What is special about this urban bushland site?

• a range of other rare and endangered bushland, including Castlereagh, grey box and paperbark swamp woodlands, river flat forest, small wetlands and sedgelands;

• a transition forest between shale and sandy alluvium soils, with national and regional threatened species;

• a highly diverse native fauna including 110 bird species, 9 mammal, 10 reptile, 8 frog species including the threatened green and golden bell frog, and over 40 species of jewel beetles; and

• the only emus and kangaroos in the wild in the Sydney area (though these were introduced).

It is also an important part of a habitat corridor to other Cumberland Plain woodland fragments and other bushland communities. It contains a significant number of Aboriginal archaeological sites.

Through its Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey: Stage 1 Western Sydney (1997), the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) reinforced the importance of any native vegetation remnants on the Cumberland Plain. The report noted that it is one of the most poorly conserved and most threatened areas in the State: "95% of the native vegetation has been destroyed and approximately 0.15% of what remains is reserved in NPWS estate". The ADI site is listed as one of the "Core biodiversity areas in western Sydney" for this vegetation.

Much of the site has been listed by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) on the Register of the National Estate for its conservation value, its links to adjoining areas of threatened native bushland and for protection of threatened communities and species, in addition to its Aboriginal heritage value. The site has also been listed on the Register of the National Trust.

The site fulfils an urgent need for a significant area to be set aside for nature and passive recreation in the west and north-west of Sydney, which by 2021 is predicted to have a population of 665,700.

It is interesting to note that in 1973/74 the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) approached the Whitlam Government with the idea of a joint housing venture between the ACTU and Lend Lease. The Government rejected this on environmental grounds and planning deficiencies, thanks to the wisdom and integrity of Minister Tom Uren. However, in 1994 another ALP Government entered into an agreement with Lend Lease, the details of which remain a secret despite freedom of information applications.

It is clear that, throughout the planning process, both governments and the bureaucracies have had a mind set of development for the site, no doubt with encouragement from Lend Lease. The "No development option" is never canvassed; the only authority to adopt this option has been Penrith City Council.

In the Conclusion of its March 1997 submission to Government the Council stated: "… the ADI site represents a unique environmental and social asset that currently rests in public ownership. Current plans for the sale and development of the site place the conservation of these assets at jeopardy. If the opportunity to conserve these assets is not taken now, the opportunity will be lost for all time."

Penrith Council was seeking the Federal Government’s support for the entire site’s dedication as a regional park as a gesture for the anniversary of Federation. A little later, the Council made an application for a grant under federal funding. This application is still on the table, although the Council changed its position in February 2000, due to the Federal Government’s perceived intransigence about selling this public land.

It is worth noting that the same Government appeared equally adamant about selling some prime parts of public land vacated by Defence on Sydney Harbour foreshores in 1997/98. Community pressure and an election changed this. In a submission to a subsequent Senate Committee, NPA referred to the Fraser/Wran agreement of 1978/79, in which several areas throughout the Sydney area were transferred both to and from the State for nominal sums; most of Sydney Harbour NP owes its origin to this agreement. Furthermore, the agreement included an undertaking that as future defence lands were vacated they would be returned to NSW.

This cooperative statesmanlike approach, recognising that these are public lands, has now given way to short-term economics, which plays into the hands of the corporate developers with the community paying for long-term environmental and social losses.

The Lend Lease master plan of mid-1996 paid little heed to studies by Kinhill, which identified high conservation areas of the site and recommended 1,100 ha be conserved and managed as a biodiversity zone. A token 300 ha conservation area was included in the Lend Lease plan, mainly in the wetlands and floodplain unsuitable for housing.

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, concerned about environmental and other issues, convened a Section 22 committee in late 1996 including Penrith and Blacktown councils, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) and NPWS. The Committee commissioned Gunninah to assess the conservation value of the vegetation. The Committee's recommendations in August 1997 included 660 ha for a conservation area (see map top of page).

Also in 1997, the AHC prepared an interim listing which was for over 1,100 ha (see map to right) but an objection was raised by Lend Lease. The AHC then commissioned a study by Perkins to assess the areas in dispute, in particular the west of the site. Perkins found that this part, although extensively cleared, is essentially Cumberland Plain woodland and can be recovered given an appropriate mitigation strategy. This finding was based on a more thorough survey which included a full representative sample of quadrats, compared to Gunninah's survey which covered very few quadrats in the area. In spite of these findings, the AHC's final listed area in October 1999 was reduced to about 800 ha, leaving out most of the western sector due to legislative limitations.

DUAP and NPWS also prepared a report, in April 1999, for the ADI Joint Steering Committee, Review of AHC listing. NPWS officers who visited the site considered, "that the current proposed regional park boundary should remain as it currently stands ... [it] has been reached by re-applying the conservation criteria utilised by both the original Section 22 committee and the current Joint Steering Committee ... to identify a conservation outcome for the site." These findings ignore the thrust of the NPWS’ own 1997 Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey.

The Draft Sydney Regional Environment Plan (DSREP) issued by DUAP in December 1999 closely followed the Section 22 boundaries leaving only 630 ha for a regional park, ignoring Perkins’ findings and even ignoring the now reduced AHC-listed area. It includes provision for 8,000 houses, industrial areas and community centres, with their attendant pressures on the conservation area.

The Penrith Council submission of March 2000, addressing the DSREP, pointed out that the Perkins report indicated that the information on which the Section 22 conservation zone was determined was incomplete. The Council further pointed out that one of the guidelines developed for the Section 22 committee to cover biodiversity, threatened species and ecological communities specifically stated: "ideally, all extant remnants of Cumberland Plain Woodland and Castlereagh Woodland communities should be preserved and protected". The Perkins survey clearly shows that the boundaries in the DSREP do not meet these guidelines. Penrith Council have also expressed their concern that the proposed boundaries of the regional park do not include some 178 ha of the AHC-listed area in their part of the site.

A report by Michael Doherty (March 2000) of the CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology Unit found that Gunninah's methodology may be appropriate for a large region but is inappropriate for the ADI site. Doherty described how Gunninah picked out the largest or richest patches of the threatened flora and compared one with another in an attempt to show that these are representative of the vegetation. Since the Cumberland Plain vegetation is reduced to tiny disturbed patches, all patches become significant – it is the sum total that is important.

Doherty commented on Gunninah’s dismissive reference to the fact that most of the site is post-1947 regeneration. This actually reinforces the value of the western sector as having good rehabilitation potential even without human intervention. Clearly the CSIRO critique leads to the conclusion that the very basis for the Section 22 boundaries is fundamentally flawed and must be reviewed.

Moreover, the convoluted conservation area of the DSREP interwoven amongst the developed areas would not be sustainable due to urban runoff, pressure from vehicles, rubbish dumping, domestic animal intrusion, exotic plant species and weeds. Thus this precious remnant of threatened Cumberland Plain vegetation would eventually be lost.

The Draft SREP attracted 890 submissions against the plan – such as form letters, original letters and group submissions, including those from NPA and the ADI Residents Action Group (ADI RAG). Only eight business groups and 33 individuals supported the plan. Submissions closed in March 2000.

In view of the predominance of submissions against the Draft Plan, and the reports from national experts such as Ian Perkins and Michael Doherty, one could reasonably expect that the Plan would be abandoned or at least be substantially modified.

It is almost beyond belief that the conservation area in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 30 announced by the Minister on 19 January 2001 follows very closely that proposed in the Draft SREP.

NPWS are still preparing a Recovery Plan for the Cumberland Plain. In view of their recent cavalier approach to one of the largest remnants on the ADI site, one wonders what substance this may have.

Penrith Council has stated that it does not need this site to fulfil its future housing requirements. Blacktown Council, whilst being generally silent, have not shown any enthusiasm for the site to meet housing needs. So why is the State Government citing this reason to justify its rejection of sound expert independent conservation advice?

NPA believes the entire site must be protected as a regional park. ADI RAG are to be congratulated for their persistence. They organised a rally on 1 April which was attended by 1,200 people, most of whom wrote letters to politicians. An overwhelming community response is essential leading up to the Federal election this year.

• Volunteer to help the campaign
• Write letters to politicians

Federal Government: Jackie Kelly, Member for Lindsay, PO Box 712, Penrith 2750. Roger Price, Member for Chifley, Shop 3, Daniel Thomas Plaza, Mount Druitt 2770. Prime Minister John Howard and Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill; both at Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

State Government: Premier Bob Carr, Minister for Environment Bob Debus, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning Dr Andrew Refshauge; all at Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney 2000

• Write to Lend Lease opposing their plans to destroy

Cumberland Plain woodland: Level 46, Australia Square Tower, George St, Sydney 2000

Useful contacts:

• NPA Sydney Branch – Peter Caldwell fax 9439 4915

• ADI Residents Action Group ph 4722 6313, fax 9623 7218, mobile 0411 682 206, website www.savetheadisite.bmt.com.au

Peter Caldwell 
President of NPA Sydney Branch.