Kings Forest Submissions 2012

Public submissions for the Kings Forest Development were discussed last night at a community public information night in Cabarita, on the Tweed Coast of Northern NSW. Over 60 individuals and representatives of a number of Community Groups and alliances turned up to hear speakers on a wide variety of critical issues, concerning this massive Tweed Coast Development. The peaceful meeting attracted no “hecklers”, and participants were shocked as to the extent of foreseeable problems that were attached to the planning documents.

SAMPLE SUBMISSIONS AND INFORMATION can be downloaded in the PDF’s  below. This public information meeting was facilitated by the Caldera Environment Centre.  Submissions are due 25th January 2012.

  • If you find that your submissions are to cumbersome, long, or if you realise that you want to say more, (but have already lodged one submission –  then  DO NOT WORRY, according to the NSW Department of Planning, you CAN make more than one submission.
  • Whilst due date for Submissions  is 25th January. If people are mailing submissions and they are sent prior to 25th January but, due to mail, are received a few days later, they will accept if the office is called and alerted.   Ph # (02) 9228- 6461 to alert office, if this is your case
  • The STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION  attachments and resources, supplied by the developer can be accessed at the NSW Department of Planning HERE.

Submissions Information discussed at public Meeting

Presentations were made on Water issues, wildlife issues, Koalas and other threatened species affected both already, and into the near and distant future, as this development is “rolled out”.  Concerned community members, including those from landcare and environment groups covered topics such as loss of biodiversity, habitat destruction, water table alteration, facilities for youth education, the lack of community outreach by the developer ( concerning understanding the planning documents) and the current physical state of the Kings Forest Site. Many more concerns were raised regarding this Part 3A State Significant Site development on the AT RISK wetlands and threatened species habitats of the Tweed Coast, NSW.

Submissions for this round of development’s  application will be accepted by the Department of Planning, NSW, until (and including) 25th January 2012.

  • Submissions can be sent to:-

Dept Planning,  GPO Box 39, Sydney, NSW 2001 Or by email to:

Planning applications, for this round of submissions are for :

(08_0194 Stage 1 Project Application and Minor Modification to the Concept Plan (MOD 2)

Stage 1 Project application Precincts 1 and 5.

  • Subdivision to create new lots for future development;
  • Construction of the entrance road to the site and associated intersection works on Tweed Coast Road;
  • Subdivision and associated infrastructure works for the first stage of urban development;
  • Bulk earthworks and planting for the proposed future golf course;
  • and a service station and fast food outlet.
SUBMISSIONS INFORMATION that may help  ( PDF’s  on Cudgen Nature Reserve;  Cudgen Lake ;  DOT Points for Kings Forest Submissions   and   Form submission Letters below )
For some info on the illegal clearing of Cudgen Nature Reserve,  please see this article:- “Illegal clearing Cudgen Nature Reserve – a balance of faeries revisited” .
  • You can also look at Tweed Coast Estuary Management Plan HERE.
  • The Cudgen Nature Reserve Plan of Management link is HERE.
  • There is a fair bit of information about, but it is in many places. Some information and links for  ACID SULFATE SOILS is HERE.
  • Australian Wetlands Data Base – NSW References
  • The 13 Threatened Native Wildlife Species listed by the developer’s documents for this current application are listed further down in this article.
  • Many experts and local Tweed Coast residents are calling for a moratorium on the Kings Forest Development application process until the illegal clearing that has taken place is REMEDIED, (and other non ecologically sustainable site management issues are remedied). (**see the very bottom of this article – past the PDF’s, pictures, more writing… go right to the END of this article….. for more information re this)
  • NOTE from author at bluecray:  Please note that recent and historical benchmark scientific information concerning groundwater health,  ecological units, flora, fauna, soil degradation, native seed banks (above and below ground), soil health and condition, general property natural health and condition appears to be lacking for future monitoring purposes. There seems to have been much land, drainage, habitat and vegetation disturbance occurring on this Kings Forest site for many years now. Hence, one would hope that these benchmarks have already been documented, prior to the existing disturbances – benchmarks concerning  environmental parameters and issues such as – general and threatened wildlife habitat alteration, drainage pattern alteration, acid sulfate soil disturbance, native seed banks.  Concerning demonstrating compliance with legislative obligations and requirements, this  benchmark information is essential. (see end of article for more info re this)
  • Dog Ban lifted at Kings Forest”  by Tweed Councillers – article at – 24th January 2012 “Councillors Kevin Skinner, Joan van Lieshout, Cr Polglase and Phil Youngblutt voted in support of the motion to remove the ban recommendation……..The motion to remove the ban from the submission was successful four votes to three.
If you want to understand some of the main points, have a look at the following Kings Forest dot points…….

Some   KINGSFORESTdotPoints


**Examples of the types of submission outlines that were presented include:-

Kings Forest form submission 1 

Kings forest form submission 2 

Kings Forest form submission 3 

The Caldera Environment also has some project and submission information. Information, other than via the NSW Planning Department has been very “thin on the ground”, and public consultation by the developer with an interested and concerned Tweed community has been virtually non-existent.

**NOTES on copying these form submissions:-

A. You can either download the above form submission by clicking on the above individual PDF logos  or form submission links, OR


1) Click on whichever of the above form submission LINKS, that  you chose to use

2) If you wish to make a copy:-

SELECT the text of the submission, then, RIGHT CLICK and select copy and then, paste your selection of the submission, into a notepad / text document. You can then edit and / or print it out.

3)You may wish to add your own comments. OR, you may simply use the “form submission” as is, please feel free to do so. They have been given as a resource to the community at large, for using as a template submission in this complex development.


4) you may just wish to take points, that you feel are important to you, concerning this complex development, and create your own submission.

good luck!!

Kings Forest on GOOGLE MAPS if you go to this map, you can see the area of Kings Forest – NW of the Cudgen Nature Reserve – yes, that’s right folks, that big scar on the landscape – all cleared or partially cleared of forest and wetland / woodland. That is where all the dear little native wildlife creatures and remnant native flora are trying to eek out a living. At least 20 threatened wildlife species are connected to this Kings Forest Development, with *13 threatened wildlife affected by the current development stages 1 and 5. TWO of these species are listed Nationally, as threatened species. 3 Endangered Ecological Communities are under threat.

You can have a look at the Tweed Council’s report (submission?) to this Development application, which is in the Tuesday, January 24, 2012 – Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda  (item 24). The developer’s application was reviewed by Council’s technical staff.  The report  is a compilation of the assessments which have been derived from various divisions of Council.


The local environment will become increasingly loud, traffic will dramatically increase as people move into the new homes built. The amenities of the beaches and nearby little villages will be overwhelmed by more traffic and people. The site has numerous areas of toxic and potentially toxic soils (eg Acid Sulfate Soils).  Because it is a Part 3A Significant Site Development, the State Government has the controlling say on how it goes ahead. The developer has given very little outreach to the community concerning information, and many locals have found it hard to find out even what is going on, behind the fences. This is going on in your own back yard, residents of the Tweed Coast. Please have a look at the above letters and documents, and have your say, to help keep this Coastline from being over developed in a non ecologically non sustainable way. (*see list of 13 threatened wildlife species list below )

  • Already many experts and local Tweed Coast residents are calling for a moratorium on the development process until the illegal clearing that has taken place there is REMEDIED.



Threatened FAUNA species in regard to the KINGS FOREST DEVELOPMENT:-
*Stage 1 Project Application Work Precincts 1 and 5 (Project 28 Pty Ltd)*
*Rose-crowned Fruit- Dove (Ptilinopus regina) *
*Grass Owl (Tyto capensis)*
*Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) *
*Black Bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis) *
*Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus ) *
*Bush stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius) *
Bush-hen (Amaurornis olivaceus)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis)
*Yellow-bellied sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) *
Common blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis)
*Common Planigale (Planigale maculata) *
Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus)
Red-legged Pademelon (Thylogale stigmatica)
*Grey-headed flying-fox(Pteropus poliocephalus) National Listing *
*Olongburra Frog (Litoria olongburensis)  (wallum sedge frog) National Listing*
*Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula) *
Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)
Large-footed Myotis (Myotis adversis)
*Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) *
Black flying Fox (Pteropus alecta)
*Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) *
3 NSW Endangered Ecological Communities in the vicinity of
Precincts 1 & 5 – Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplain, Freshwater wetlands &
Subtropical coastal floodplain forest

Recent NEWS updates for Kings Forest:-

Article in the Tweed News at “Tweed activists call for planting now” (Nikki Todd, 16th Jan 2012)… Friends of Cudgen Nature Reserve have called for KOALA TREE PLANTINGS to be done immediately, at the LEDA ‘s KINGS FOREST DEVELOPMENT. The Landcare Group is asking that the KOALA food trees offered (20,000) to be planted by Leda should be planted now, as to leave them too long, for planting, will result in loss of KOALA life. The trees have been promised as part of a buffer zone near the Cudgen Nature Reserve. Only 144 Koalas are still alive in the wild, on the Tweed Coast. Koala activists, carers and local wildlife experts are saying that the Kings Forest plans need much more attention to the Koala, and other wildlife Corridor Placement, as roadways and fences, as shown in the current plans, will force the KOALAS and other wildlife  into territory that will harm them (ie from cars, foxes, dogs, non koala habitat areas etc). An example of this, is the golf course planned roadway access through the Kings Forest Proposed Golf Course.

The Golf Course access roadway needs to be changed to give KOALAS safe freedom of movement, as outlined in the submission points made by the Friends of Cudgen Nature Reserve at the public meeting in Cabarita, (11th Jan. 2012).

TheThe**Regarding the illegal clearing that has occurred in Cudgen Nature Reserve, and the associated volunteer community concern and call for a Moratorium on Kings Forest development application process, over lack of REMEDY, consider the following:-

  • The National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, requires that a plan of management be prepared for each nature reserve. A plan of management is a legal document that outlines how the area will be managed in the years ahead.” & “Now that the plan has been adopted by the Minister, no operations may be undertaken within the Nature Reserve except in accordance with the plan.”  (from the Cudgen Nature Reserve Plan of Management Part A. Introduction).
  • In the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, have a look at Part 4 division 6; Part 5; Part 6A; Part 7; Part 8A; Part 14; Part 15… these parts of the Act may help you understand the seriousness of the illegal clearing that has occurred, of vegetation, wildlife habitat and wetland area of the Cudgen Nature Reserve.

Australian Institute of Criminology -” Illegal Native Vegetation Clearing” Here you will find references to the NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003 .  There are also references to the following:-

  • Primary Statutes within NSW Concerning Clearing of Native Vegetation are:-  the Native vegetation Act 2003,   Threatened Species Conseration Act 1995 and the Environmental  Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Local Environmental Plan)
  • Examples of Maximum Penalty for offences
  • Much more. This webpage is worth reading.
  •  Environmental crime in Australia “Research and public policy series no. 109”, by Samantha Bricknell (ISBN 978 1 921532 64  1  ISSN 1836-2079)  Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, October 2010 . This publication is available at the AIC’s website.
  • Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales – Zoologist Article 2007 Vol 34 (2) – Milledge D Opinion Piece Threatened species conservation at the local level in New South Wales – this article can be found at the ZOOLOGIST data base for their journal. This article concerns NSW threatened species conservation, refers to illegal clearing, and degrading environmental management practiced by landholders, who then develop the landscape into inappropriate urban developments. Proposed developments ( such as KINGS FOREST – adjacent to where this illegal clearing of Cudgen Nature Reserve took place),  then even further degrade the ENVIRONMENTAL and ECOSYSTEM HEALTH, both to the local and regional detriment. It is  noted in this article that the  NSW government administerd threatened species CONSERVATION was at a low level (2007).
  • Adam Gosling’s full paper presentation at the Healthy wetlands 20th NSW Coastal conference 2011 stated “Australia is reported to have lost between 75 and 90 percent of coastal wetlands over the past 200 years (Finlayson, 2000. Usback & James 1993). Not only have wetlands been decimated historically through land clearing for agriculture and urban development and drained or isolated from adjoining wetlands, they remain one of the most severely threatened ecosystems in eastern Australia through coastal development and land use.
  • LAND CLEARANCE – a National Key Threatening Process – The threatening process meets s188(4)(a), s188(4)(b) and s188(4)(c) of the EPBC Act.   Description of Land Clearance from ” the Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the TSSC on a public nomination of a Key Threatening Process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999″  –  “Land clearing consists of the destruction of the above ground biomass of native vegetation and its substantial replacement by non-local species or by human artefacts. Native vegetation is defined as vegetation in which native species constitute more than 70% of the plant cover, or other vegetation containing populations of species listed under the EPBC Act. Substantial replacement by non-local species or human artefacts is defined as the achievement of more than 70% of the total cover by species or human artefacts that did not occur previously on the site.  Land clearing includes clearance of native vegetation for crops, improved, pasture, plantations, gardens, houses, mines, buildings and roads. It also includes infilling of wetlands or dumping material on dry land native vegetation, and the drowning of vegetation through the construction of impoundments. It does not include silvicultural operations in native forests and manipulation of native vegetation composition and structure by grazing, burning or other means.  ” Endangered Species Scientific Sub-committee, (ESSS).
  • It would be reasonable to think that the Destruction of the Coastal Strip of the Tweed Coast is looking like a very destructive form of Land Management. It looks as if this form of management is FAR FROM the inherent principle of ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
  • Laws such as the afore mentioned EPBC Act, with its key threatening Processes, the NSW Primary Statutes within NSW Concerning Clearing of Native Vegetation  –  the Native vegetation Act 2003,   Threatened Species Conseration Act 1995 and the Environmental  Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Local Environmental Plan) – these laws are not helping with regard to environmental vandalism, and the mass destruction of remnant, highly disturbed (and fragmented) habitat that native wildlife are currently (and often stressfully ) surviving in, on the TWEED COAST…..Why are non ecologically sustainable developments and their associated destructive practices still occurring?  Is this due to due process? Is this due to inadequate legislation? Is it due to discretionary powers as opposed to obligatory requirement? Is this due to lack of education? Is it due to lack of practical management skills in authentic land and water stewardship? OR is it due to the fact that the fabric of society is living a massive lie, and that high energy, wasteful, destructive, non ecologically sustainable practices are still “running the economy, socially mainstream acceptable perceptions, and that, basically, the majority of people just really do not care about the future wellbeing of the Tweed Coast, the wetlands, the ecosystems of Australia, the biodiverse fabric of nature that supports us all, and the future of our Children?????? Where is the common good clearly displayed,  within this  social and legal machination of Ecologically Sustainable Development?
  • BENCHMARKS and environmental accountablity: Without benchmarks, no clear picture of the ecologically sustainable environmental health of this development can be ascertained, as it undergoes developmental changes into the future. Future monitoring of environmental factors – such as general wildlife health, flora and fauna biodiversity, acid sulfate soil condition  and water quality (including groundwater and water flows into surrounding creeks)  – these things require benchmarks. This is  so that changes arising from  developmental activities  are clearly understood and are able to be quantified and qualified.  Historically, the Kings Forest property  environmental indicators of health did not just start a few years ago. Where is the benchmark information? Does anyone have it?  How does the changing health of this State Significant Site really measure up to the requirements of Ecologically Sustainable Development, when the historical benchmarks are missing? How will one gauge, for instance, issues of current “at risk” flora, fauna, ecological communities, habitats and ecosystem components of the development. By “at risk” i mean these environmental components  that are not covered by legislative protection, hence not named in planning application documents.  By “at risk” i mean these environmental components that may be severely and irreparable damaged and altered due to the development, but “slip under the radar”   as the development proceeds.


Leave a Reply