Posted on May 14, 2014 by Frances Tse
Is there still a role for biodiversity offsets in development assessment?
Biodiversity offsets are often proposed to address environmental impacts of development. However, a recent court decision indicates that when assessing proposed development, offsets are not to be preferred over avoidance and mitigation strategies. It is therefore worthwhile considering the role biodiversity offsets can still play.
In Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited [2013] NSWLEC 48, the Land and Environment Court held that the offset strategies proposed for a coal mine extension would not adequately compensate for its significant impact on some 66ha of an endangered ecological community. For this and other reasons, the extension of the Warkworth mine was not approved. The Court of Appeal in Warkworth Mining Ltd v Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc [2014] NSWCA 105 did not disturb this conclusion.
In finding that the offsets proposed were inappropriate, Preston CJ applied the ‘Principles for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW’ prepared by the Office of Environment and Heritage. The first principle states that offsets are the least preferred approach to biodiversity impacts behind avoidance and mitigation.
At first glance, it may seem that biodiversity offsets have little role to play. However, this is not the case. Biodiversity offsets can still have a significant and sometimes primary role to play where avoidance and mitigation strategies would not enable land to be developed in accordance with its zoning.
There is a general presumption that ‘in some form, development which is consistent with the zoning will be permitted‘ and ‘in most cases it can be expected that the court will approve an application to use a site for a purpose for which it is zoned, provided of course the design of the project results in acceptable environmental impacts’ (see BGP Properties Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council [2004] NSWLEC 399).
Indeed, the Land and Environment Court has in the past accepted that where prevention and mitigation strategies have been utilised as far as is possible on a development site, a proposal consistent with the zoning can be approved provided there are appropriate offsets (see Black v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2008] NSWLEC 1501).
In summary, if prevention and mitigation strategies have been considered and applied as far as possible in the particular circumstances, then offsets may well be appropriate. In fact, where it is not possible to prevent and mitigate, offsets may well be the primary tool to address the biodiversity impacts of development.
Leave a comment
in focus comments policy
LTL welcomes your feedback and comments on our posts. all comments, however, will be moderated and we reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason.
LTL in focus is primarily designed for public sector and development professionals dealing in the fields of planning, environment and government. you may, therefore, wish to consult your organisation’s social media policy before you post any comments. it should go without saying that we expect all comments to maintain a level of respect and professional courtesy.
In making a comment you are required to provide your email address, this will not be published on the site. if the moderator chooses to publish your comment, the name you provide will be published with your comment – it is your choice whether you provide your full name or just your first name. if you provide your full name, we may seek to verify your identity prior to publication of your first comment. If you wish your comment to be directed only to the author or moderator please make that clear – marking it NFP or Not For Publication is the easiest way. thank you for your support and happy reading – matthew mcnamara, ceo.