter of the Gwandalan and Nords Wharf
developments, has produced glossy environmental assessment statements
suggesting that its developments will have little impact on the
environment. But even these assessments admit that Nords Wharf would be
subject to bushfire threat and that there are few employment
opportunities in the area, little public infrastructure, and an almost
total reliance on private motor vehicles for transport.
 
“The Government must prohibit more sprawl, wherever it occurs, and end
its culture of writing planning documents in the interests of its donor
mates.
 
“This announcement is the latest in a series of decisions that degrade
the environment and trash good planning, simply to ensure generous Labor
donors and mates get what they want.
 
“I have no doubt the community will view the Government’s action with
the contempt it richly deserve,” said Ms Hale.
 
 
Contact: Colin Hesse on 02 9230 3030 or 0401 719 124
—
Another message from the Greens Media mailing list.

Alzheimer’s Australia chief executive Glenn Rees says the peak body commissioned the report to help steer future health planning.

“The key things that it has found are that by 2050 there will be a shortfall in aged care places – both community care places and residential care places – of about 280,000 places,” he said.

“What that means in simple terms is that we would have to double the increase in the supply of community care packages and residential care packages every year for the next 40 years.”

The report points to a huge increase in the number of people predicted to have dementia in 40 years time, which means an increased need not only for aged care places, but the services that these people will need.

“This report finds that by 2050 the numbers of people with dementia will be about 1 million. That is an increase of four-fold from today’s numbers,” Mr Rees said.

The peak body says the current basis for planning for Australia’s aged population is to look at the number of people who will be more than 70 years old.

Mr Rees says this system does not work, and it needs to be either pegged to the growth in dementia or the number of Australians who will be more than 85 years old.

The results of the study will be presented to the Productivity Commission inquiry into aged care.

Mr Rees says so far the Federal Government and the Opposition have focused on moving money around for short-term gain, and much bigger commitments to reform and funding are needed.

“There is no real indication in what has been said in this election that either major party understands the extent of the reforms needed in aged care,” he said.

Aged care provider Bupa Care Services’ managing director, Paul Gregerson, says the study’s findings will add to the anxieties of ageing Australians.

His company conducted a survey of 1,200 people over the age of 50 to find out what Australians worry about as they are getting older.

“One of the significant things that we found was that people worry more about dementia now than they do about stroke and heart disease,” he said.

“We found that cancer is the thing that Australians worry most about. The second most thing that they worry about is dementia and losing their mental independence.”

Tags: community-and-society, aged-care, health, disabilities, healthcare-facilities, mental-health, older-people, health-policy, australia

Ecuador offers to leave rainforest oil in the ground for $3.6 billion

Ecologist

5th August, 2010

Ecuador seeks $3.6 billion from international donors to protect species-rich rainforest reserve from oil exploration

Ecuador has signed a groundbreaking agreement with the United Nations to forgo oil exploration in Yasuni National Park – believed to be one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth.

Germany has already pledged $838 million; Spain, Sweden, France and Switzerland are also expected to make significant contributions.

But Ecuador says it will need a total of $3.6 billion to guarantee that the one million-hectare rainforest reserve will remain untouched for a decade. The figure amounts to half of the revenue that could be generated from extracting the 850 million barrels of oil that lie beneath the reserve, which would release millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The agreement represents a victory for local indigenous people who have fiercely resisted development in the region for decades.

Environmental groups have welcomed the scheme, saying it is a good alternative to carbon offsetting initiatives, of which some environmentalists remain sceptical.

If successful, the proposal could represent the future of biodiversity protection and climate mitigation. ‘Not only could it pave the way for interesting initiatives to keep fossil fuels in the ground, there could be similar initiatives or moratoria – on logging and sustainable forest conservation, for example,’ said Joseph Zacuni, International Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International’s Climate, Justice and Energy Programme.

But the scheme can only work, warned Sarah Shoraka, Biodiversity Campaigner for Greenpeace UK, ‘if protection is permanent, local people are actively involved and the carbon savings are additional to any emissions cuts that donor countries make at home.’

Last week the government touted the heritage protection given to parts of the town as a decision aimed at quelling opposition to the development.

Now it has emerged that the state environment planning policy No. 71, which overrides all coastal planning controls to ensure public access to beaches, limits to overshadowing and ensuring the scenic quality of the coast, will not apply to the proposed development.

In the environmental planning policy put forward for Catherine Hill Bay, it is stated that neither state environmental planning policy No. 1, which relates to development standards, or No. 71, which relates to coastal protection, will apply.

The proposed development has been mired in controversy, with the Land and Environment Court rejecting the initial plans last year due to a claimed unlawful land swap by Rosecorp for as many as 800 dwellings at Catherine Hill Bay.

”It means the developer can build on the headland and right on Moonee beach,” Sue Whyte, a resident, said.

”We’re terribly upset about it. An approval would exceed the plans approved originally by [the former planning minister] Frank Sartor. This is paving the way for an outrageous development.”

The opposition planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, said the government ”appears to be falling over itself to steamroll” coastal protection planning policy. ”The question has to be asked: why? The draft SEPP for the development purports to switch off the SEPP 71 coastal protection,” he said.

”Despite the fact that this policy cannot be switched off, since SEPP 71 incorporates … all future legislation and policies … At best, perhaps it is sloppy drafting. At worst, it would appear state Labor has some very questionable intent to switch off what everybody has said is a good policy to protect our coast.”

A spokesman for the Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, said the state environmental planning policy drawn up for the Catherine Hill Bay development was stronger than SEPP 71 and provided greater protection.

”The proposed SEPP includes specific provisions relating to development in coastal areas, which deliver stronger coastal protection outcomes than SEPP 71,” he said.

”Similarly, the proposed SEPP also does retain the key elements of SEPP 1 … These changes are in line with a Department of Planning policy to make planning instruments easier to understand, by including relevant planning provisions applying to the land within the one instrument.”

There are also concerns the government may be seeking to expedite development approvals.

”The problem with the government’s approach is worse than it first appears, since they’re dealing with the rezoning even before the development application has been lodged,” one source who has analysed the proposal said.