STEP was actively involved in campaigning against two previous misguided attempts by the Shooters and Fishers Party and Labor Party to introduce so-called conservation hunting in national parks in 2009 and 2012. The proposals relied on the Game Council that was ultimately disbanded in 2013 because of seriously poor governance.

Ultimately, the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 was amended to enable a carefully controlled ‘supplementary pest program’ in national parks, regulated by the Department of Primary Industries. The locations, timing and target species are defined and advertised. Hunters are licensed specifically for this purpose.

These controls are not going to apply under this amendment.

The Shooters and Fishers Party is sponsoring this bill. The Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025 would apply to more areas of public land including travelling stock routes and local council land. A bounty system is proposed to incentivise hunting.

There were so many objections that the Standing Committee for State Development is holding an inquiry. Submissions closed earlier this month. The committee conducted a hearing on 8 August that aired the views of all sides. Some of the detail of the bill has been altered but not the main provisions.

There are several aspects that are very concerning. For example:

1. Opening over 50,000 ha of public land to recreational hunting, such as Crown land and conservation reserves. Members of the public will be put at risk or will be locked out of Crown land. There is no guarantee that hunters will have adequate experience to identify feral animals or that they will only shoot feral animals.
2. Easier access to guns – the bill would legalise silencers (to protect the hearing of hunters!), expand access to night-vision goggles and more, undermining Australia's strong post-Port Arthur gun safety framework. Silencers would significantly increase safety risks for bushwalkers, families and pets. Former prime minister, John Howard, is just one of the people who have spoken out forcefully against the bill.
3. There is funding earmarked for a bounty system. These are widely discredited as an ineffective and inhumane control method. They encourage amateur ‘cowboys’ to go on hunting expeditions. They are more interested in the bounty income than reducing the feral animal population. A national review of hunting under past Australian bounty schemes, conducted by the former Australian Bureau of Resource Sciences, concluded that: 'No bounty scheme in Australia has had a noticeable short or long-term impact on vertebrate pest populations that have a high reproductive rate.' (ABRS 1998 review of bounties)
4. The bill would establish a new body called the Conservation Hunting Authority with a majority of members appointed by the hunting organisations. It would represent the interests of hunters, make recommendations to the agriculture minister, promote research into ‘game, feral and pest animal management issues’ and into the benefits of hunting. It would also: ‘promote, develop and deliver educational courses regarding game animals’. $7.9 million is allocated for this authority’s work over two years. That is not a committee that has expertise in terms of effective management of feral animal control programs beyond recreational hunting.
5. The bill’s framing of hunting as ‘conservation’ is misleading, as genuine conservation relies on science-based, humane management techniques, which this bill does not promote. Uncoordinated hunting can cause animals to flee into new areas, expanding their range. Research published by scientists from the Department of Primary Industries Vertebrate Pest Unit (Bengsen and Sparkes, 2016) found: 'There is insufficient evidence to support or disprove arguments that contemporary recreational hunting programs are effective at controlling introduced mammal populations on public lands'.
6. Establishing a Minister for Hunting and Fishing institutionalises support for hunting over other evidence-based wildlife management approaches. If the intent of the bill was genuine, the Conservation Hunting Authority would be governed by the Department of Environment and would be required to prepare a conservation strategy that covers all methods of feral animal control.
7. No consultation with traditional owners. Despite the cultural and ecological significance of many of the affected areas, there are no provisions for consultation with First Nations communities in the bill.

A paper published by the Invasive Species Council during the 2012 campaign provides more details: Recreational hunting: claims vs facts.

Scientific evidence is clear

The government argued that this proposal will be good for local communities and effective in reducing the problem of feral animals. The salient arguments against this bill put forward by the Invasive Species Council and the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions before the inquiry are:

That most invasive species management action needs to be taken at a landscape scale to have measurable, sustained impact.

Best practice requires that the focus of any management intervention be on minimising the impact of the invasive species, rather than simplistically on reducing the numbers present.

At the hearing, some comparative data was provided on numbers of feral animals removed. In NSW state forests, with about 250 or so open, 1.8 million hectares of NSW land—where aerial shooting and baiting is effectively banned because of the impact on recreational hunting and doesn't take place. In 2023−24, the hunters that were out there—this was from 68,000 hunting days—removed 3,000 deer and 4,982 pigs. These are tiny numbers compared to those populations. They are nowhere near the population growth rate. By comparison, in NSW national parks and local land services—not on state forest land - from aerial shooting, they removed 131,000 pigs and deer in 2022−23.

The better way to go

The Biodiversity Council concludes that:

Sustained, professional programs combining methods such as aerial- and ground-based culling, targeted poison baiting, and trapping, have been scientifically shown to be the best way to achieve population reductions, with the longer-term goal of eradication, and to mitigate the devastating impacts of invasive animals on farming and agriculture, biodiversity, and cultural heritage.

There has been a long history of ambitious attempts to redevelop the Lourdes Retirement Village that is need of updating. Now a new plan has been submitted that makes much more sense than previous plans for this 5.25 ha site on the edge of steep bushland in Garigal National Park. It currently has 108 independent units, an 83-bed aged care home and 65 serviced apartments.

The first plan was submitted in 2018 to rezone the site from R2 low density residential to R3 medium density residential; to almost triple the maximum FSR; and increase the maximum height on a portion of the site from 9.5 m to various heights between 11.5 m and 24 m. Ku-ring-gai Council resolved not to support the proposal for reasons including bushfire risk, limitations of transportation and neighbouring impacts and the proposal was withdrawn.

The next plan was slightly less ambitious. It was submitted in 2021 but was withdrawn and resubmitted in 2022 after requests for amendments by the Department of Planning. The resubmitted plan still increased the number of residents with 141 independent units and 110 care spaces. The serviced apartments were to be replaced with 65 medium density townhouses along the southern boundary.

There was a bizarre plan for the bushfire protection measures to involve the townhouses acting as a special ‘fire protection facility’ or the asset protection zone equivalent buffer protecting the high rise part of the site, the aged-care facility. The report from the RFS said this would be okay. However, as was pointed out to the Planning Panel hearing, the purchasers of these townhouses could have the same dependency and accessibility issues as the residents of the aged-care component of the site.

On 15 December 2023, the Sydney North Planning Panel held a public meeting to consider the planning proposal following its public exhibition. There were many speakers opposing the plan, including STEP and, particularly, Ku-ring-gai Council. The panel determined that the planning proposal should not proceed, predominantly due to ongoing concerns of bushfire hazards and management and the proposed distribution of development density. The panel did acknowledge that the site was in need of redevelopment.

New plans make more sense

A new plan has recently been submitted. It can now come under the state significant development approval process that the NSW government is now applying to the huge number of apartment building DAs in the TOD areas near stations. No change in zoning is required. It is a concept plan at this stage. The DA will come later.

The major change from previous plans is that the independent living units and serviced apartments have been taken out of the high risk bushfire areas and areas of high biodiversity value to establish an asset protection plan that complies with the Bushfire Attack Level rating. The number of units is reduced to 145 seniors housing units. Key trees within the site and surrounding high biodiversity areas, which were previously sought to be impacted or removed, are now retained. Renovations to the aged care buildings will come under separate approvals.

Why didn’t the proponent take this more reasonable approach in the first place?

The residents of Beecroft led by the Byles Creek Valley Union have been fighting for many years to save the bushland of the Byles Creek Valley from development. The problem is that most of the land has been zoned residential with a minimum block size of 600 m²; just another example of a zombie zoning from many years ago before proper environmental assessments were made.

There are some larger lots that could be saved from subdivision that would entail the loss of large areas of vegetation to create asset protection zones. It is now possible that some of this land could be acquired to be zoned as regional open space and avoid this risk. It has been a long and agonising process.

Why the bush should be saved

Byles Creek valley corridor contains magnificent tall forest that provides connectivity between Lane Cove National Park and Pennant Hills Park and, ultimately the Berowra Valley. It supports critical habitat for threatened flora (30 species) and fauna, such as the Powerful Owl (see Facebook page for Mikey the Powerful Owl) and the Gang Gang cockatoo. Byles Creek is largely unaffected by urban runoff and it is rare to find such pristine water in urban areas.

The conservation value of this corridor is further emphasised by its inclusion as a core area in the NSW Biodiversity Investment Opportunities Map as part of the government’s Green Corridors Program.

History of action

The current zoning makes the valley at risk of radical clearing. Back in June 2015 following extensive resident addresses and debate, Hornsby councillors voted unanimously to make a full and comprehensive submission to the government to acquire this bushland as regional open space, but to no avail.

The risk of development became imminent when an application for sub-division of a large block in Malton Road was made in 2016 – more of that later.

Further lobbying by the community led to Hornsby Council agreeing in 2019 to conduct a planning study to assess the suitability of current planning controls to protect the environmental qualities of the whole valley and provide recommendations for changes that would protect the environmental, social and aesthetic qualities of the valley.

The study that was published in 2022 identified environment and development issues, for example:

• steep topography that limits urban development and causes risks from bushfire, flooding and erosion
• the condition of the riparian zones required protection via vegetation buffers
• development would cause loss of habitat vegetation for the APZ, sedimentation of the creek, weed invasion, loss of canopy and visual amenity

The study resulted in the following recommendations:

• change zoning of the low density (R2) land to C4 (Environmental Living) where there is an interface with the Byles Creek core corridor that is currently zoned as recreational
• increase the minimum lot size to 40 ha to meet the C4 objectives
• strengthen the wording in the LEP to support objectives to protect and enhance the vegetation
• enhance the riparian lands buffer conditions to control the impact of urban development and maintain ecological habitat

The next stage was for council to submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) in November 2023.

In May 2025, DPHI finalised its assessment of the proposal. Sadly, they knocked back the main elements:

DPHI is of the view these amendments would reduce housing diversity and development potential of the land.

This decision left the situation in limbo. The major stumbling block was the minimum lot size of 40 ha that was deemed to be too restrictive in most of the valley. Council included this requirement because it is consistent with the minimum lot size in other C4 zoned land even though this applies to more rural areas. Basically the implications were not considered by council.

DPHI has agreed to a number of important amendments requested to the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Hornsby LEP). They stated that it is satisfied that:

The new riparian land clause and mapping will provide an appropriate mechanism to call up environmental considerations in concert with existing provisions and legislation.

79–87 Malton Road

There is one particular block, 79–87 Malton Road that provides an opportunity to protect a large area from development. The owner has been trying to subdivide the block into six smaller lots for low density housing.

We first wrote about this land in April 2016 (STEP Matters, Issue 185). Residents had been lobbying Hornsby Council for years to make an application for the government to acquire the land for regional open space. In June 2015 councillors voted to make a submission. The Byles Creek Valley Union and the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust augmented this with their own comprehensive submissions.

Nevertheless, after consideration of some additional reports, the sub-division was refused but the landowner appealed to the Land and Environment Court and was inevitably successful.

The residents continue the fight and had reason for hope that some funds could be available from the council sale of a church hall in Cheltenham to go towards purchasing the land. In 2019 members of the Byles Creek Valley Union were told by their local member, Dominic Perrottet, that funds were in place to acquire some of the privately held bushland and he promised that he would take steps to start the process. Despite several follow ups this promise is still to be actioned. Meanwhile the land is at risk.

The DA approval for sub-division granted by the Land and Environment Court was due to expire in November 2024. Suddenly the residents were shocked to see work being done to clear some vegetation and build a fence on the edge of Malton Road. This action wasn’t approved by the court.

The Byles Creek Valley Union newsletter also revealed that:

It is with great sadness that we inform you the developers at 79−87 Malton Road Beecroft have apparently obtained a construction certificate from a private certifier for internal works but not as yet for any work to Malton Road. It would seem tree removal will be imminent with many dozens of magnificent trees approved to be removed.

Now the land is for sale

But all is not lost. No further work has happened. Despite the illegal tree works it appears that the time limit for work to start has been passed and, suddenly, the land is now up for sale.

There is a golden opportunity for the government to act on the promises from Dominic Perrottet. It is believed that the environment minister is sympathetic. The local member Monica Tudehope spoke in parliament supporting the purchase.

At the August meeting Hornsby councillors voted unanimously to support a motion for council to write to the state government requesting the government acquire 79–87 Malton Road as the time is of the essence while this land is for sale.

The Byles Creek Valley Union are asking people to write to the Environment Minister Penny Sharpe (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) and copy in the Hornsby councillors (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) imploring her to acquire the land.

The planning proposal should be resubmitted

The stalemate over the zoning details for Byes Creek Valley highlights the need for Hornsby Council to resubmit the planning proposal so that it meets the needs that were identified in the planning study. The minimum lots size should be reduced to an amount consistent with similar land in the shire. It has just come to light that council has a new draft planning proposal for rezoning rural land in Glenorie with a minimum lot size of only 4,000 or 5,000 m² (half a hectare).

The issue of bushfire risk should be incorporated in the planning process by include an RFS Strategic Bushfire Plan showing the major bushfire constraints of all remaining undeveloped residential land in Byles Creek as this is a requirement of the department.

Please therefore write to Hornsby Council requesting council resubmits the Byles Creek planning proposal but with the matters that should have been addressed; the reduced minimum subdivision lot sizes and with an RFS strategic bushfire plan included.

Photo: Trish Brown