Mr IAN COHEN [5.29 p.m.]: Kings Forest is a development site that is located in the coastal Tweed Shire in the far north-eastern part of the State. Its area is approximately 880 hectares and it contains a diversity of coastal sand plain habitats ranging from paperbark and swamp mahogany forests to scribbly gum, wallum, banksia and littoral rainforests, with cleared grazing land lying to the west of the site. Residential development planning for Kings Forest has been highly controversial because its natural habitats in the northern, southern and eastern parts are of extremely high conservation significance. Development of these habitats not only will result in a major loss of biodiversity but also will severely impact on adjacent habitats of high conservation significance, and will particularly affect the biodiversity of the Cudgen Nature Reserve.

The Cudgen Nature Reserve borders on Kings Forest to the east and south. The south-eastern section of Kings Forest, which is known as the Cudgen Paddock, links the nature reserve with high conservation value habitats to the north, south and west. Interestingly the debate concerning Kings Forest encompasses a broader story than a conflict between conservation objectives and large-scale residential development. Development planning and environmental management in Kings Forest constitute a tale of two departments that are engaged in what could be termed a skirmish behind bureaucracy walls. The interdepartmental stoush originated in a handwritten note that was marked "not for file", the existence of which was denied by the former Minister for the Environment. Curiously, it appeared following a freedom of information request.

In 2006 the then Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] provided the Department of Planning with clear advice on the conservation values of Kings Forest, including the crucial importance of Cudgen Paddock. The views of the Department of Environment and Conservation were confirmed and supported by the reports of three independent ecological experts. When the Department of Planning commissioned independent planning reviews that were conducted by the Planning Workshop and the Snowy Mountains Electricity Commission, the reports were suppressed by the Department of Planning. The difference of opinion between the two departments escalated in January 2006. The then Department of Environment and Conservation had become extremely disappointed by the Department of Planning's position on Kings Forest and the draft local environmental plan No. 20.

The Department of Environment and Conservation formed the opinion that habitats in Kings Forest were crucial for the ongoing viability of local populations of two threatened fauna species, the koala and the long-nosed potoroo. Both populations were, and continue to be, under extreme pressure from agricultural practices on the site and from adjacent development. The Department of Planning's perspective, as stated in a letter dated 9 January 2006 from the acting executive officer of the Department of Planning, Yolanda Stone, is that "the Department does not consider that the ecological values of Kings Forest, in particular in Cudgen Paddock, preclude ecologically sympathetic urban development". An internal letter dated 31 January 2006 from Joe Woodward, who was the executive director of the Department of Environment and Conservation's environment protection regulation division, to Yolanda Stone clearly states:

The DEC is of the view that to ensure the long-term survival of the species, in particular the Koala, the Long-nosed Potoroo and the Wallum Froglet, the southern and north-eastern portions of Kings Forest would need to be conserved under an appropriate environmental protection zone. Such an outcome would also contribute to the conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The DoP's position, as advised to Project 28, achieves considerably less than the DEC's recommendation.

The conflict is astonishing between the departments, as is the refusal of the Department of Planning to follow basic ecological and scientific principles. The Department of Environment and Conservation has told the Department of Planning that Project 28's development proposal will sever the link between key habitats and will significantly reduce the long-term viability of the Cudgen Nature Reserve. It will result in the loss of local populations of a number of threatened species—a process that inevitably leads to extinction. The Department of Planning is ignoring the advice of respected ecological consultants and the New South Wales Government's key environmental agency. To well and truly eliminate any remnants of the Department of Environment and Conservation's protests, Project 28 called on Minister Sartor personally. It is noted that in an email exchange dated 24 January 2006 between senior officers of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Bob Ell of Project 28 asked that the Minister call in Kings Forest under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Clearly Project 28 conceded that the then Minister would be more sympathetic to its development proposal than was the local council or the then Department of Environment and Conservation.

The current Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and local conservation groups have never maintained that Kings Forest should not be developed responsibly. The western part of the site, which is elevated and largely surrounded by farmland, is eminently suitable for development from a number of perspectives. However, the small patches of vegetation that are proposed to be retained among development in the west of the site under the current concept approval cannot be compared with conservation of large contiguous patches of vegetation to the north and east, especially Cudgen Paddock. This is a basic tenet of the theory of landscape conservation, and a refusal to adopt that approach ignores the detrimental effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation. The biodiversity conservation values of the northern, southern and eastern portions of the site, particularly Cudgen Paddock, are too great to allow development in these areas.