5.3.1 State and trend
Land use
Why is this indicator important?
The ACT community uses land in many different ways. More than half of the ACT is managed for conservation purposes, with the remainder made up of urban areas, agricultural land, forests grown for commercial timber, roads, rivers and water bodies.5
Different land uses are a major reason for differences in environmental condition. Land uses have varying effects on the ecological functions, attributes and integrity of land.
Current monitoring status and interpretation issues
This indicator looks at the extent of ACT land used for:
- rural uses, including agriculture, grazing and plantation forestry
- urban and intensive use
- conservation and other protected areas.
Land use is different to land tenure, although tenure can significantly affect land management practices and, correspondingly, land use.
The Territory Plan 2008, under the Planning and Development Act 2007, sets out zoning that identifies the types of land use and activities that may occur in an area. A single block of land may have more than one land use permitted; however, different land-use zones may not overlap. The Territory Plan also includes overlay zones, which represent a specific restriction and designate an area in which a particular activity or purpose is permitted.6
Data presented in accordance with the Territory Plan in Figure 5.1 are based on land zoning and may not reflect the actual current land use. For example, the areas shown as conservation and other protected areas are based on Territory Plan zones – hills, ridges and buffers; mountains and bushland; and river corridors. The zoning objectives of these areas are generally to protect ecological, cultural and heritage resources, and environmental integrity. However, some areas within these zones are private land under the tenure of rural lease holders. These areas do not appear as conservation and protected areas in Table 5.1 because they are not managed for this purpose by the ACT Government.
Data presented for the land-use category of ‘conservation and other protected areas’ differ from the category used in Chapter 7: Biodiversity. This chapter bases ‘conservation and other protected areas’ on the definition used in the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database and includes only land reserved for specific conservation purposes.
The land-use indicator should be interpreted in the context of its relationship to land-use changes and trends over time. Land-use change is assessed as a pressure indicator in this chapter.
What does this indicator tell us?
The total area of the ACT is 235 824 hectares (ha); however, the area of land under the tenure of the ACT Government is 224 662 ha. The remainder of land, shown as ‘designated’ in Figure 5.1, is Commonwealth land. This largely includes urban areas, particularly around central Canberra, and Lake Burley Griffin.
Source: Environment and Planning Directorate
Figure 5.1 Types of land use in the ACT, 2015
Rural uses, including agriculture, grazing and plantation forestry
According to Territory Plan zoning, 32 789 ha of the ACT is zoned for rural purposes. This includes land used for agriculture, grazing, plantation forestry and other rural uses (Figure 5.2). This is a slight decrease in the amount of land zoned for rural uses since the previous reporting period.
Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences7
Figure 5.2 ACT agricultural industries
The ACT has a relatively small agricultural sector. Beef cattle farms are the most common, accounting for 40% of all farms; they are also the most profitable type of farming.7
Along with land used for agriculture and grazing, pine plantations owned by the ACT Government also make up rural land in the ACT. In the 2003 bushfires, a large amount of the pine plantation estate was destroyed. The Kowen Forest plantation was the only one that remained undamaged. Some burnt plantation areas were replanted with pine trees, particularly where soil stabilisation and water quality protection were a priority, and boundaries were redefined, with some areas converted to native vegetation.
Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) now manages all former ACT forest land. Timber harvesting only occurs in Kowen Forest, which is approximately 5500 ha in area. The pine forests are also extensively used and managed for recreational activities, including walking, jogging, horse riding and cycling. The number of visitors to the plantation estate now equals the number of visitors to the ACT national parks reserve system due to the plantation’s close proximity to Canberra, the substantial high-quality road and trail infrastructure, and the investment made in forest management.8
Although the majority of native forests within the ACT are located within conservation reserves, according to the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, approximately 10% are located on multiple-use public land, private land and leasehold land (Figure 5.3).7
Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences,7 p 6
Figure 5.3 Area of native forest in the ACT as a percentage of total ACT land area, by tenure, 2015
Urban and intensive uses
The Territory Plan 2008 refers to residential zones, industrial zones, commercial zones, areas zoned for community facilities, and transport and services zones; this report defines these areas as urban and intensive use areas. According to this definition, 17 042 ha within the ACT is used for urban and intensive uses. This is a decrease of approximately 600 ha in areas zoned for these purposes from the 2011 report.
Greenfield development is the most important type of development in the ACT in terms of the pressures it places and the effects it has on land condition and the broader environment (see Section 5.3.2).
In 2011–2015, the total area of greenfield development in the ACT was approximately 1420 ha. This includes development at Bonner, Ngunnawal 2C, Jacka 1, Coombs, Wright, Denman Prospect 1A, Moncrieff, Throsby, Harrison 4, Franklin, Crace, Forde 2, West Macgregor–Belconnen, Lawson and Flemington Road. Blocks for development at some of these suburbs are released in stages over a period of time. In these cases, some of the land counted within the 1420 ha may have been released outside this reporting period.
Urban open space and recreation areas such as parks and ovals also lie within the urban footprint. The total area zoned for urban open space and recreation is 4794 ha. Approximately 327 ha of additional urban open space was created during the reporting period in new development areas.
Conservation and other protected areas
Areas classified as conservation and natural environments in this chapter include nature conservation areas, such as national parks and nature reserves, and other protected areas, such as minimal- use areas (eg water supply catchments). Areas zoned for these purposes in the Territory Plan occupy approximately 72% of the ACT (Figure 5.1); however, not all areas within these zones are managed by TAMS for conservation or protection, as shown in Table 5.1. (This differs from the definition of a protected area in Chapter 7: Biodiversity, which excludes water supply catchments and other areas not managed for nature conservation.)
Table 5.1 Conservation and other protected areas by area and management objective, 2015
| Type of reserve or open space | Approximate area (ha) | Management objective |
|---|---|---|
|
National parks |
83 423 |
To conserve the natural environment To provide for public use of the area for recreation, education and research |
|
Nature reserves |
18 534 |
To conserve the natural environment To provide for public use of the area for recreation, education and research |
|
Wilderness areas |
28 886 |
To conserve the natural environment in a manner ensuring that disturbance to that environment is minimal To provide for the use of the area (other than by vehicles or other mechanised equipment) for recreation by limited numbers of people, so as to ensure that opportunities for solitude are provided |
|
Special-purpose reserves |
3 432 |
To provide for public and community use of the area for recreation and education |
|
Protection of water supply |
6 377 |
To protect existing and future domestic water supply To conserve the natural environment To provide for public use of the area for education, research and low-impact recreation |
|
Lakes |
440 |
To prevent and control floods by providing a reservoir to receive flows from rivers, creeks and urban run-offs To prevent and control pollution of waterways To provide for public use of the lake for recreation To provide a habitat for flora and fauna |
|
Total |
141 092 |
– |
ha = hectare; – = not applicable
Note: This table refers to land managed for conservation and other protected area purposes by Territory and Municipal Services, which is less than the area zoned for conservation purposes in Figure 5.1. The ‘other land’ in Figure 5.1 has various managers including ACTEW, the Commonwealth and private landholders.
Source: Planning and Development Act 2007
In 2011–2015, approximately 816 ha of land was added to the reserve network. This includes 621 ha as part of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment, and 195 ha of other land allocated in relation to other land-release areas as environmental offsets.
The Planning and Development Act sets out management objectives for each of the types of public land, including national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas. Table 5.1 outlines the management objectives for conservation and protected areas as defined in the Planning and Development Act, and includes the area of each according to TAMS.
Soil condition
Why is this indicator important?
Soil condition or quality indicators evaluate how well soil functions relative to its inherent properties and constraints. Soil condition directly affects or correlates with environmental outcomes. Knowledge of soil condition informs assessments of land capability and appropriate land use that maximises the soil’s potential.
Soil condition depends on soil type and properties. Soil type is important as a determining factor in soil properties and constraints, which in turn play a significant role in the behaviour of soils and what they can be used for. Although soil type is unlikely to change significantly in the short term, a range of events can cause disturbance to soil properties, including fire, floods, high-intensity storms, land clearing, agriculture, urban and industrial development, and recreation activities. ACT soils are highly variable, but most are considered to be infertile, fragile, and prone to becoming impermeable and eroded with inappropriate management.5 This suggests that it is particularly important for all land managers in the ACT to pay attention to management decisions that affect soil.
Current monitoring status and interpretation issues
Soil condition assessment most commonly measures soil salinity, acidity, erosion, sodicity and carbon.
There has been no recent systematic assessment of soil condition in the ACT. Baseline data on indicators of soils condition – such as carbon levels, erosion, acidity, sodicity or salinity – are required to be able to monitor changes in soil condition and to report on any state of, or trends in its condition.
Soil landscape mapping and the development of a hydrogeological framework are currently being conducted. These tools will provide baseline information about soil properties and constraints. Therefore, it is likely that information will be available so that this indicator can be commented on in the next State of the Environment Report.
Mapping of soil types was completed at the 1:100 000 scale for the eastern half of the ACT by the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) in 1993 and 2000.9 The OEH has again been engaged by the ACT Environment and Planning Directorate to complete soil mapping for the eastern part of the Territory through the ACT Soil Landscape Mapping project. This is due to be completed by December 2015.10 As part of the mapping process, related soil types in each landscape will be described, and their chemical and physical properties and constraints identified.
The result of the mapping will be a consolidated ACT soil landscape map, which will provide information that facilitates sustainable land use and strategic development. It will not only assist planning for the most appropriate land use, but will also assist urban, rural and conservation land managers to manage the land according to its potential and limitations, thus preventing soil degradation and ameliorating existing problems. It will also indicate where soil monitoring and amelioration of degradation will be most beneficial. This information will also be used in the preparation of the Hydrogeological Landscape Framework project (see Case study 5.2).
What does this indicator tell us?
Because of the lack of available data, the state and trends in the condition of soils in the ACT are not able to be reported for the 2015 reporting period.
Case study 5.2 ACT Hydrogeological Landscape Framework project
Hydrogeological landscape (HGL) frameworks build on soil landscape mapping by using additional information on geology, lithology, slope, soil depth, vegetation and climate to identify functional units for management within the landscape. The HGL framework concept can be used to address a wide range of land management issues, such as soil degradation (eg sodicity, acidity, erosion); soil carbon; biodiversity; and vegetation, revegetation and wetland processes (eg for hanging swamps, bogs and fens).10
The HGL framework is used to divide the landscape into areas that have similar hydrological characteristics. The resulting HGL units integrate information on lithology, bedrock structure, regolith (including soils), landforms, climate (including rainfall, seasonality, evaporation) and vegetation.11
The ACT Hydrogeological Landscape Framework project will map individual HGLs and the different management areas within them at the 1:25 000 scale. The project will also help to determine the capability of rural, urban and conserved lands for a range of land uses and management objectives. Mapping will help identify key problems in each HGL and management area, and the options available to address them within land-use capability.
The project will also include an urban salinity pilot study; soil erosion/stability, soil carbon and wetlands frameworks; a climate change scenario for each HGL; and spatial identification of optimal locations for establishing biodiverse tree plantings and carbon sequestration.
For the salinity pilot study, the HGL unit descriptions will define salinity management areas, including:
- descriptions of how salinity manifests itself in the landscape
- the amount of salt stored in the landscape and its mobility
- the relative hazards associated with salinity and their likelihood of occurrence
- descriptions of soil landscapes, land and soil capability, land use, land degradation and other properties (Table 5.2).
Recommendations about how best to manage and prioritise these landscapes are also included. In this study, 25 different HGLs have been defined, each with unique salinity situations that require tailored management solutions involving specific management actions.10
The HGL project is funded through the Australian Government Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund.
Table 5.2 Salinity impacts for each hydrogeological landscape in the ACT
| HGL | Land salinity impact | Salt load impact | EC impact on water quality | Overall salinity hazard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bimberi |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Boboyan |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Brindabella |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Bruce |
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
|
Bullen Range |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Clear Range |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Gungahlin |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
|
Hall |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
|
Hoskinstown |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
|
Jeir Hill |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
|
Kambah Pool |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Kowen |
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Lanyon |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Majura Road |
High |
Moderate |
High |
High |
|
Murrumbidgee Gorge |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Namadgi |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Orroral |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Paddys River |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Picadilly |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Very low |
|
Reedy Creek |
High |
Moderate |
High |
High |
|
Royalla |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
|
South Canberra |
Low |
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
|
Sullivans Creek |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
|
Symonston |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Uriarra Road |
Moderate |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
EC = electrical conductivity; HGL = hydrological landscape
Source: Muller et al10
Majura Road hydrogeological landscape
An example of an area assessed as having a high risk of salinity is the Majura Road HGL. The following provides a summary of the type of information contained in the assessment and how this may be used in land management.
The Majura Road HGL extends from the Federal Highway in the north to Lake Burley Griffin in the south; it covers an area of 54 square kilometres and receives 550–750 millimetres of rain each year.
The Majura Road HGL is characterised by a catchment-based landscape on a broad valley bounded by steep hills and a major fault line. The area exhibits salinity via waterlogged patches and saline seeps with spike rush, which are seasonal. On the western flanks, there are saline springs in the upper slopes, as well as soils with severe salinity at a depth of 150 centimetres. There is a history of saline sites in the lower reaches of the unit, and salinity has remobilised recently at some sites following development. Monitoring bores and stream electrical conductivity sites indicate moderate salinity levels. Local developments, including the Majura Parkway, are affected by the local salinity and soil conditions.
The land use of the area is highly variable, and includes small areas of irrigated agriculture, grazing and cropping, Defence lands, airport infrastructure and reserve areas of native vegetation. There are important remnant grassland areas that act as biodiversity conservation areas in the lower landscape. Sand mining activities have previously occurred in the area.
Salinity is driven by interactions between water-use capacity of vegetation, physical soil properties and hydrogeological processes within the HGL.
The management focus for the Majura HGL is to recognise salinity impacts on infrastructure that will need to be planned for and taken into account during construction. Grazing management is a major factor in landscape stability, as the soils are very sodic and are easily subjected to erosion. A balance between multiple land-use and conservation issues needs to be struck in this unit to satisfy the wide range of competing interests.
Specific land management opportunities for this HGL are:
- existing remnant grasslands that can act as a seed bank resource
- planning frameworks into the immediate future.
Specific constraints for land management in this HGL include:
- acid sulfate and salinity impacts on infrastructure, particularly road construction and buildings
- total grazing pressure on government lands
- the airport envelope with regard to noise and height restrictions
- increased peri-urban development in competition with agricultural land.
Compliance with the National Environment Protection Measure standards
The Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM provides a framework for a national approach to the assessment of contaminated land.12
Why is this indicator important?
Compliance with the Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM standards ensures that the ACT is achieving the national environment protection standards for assessment of contaminated sites and that the assessment is being undertaken appropriately. This NEPM does not deal with remediation. National remediation guidance is being developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, with final documents due to be considered in 2016–17.
Current monitoring status and interpretation issues
The Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM must be taken into account in all assessment of land contamination in the ACT as prescribed in the Environment Protection Act 1997.13 The NEPM states that ‘there should be a consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination across Australia but each participating jurisdiction may implement the necessary controls in its own manner’.14
What does this indicator tell us?
The ACT Government demonstrates compliance with the NEPM by reporting each year on the implementation and effectiveness of the NEPM in the ACT. This information is published in the National Environment Protection Council’s annual report. Site-specific or ACT-specific data are not reportable as part of this NEPM.
Number and type of contaminated sites
Why is this indicator important?
Contaminated sites occur as a result of current or former land use. Contaminated sites in the ACT are related mostly to former petrol stations or other fuel storage activities. As the rate of urban infill and greenfield development increases, contaminated sites such as former petrol stations, landfill sites and sites with previous chemical uses (such as sheep dips) are increasingly likely to be designated for development.
The identification of contaminated sites allows their remediation, if required, and allows appropriate land use to be considered for the sites. In this way, development can be a driver for both the increased reporting and remediation of contaminated sites. One example is the Kingston Foreshore, which was remediated so that the area could be developed for residential purposes. Given the development throughout the ACT, it is reasonable to expect an increasing number of reported and remediated sites.
Current monitoring status and interpretation issues
Contaminated sites are generally identified by consultants when undertaking an environmental assessment to determine the suitability of a site for a proposed change of use. The sites are notified to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) either formally under s. 23A of the Environment Protection Act 1997 (when specific triggers have been met) or informally in environmental site assessment reports. The EPA is the custodian of all data that relate to known and potentially contaminated sites.
The EPA has the regulatory responsibility for the oversight of the remediation of contaminated sites, and oversees the framework that regulates this process. However, the polluter or the current owner of the site is responsible for ensuring the remediation works are carried out. Generally, sites are voluntarily assessed and remediated by the person redeveloping a site.
The remediation process and the ongoing monitoring of the sites are undertaken by EPA-approved auditors and reported to the EPA, which undertakes an audit of assessments and validation by consultants. Old petrol station sites, or those that were used for fuel storage, often require ongoing monitoring for hydrocarbon vapour (or light nonaqueous phase liquid) and for leaching into the watertable, which may have resulted in subsurface plumes. Other historic rural sites may be remediated with no further monitoring required.15
The development of greenfield sites can also lead to the discovery of contamination from sheep dips or landfill sites.
The number and type of contaminated sites for the current reporting period are calculated by adding the new sites from GIS data to the reporting total for the previous reporting period. These figures include remediated sites and active contaminated sites. Remediated sites are not currently removed from the contaminated sites register, to ensure that future uses of these sites are compatible with site remediation. For example, a site may be remediated to a level that can accommodate industrial development, but may not be appropriate for residential development.
Land clearance for development at WrightPhoto: ACT Government
What does this indicator tell us?
There are currently 1014 contaminated sites recorded in the ACT, including fuel sites, sheep dips, landfills and other (Table 5.3). Of the 61 hydrocarbon sites reported during the 2015 reporting period, the majority were identified as a result of the redevelopment of commercial sites. The majority of the 10 landfill sites were associated with uncontrolled landfill identified in greenfield development sites. One new sheep-dip site – in addition to the known sites – was also identified during a study of the proposed Greater Kenny greenfield development area. The 34 sites identified as ‘other’ were associated with the identification of former chemical storage sites, former Defence sites and naturally occurring heavy metal gossan sites.
Table 5.3 Number and type of contaminated sites in the ACT, 2015
| Type of contamination | Description | Reported from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2015 | Total number |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hydrocarbon |
Former petrol stations or other fuel storage |
61 |
543 |
|
Cattle or sheep dips |
A site, such as a trough containing pesticides, used to rid sheep or cattle of parasites |
10 |
153 |
|
Landfills |
Usually uncontrolled landfill sites on unused or rural land |
1 |
122 |
|
Other |
Former chemical storage sites, former fill sites, former Defence sites or naturally occurring heavy metals |
34 |
196 |
|
Total |
— |
106 |
– |
– = not applicable
Source: Data provided by the ACT Environment Protection Authority, July 2015
There has been an increase of 115 recorded contaminated sites since the end of the previous reporting period (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4 Total number of contaminated sites in the ACT, 2007, 2011 and 2015
| Year | Total number of contaminated sites |
|---|---|
|
2007 |
752 |
|
2011 |
899 |
|
2015 |
1014 |
Source: Data provided by the ACT Environment Protection Authority
Looking down on Namadgi National Park from Square Rock
Photo: ACT Government
Assessment summaries
for land indicators of state and trend
| Indicator | Reasoning | Assessment grade | Confidence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very poor |
Poor | Fair | Good | Very good |
In state grade | In trend grade | ||
| Land use | Approximately 57% of the ACT is nature reserves and other protected areas, and 816 ha has been added to the reserve network in the reporting period. The majority of native forests are zoned for conservation purposes under the Territory Plan, with a small percentage for multiple-use public land and private land. This indicates that a large proportion of the ACT is likely to be used and managed in a way that protects ecological values. Greenfield developments accounted for 1420 ha of all development during the reporting period. Greenfield developments place pressure on the environment. Confidence in the grade is good as the extent of conservation areas is well known and reported. Confidence in the trend is medium, because the amount of land likely to be added to the conservation estate is unknown and largely dependent on offset requirements for future development. |
Stable | Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus | Limited evidence or limited consensus | ||||
| Soil condition | Due to recent work on soils, baseline data are available for salinity across the ACT. However, there are little data available on other indicators of soil health such as carbon levels, erosion, acidity or sodicity in the ACT. Soil and hydrogeological landscape mapping are currently under way; this means that it is likely that information will be available in the next report. The lack of available data means that the state and trends in the condition of soils in the ACT are not able to be reported Confidence in state and trend is low due to a lack of available data. |
Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment | Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment | |||||
| Extent and condition of contaminated sites | The ACT has 1014 known contaminated sites, an increase of 115 since 2011. Numbers of contaminated sites identified are likely to continue to increase as more are discovered due to development. When sites are uncovered, the likelihood of remediation improves. Confidence in the current state is medium, because the extent of unidentified sites is unknown. Confidence in the trend is medium. Although the number of contaminated sites is likely to continue to increase, the rate of increase is largely linked to the discovery of contaminated sites on land that is to be developed. |
Improving | Limited evidence or limited consensus | Limited evidence or limited consensus | ||||
| Compliance with Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM | The ACT Government demonstrates compliance with the NEPM by reporting annually on the implementation and effectiveness of the NEPM in the ACT. Confidence in state and trend is high |
Stable | Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus | Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus | ||||
ha = hectare; NEPM = National Environment Protection Measure
Recent trends
Confidence
5.3.2 Pressures
The major pressures on land in the ACT are changes to land use, particularly greenfield development. Resilience to pressure on our land resources will require careful management to balance the needs of urban development with environmental protection.
Land-use change
Why is this indicator important?
Patterns and changes in land use directly affect environmental values, often adversely.16 Two indicators are used:
- number and type of development applications
- greenfield versus infill urban development.
Current monitoring and interpretation issues
The ACT’s population is projected to grow from an estimated 365 000 in 2011 to 457 300 by 2030. With this growth comes the need to supply more housing and associated infrastructure. This continued urban expansion threatens Canberra’s rural and bush setting, and the connectivity of its ecosystems.17
Urban intensification will also continue to increase. This type of development often uses land that has been developed previously (ie change of use) or vacant land within highly modified landscapes; the effects on land condition are likely to be less than for greenfield development. However, the actual effects depend on the type and method of development.
The predicted climate change and climate variability scenario for the ACT includes increased temperatures, less rainfall and/or different rainfall patterns, and more extreme weather events, including an increase in fire weather events. These changes are likely to affect landscape functions and ecosystems and, in turn, land use and management.
Although land-use zones and overlay zones determine the activities that may occur on land, the impacts to the land come from the type of use or management that occurs under that zoning. For this reason, this indicator measures:
- number of development applications
- greenfield versus infill development.
What does this indicator tell us?
Development applications
The ACT Government tracks the number and type of development applications received each year in the ACT, from both government and private developers.
The number of development applications lodged with the ACT Government during 2007–2011 and 2011–2015 has remained relatively stable (Table 5.5). Column 3 (‘Development application – exempt residential building applications approved’) presents data on building approvals completed for new residences, which became exempt from requiring a development application from 2008–09 onwards. Before the introduction of the Planning and Development Act 2007 on 31 March 2008 and the endorsement of the new Territory Plan 2008, these applications would have required a development application. At this time, development application exemptions for single residential houses only included houses built on land in greenfield areas. The exemption provision was amended on 25 April 2009 to include knockdown rebuilds in established areas. A number of other small-scale developments – including some additions and alterations such as garages, carports and pergolas – became exempt from development application at the same time. The development application exemption provisions were expanded on 24 March 2009 as a result of the Australian Government’s stimulus package program to exempt work on schools. The large number of development applications in 2007–08 therefore includes buildings and constructions projects that, in later years, only required a building approval and reflects an increase in applications due to uncertainty among the building industry around the anticipated change. Other than these two years, numbers have remained fairly stable, with only minor fluctuations (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5 Development applications lodged and development application exempt residential building applications approved, 2007–08 to 2014–15
| Year | Number of development applications lodged (residential, commercial, institutional) | Development application – exempt residential building applications approved |
|---|---|---|
|
2007–08 |
4429 |
No DA – exempt provisions for new residences |
|
2008–09 |
2385 |
1079 BAs issued for DA – exempt residences only |
|
2009–10 |
1595 |
2155 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
2010–11 |
1293 |
1577 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
Total for 2007–2011 reporting period |
9702 |
4811 |
|
2011–12 |
1136 |
1665 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
2012–13 |
1207 |
1591 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
2013–14 |
1116 |
1707 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
2014–15 |
1218 |
1115 BAs completed for DA – exempt residences only |
|
Total for 2011–2015 reporting period |
4677 |
4579 |
DA = development application; BA = building approval
Source: Data provided by the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate; Access Canberra; Customer Services Section and Shared Services; Environment and Planning Directorate Information and Communications Technology team
Once received, development applications are assessed and a decision is made on whether or not to approve the application. The assessment is made by the Planning and Land Authority (under the Planning and Development Act 2007), taking into account all representations made during the public notification period, advice from other entities and likely impacts of the development, including the environmental impact.18 Once an application is received, it is lodged in either the merit or impact tracks.
The type of development likely to be assessed under the merit track includes development in a residential zone. These applications are assessed against the relevant code of the Territory Plan, the zone objectives, the suitability of the land for the development and any probable impacts.
The type of development likely to be assessed under the impact track includes proposals likely to have a significant environmental impact. There are a number of circumstances that trigger assessment under the impact track, which are specified in s. 123 of the Planning and Development Act. These include if the proposed development meets specific criteria in the Territory Plan, if a ministerial declaration is made regarding the proposal, or if it is a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth). Schedule 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 sets out the types of development proposals that will be assessed under the impact track because they need to have an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The process of assessment under the impact track is similar to the merit track, but may include an EIS assessment. Greenfield developments are likely to require assessment under the impact track.18
Greenfield versus infill development
The ACT Planning Strategy acknowledges that ‘greenfield expansion requires more land, which presents economic and environmental costs and that most remaining “urban capable” land presents significant financial and environmental costs because of its location, terrain and areas of endangered habitats’.17 Greenfield urban development places greater pressure on the land and the environment because of the likelihood of vegetation clearance and other permanent changes to the development area. In addition to the increase in urban area, greenfield developments often lead to associated indirect impacts, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions through additional infrastructure and transport needs, increased recreational use and access tracks, garden weed invasion, and bush rock and firewood collection.
Fire management requirements for greenfield developments can also affect the biophysical environment. Greenfield developments require asset protection zones. These zones are managed to reduce fuel loads for the purpose of protecting residential areas.19 Asset protection zones can increase the development footprint, which may result in loss of, or significant negative impacts on, ecological communities.
However, on a positive note, greenfield development can result in pressure to clean up contaminated sites that pose unacceptable health risks. Fire management inner protection zones can be achieved by reducing the developable area rather than increasing the footprint.
Urban infill generally has less direct impact on ecological values than greenfield development, because it requires a smaller development footprint and a reduced need for new infrastructure. The benefits can be increased with sensitive design and low environmental impact land-use types.
The ACT Government – through the Land Development Agency – prepares an Indicative Land Release Program each year, which sets out the Government’s intended residential, commercial, industrial, and community and nonurban land releases. Although the percentage of greenfield development is higher than infill for this reporting period, it is significantly lower than in the previous reporting period, and projections show that this trend is likely to continue (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6 Current and predicted split between greenfield and infill development, 2007–2018
| Timeframe | Greenfield development (%) | Infill development (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
2007–2011 |
75 |
25 |
|
2011–2015 |
55 |
45 |
|
2013–2017 |
44 |
56 |
|
2014–2018 |
48 |
52 |
Source: Data provided by the Land Development Agency, based on the actual residential dwelling count during the reporting period; predicted figures are based on the ACT Government’s Indicative Land Release Program for future periods.
As reported in Section 5.3.1: State and trend, the total area of greenfield urban development during the reporting period was 1420 ha.
Assessment summaries
for land indicators for pressures
| Indicator | Reasoning | Assessment grade | Confidence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very low |
Low | Moderate | High | Very high |
In state grade | In trend grade | ||
| Development applications | The number of development applications lodged between 2007–2011 and 2011–2015 decreased, mainly due to peaks in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Apart from these two years, numbers have remained steady. There is an expectation that development will continue to occur but will be managed effectively to reduce impacts. Confidence in current state is high Confidence in trend depends on economic conditions. |
Stable | Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus | Limited evidence or limited consensus | ||||
| Greenfield versus infill development | Total area of greenfield urban development during the reporting period was 1420 ha. In 2011–2015, the ratio of greenfield to infill decreased significantly from 75%:25% to 55%:45%. Projections show that this trend is likely to continue. The ratio is estimated to be 44%:56% by 2017 and to rebound slightly to 48%:52% by 2018. Confidence in state is high. Confidence in future trends is lower, as trends depend on economic conditions and societal attitudes to infill. |
Improving | Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus | Limited evidence or limited consensus | ||||
Recent trends
Confidence
Resilience to pressures
A resilience assessment involves looking at the systems, networks, human resources and feedback loops involved in maintaining environmental values (see Chapter 9).
Because land forms such an important basis for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services, it is in the interest of human wellbeing to ensure that it is resilient – that is, that particular land uses do not severely undermine the provision of benefits, and that the environmental values of land are able to be regained after major shocks and disturbances (see Australian State of the Environment Committee20).
The resilience of land-related processes depends on the aspects of land examined. This section considers the resilience of processes related to land development and planning, and soil quality.
The outcomes desired from management of land development and planning are well articulated in the ACT. There are clear policies regarding targets for development, and clear guidelines for characteristics and values to be maintained. For example, there are policies guiding the ratio of greenfield to infill release of land for residential development. Community consultation has been used to help identify these characteristics and values – however, debate remains about how to achieve some of them. There is strong consensus about the importance of having high-quality public open spaces, but there remains debate about the relative environmental impacts of different urban density approaches. Strong public debate does not always translate to processes in which a consensus on values is reached.
Soil management is also well defined. There are core standards and knowledge for what is healthy soil (eg limiting erosion, maintaining fertility, limiting pollution and contamination). However, a comprehensive set of specific standards for each of these values with reference to the ACT’s soil types is not currently available within present ACT resource capacity.
Key threats to maintaining desired values from land, such as open space and healthy soil, are known, with a common focus on economic drivers of development and planned population growth. Although generalised threats are known, there is less agreement about the specifics of when development or specific land management activities represent threats to achieving desired outcomes. For example, some processes that threaten soil condition are reasonably well understood, such as erosion, salinity and soil contamination by pollutants. However, there is less understanding of threats to soil biota and microbial diversity, and more limited knowledge of current soil management practices and their impacts. What represents a contaminated site is reasonably well understood, but identification of contaminated sites is often limited until development or disturbance occurs. There are several processes for identifying threatening processes, including the state of the environment reporting process, the ACT Planning Strategy and future reviews of this strategy, and site-focused assessments related to individual developments.
Although thresholds for land management are set with regard to contamination of soil and aspects of livability such as traffic density, service provision and green space, these thresholds are mainly assessed when a specific development occurs, with reference to landscape-scale plans against which site-by-site proposals are assessed. A shift is occurring in strategic assessments that consider a landscape approach to land management under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth), and there are requirements to monitor and report each year under this Act. More of this strategic approach at a broader scale is required – along with improved landscape-wide monitoring and specification of thresholds at which land-related values are considered to be under threat. In some cases, there is no knowledge of thresholds to enable effective monitoring. For example, factors such as soil chemistry, soil loss and soil biota, and drivers of soil quality such as vegetation cover, are not monitored consistently or regularly.
The small size of the ACT Government enables good connectivity among government agencies, and between agencies and developers. There are smaller and less connected networks related to soil condition, although there are strong links between key staff and rural landowners with regard to land management.
A lack of landscape-level monitoring – and, in some areas, a lack of agreed values and outcomes – limits the effectiveness of current processes to maintain desired characteristics related to land. There is a focus on monitoring and assessment up until the point that large developments are approved and established. However, follow-up monitoring is limited, which significantly constricts the opportunity for feedback about land-use changes. Limited mapping of vegetation on rural lands also reduces opportunities for feedback. The lack of feedback – especially from postdevelopment monitoring – restricts the ability to learn and adapt.