Advertisment

General News

20 February, 2025

Pipeline tree clearing in spotlight

Illegal tree clearing for pipeline

By Elizabeth Voneiff

Photos show tree clearing conducted on the Hendon-Victoria Hill Road.
Photos show tree clearing conducted on the Hendon-Victoria Hill Road.

Illegal tree clearing on the proposed Toowoomba to Warwick pipeline route has been confirmed by Southern Downs Regional Council. As reported last week, local ecologists and environmental groups are anxious that a potential new route for the pipeline will infringe on eco-sensitive properties in the Deuchar area where the koala populations are both unusually high and genetically diverse.

Tree clearing on a property on the Hendon-Victoria road in recent months raised alarm bells about the ecological significance. Ecologist Dawn Heath describes the location as a koala corridor with state significant vegetation including a native orchid habitat.

“Council can confirm that officers were made aware of tree clearing works on 6 November 2024 and promptly conducted a site visit on 7 November 2024,” a council spokesperson told The Town & Country Journal.

“The tree clearing was undertaken by a local resident as part of fencing works. Unfortunately, these works were carried out without the necessary Council approval, which would have been required due to the location within the road reserve.”

“Council officers promptly reported the works to the Department of Resources to report the matter and an investigation was initiated straight away.”

According to the Department of Environment website, “you must notify us before you start to clear [vegetation] under an accepted development vegetation clearing code.”

The landholder must provide the department with a plan of the land, the tenure of the property, the area to be cleared, the hectares proposed to be cleared, and “regional ecosystems in which the clearing is proposed”.

Pointedly, landholders are warned not to “start any clearing until you’ve received confirmation of your notification”. Landholders who don’t comply with the code are committing an offence under the Planning Act 2016. 

“Council has since followed up with the Department and understands that the investigation is still ongoing. We appreciate the community’s understanding and cooperation as the process continues.”

The Department of Environment will not comment on an ongoing investigation and gave a generic answer to vegetation clearing.

“There are a range of clearing activities that landholders can do under the vegetation management framework without the need for approval, a development permit or other assessment. Where unauthorised clearing native vegetation is detected, the department uses a risk-based approach to determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. These actions could range from advice and education through to enforcement actions, such as restoration notices.

 

SEQwater responds

SEQwater was asked for clarification on the timing of the environmental reports, final location of the pipeline and how the public will be notified about “drop-in sessions” by the organisation.

A spokesperson responded that it has “undertaken extensive ecological and environmental investigations to help identify protected plants, habitats for flora and fauna, important waterway environments and more.”

Investigations are expected to continue in 2025 to assist in the final route, “potential mitigation measures” and approvals under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act.

“SEQwater is committed to keeping the community informed about this important water security project. Drop-in community information sessions will be held in 2025. SEQwater encourages the community to keep an eye out for these sessions on the SEQwater website, social media and in our newsletter.”

Ecologist Dawn Heath is not impressed. She argues that “there has been absolutely no community consultation” and that  “drop-in community info sessions once the pipeline route has already been finalised” is of no value.

“Myself, and many others I have spoken with, find this planned post-decision engagement totally unacceptable for such an important and expensive taxpayer-funded project.”

Advertisment

Most Popular