Valley Watch Alerts

Keep an eye on this space for updates relating to current projects, special event announcements and urgent response issues.

West Yamba

The development of West Yamba has been a hot topic for discussion within the community for at least 15 years. In an effort to continue the ongoing community education about the environmental, social and economic impacts of unsuitable development on this floodplain, the Valley Watch market stall at the monthly Yamba River Markets has a display featuring some of the research, photos and correspondence that the group has collated.

Unfortunately in March of this year Clarence Valley Councillors recommended that the rezoning of West Yamba proceed and it is now currently being reviewed by the Minister for Planning.

Valley Watch has sent two letters to the Minister since, once again raising concerns with such a large scale development on the flood plain. Recent floods in the Northern Rivers show just how much floodwater surrounds Yamba. Road access to the town is cut for days during flooding events.

As the “Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study” (Webb, McKeown & Associates, July 2008) indicates, the 1.3 million cubic metres of fill required for this development will have a huge impact on this relatively peaceful holiday township. The Study states that this is the equivalent of one 20 tonne truck movement every 6 minutes, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 9.5 years. It acknowledges that climate change factors have NOT been included in these calculations and adds “the likely increase in design flood levels as a result of climate change (sea level rise) should be incorporated into the above”. Unfortunately data used to calculate the amount of fill required was taken from the IPCC 2007 report, which does not include any allowance for sea level rise caused by the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets. This is definitely not sustainable development!!!

Clearing Causing Concern

More Gulmarrrad land clearing under investigation

Geoff Helisma

The Clarence Valley Council (CVC) and the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) are investigating another case of alleged illegal clearing of bushland at Gulmarrad.
The DECC and CVC are also involved in continuing investigations into alleged illegal clearing at Gulmarrad in July.
Lower Clarence-based non-profit community environmental group, Valley Watch, alerted the Clarence Valley Review about the clearing last week.
Valley Watch president, Athena Batcheldor, said she was exasperated, sad and amazed that someone would clear bushland without the required permits, particularly as clearing of nearby land is presently under investigation.
“Why anyone in this day and age would blatantly clear with out proper permits is beyond most residents in the Clarence Valley,” she said. “Until these [alleged] offenders are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, they will continue to do so.” Ms Batcheldor said the area that had been cleared “was deeply hidden in the bush” and that an anonymous caller, who said they had heard the sound of machinery working in the bush for a three-week period, had tipped off Valley Watch.
Clarence Valley Council deputy general manger, Des Schroder, confirmed Ms Batcheldor’s claims. “We’ve been out and inspected the site and verbally told the operators and the person responsible for the clearing to stop under the provisions of the PEO Act [Protection of Environment Operations Act],” he said.
“We are also looking at whether we can use the provisions of our Tree Preservation Order under the local LEP [Local Environment Plan] and we’re also talking to DECC, about what actions they may take under their provisions.”
Mr Schroder said the land clearers had told the council that they were clearing the land for the purpose of cattle grazing and that they had only cleared bush that had regrown since 1990 – under the Native Vegetation Act it is permissible to clear regrowth on land previously cleared before January 1, 1990. There are also sustainable grazing and routine agricultural provisions.
However, he said that the “routine agricultural management processes under the Native Vegetation Act and the provisions of the regrowth clause” might not be applicable.
He described the ‘regrowth’ as “associated” with the old growth trees. “We think it’s an association,” he said. “You can’t separate the under-story regrowth from the old growth trees, but that’s an interpretation that DECC would have to put on it.”