**2. Strategic land use planning and change**

underpin the economic diversity of the nation with rural regions more specifically playing a vital part [2]. Over time, however, as power has devolved from the Federal government to the States, management of the biophysical environment—land, soils and water in particular have taken on greater significance as increased 'scarcity' created by human induced pressures, has become more widely recognised and communities have begun to demand more active

In an attempt to 'balance' strong economic growth with protection of agricultural lands, the New South Wales (NSW) State government in 2012 introduced strategic land use plans for the Upper Hunter and New England regions [3, 4]. While these were designed to promote 'coexistence' of diverse land uses, they also set in place long-term strategic goals which focused

For example, in the Upper Hunter and New England regions alone, 11 Petroleum Exploration Licences (PELS) mainly for coal seam gas (CSG, referred to elsewhere 'as coal-bed methane') have been issued, covering a total of 461,000 ha of prime agricultural land [5] (**Figure 1**). This total does not include the minerals titles that also exist in these regions and elsewhere which

The increased emphasis on extractive land uses (other than those agricultural in nature) has been met with widespread opposition from farmers, local communities, environmentalists and concerned others, who over the past 5 years in particular have responded with resistance

heavily on increasing the spatial dimensions and needs of energy industries.

responses from government to address these challenges.

288 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

cover approximately two-thirds of the State.

**Figure 1.** Upper hunter and New England region PEL zones.

When the NSW State government first released its Strategic Regional Land Use Plans, they were heralded as a suite of law reforms which would address what the government itself saw as flaws in the planning process [12]. These plans were to represent the 'government's proposed framework to support growth, protect the environment and respond to competing land uses, while [also] preserving key regional values over the next 20 years " ([3], p. 8). Framed as a way to ensure that land identified as 'Strategic Agricultural Land' – i.e. – highly productive land requiring extra protection mechanisms, the government put in place what it called a 'Gateway Assessment process' [3, 4]. It also appointed a Gateway Assessment Panel of experts (GAP), who would assess the merits of 'State Significant' mining and coal seam gas proposals on strategic agricultural land and then issue a certificate of approval [13].

While the Gateway Assessment process was to mark a significant improvement on previous planning efforts in regional NSW, it did not, however, redress the imbalance between the State's perceived economic 'needs' and the social and environmental needs of specific rural regions [12]. In fact, the Strategic Regional Land Use Plans (which were later to become policy) further entrenched this imbalance by rendering it impossible for the GAP to refuse an application for a Gateway Certificate no matter how questionable the project [12, 14].

Under the Gateway process, the GAP is required to make an upfront assessment of the impacts of a mining/CSG proposal on agricultural activities and water sources. On what basis, however, can this assessment be undertaken if the impacts are cumulative or as of yet unknown [12, 14, 15]? Since CSG mining is still a relatively new industry in Australia, it is possible that the impacts from mining and fracking activities may not only be site specific, but could also potentially affect a greater proportion of a region than initially considered ([16], p. 12).

application, the IPC can call a public hearing [21]. This is seen by government as a way to build the community's confidence and trust in the Commission's independence by ensuring that assessment and land use planning processes are open and transparent, even though it is

Unlikely Alliances in the Battle for Land and Water Security: Unconventional Gas and the Politics…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78795

291

While this is considered by some as a way to depoliticise the planning system, in effect it can actually further reduce the rights of the citizen public by closing off avenues to test the legitimacy of decision-making. For example, once a public hearing has been called, this effectively rules out any further questioning of the process or outcome in the Land and Environment Court of NSW where previously, merit and judicial review of planning decisions could be taken for further scrutiny. This essentially means that any matters raised at the public hearing that citizens feel are not dealt with satisfactorily or fairly, can no longer be responded to by the courts; thus removing the only external review mechanism for State government decision-making.

While the SRLUP has been heavily critiqued by many, one large alteration made to it in 2013/2014 to try to address community concerns was the introduction of 'exclusion zones'. These zones effectively made areas of the State 'off-limits' to CSG exploration and mining. This was considered to be a much needed addition to the policy to provide certainty for CSG

When the list of exclusion zones was announced, however, it was met with mixed emotions. In urban areas of the State where existing residential suburbs were present, as well as in the North West and South West 'Growth Centres' of the State's capital – Sydney, protection from CSG exploration was guaranteed by the government [22]. In the rural regions of the State, however, it was a vastly different story. While the government introduced CSG exclusion zones for seven rural villages across NSW, and the equine and viticulture critical industry clusters of the Upper Hunter region, it did not choose to protect the agricultural areas of the New England region (and other similar regions throughout the state) [22]. This is despite it identifying in its own 'New England North West Regional Plan' that 'the New England North West is one of Australia's most productive agricultural areas" and that the "gross value of agricultural commodities produced in the region for 2016 was worth \$2.1 billion" ([23], p. 4). For many, this lack of protection was seen as continued evidence of an urban/rural (policy) divide where decisions are made at a distance by city-centric government officials who often have little comprehension of their impact locally [2]. In the New England region where the case study (to follow) is located, this and the idea of the urban/rural divide is reinforced through the concept of 'the Sandstone Curtain' [2]. This metaphor is used by many to describe the physical barrier of the Great Dividing (mountain) Range which splits NSW in two with many rural regions located over the range to the west and the urban areas located on the coast and surrounds to the east.

Overall, it is no exaggeration to suggest that changing land uses and increased government support of the extractives sector has been largely responsible for the rising discontent that can be found in many communities throughout rural NSW today. This in conjunction with changes to planning legislation and withdrawal of the right to seek merit and judicial review of most government planning decisions, has essentially been behind the rise in activism over the past few years and the appearance of new mergers between traditionally old

the Minister who chooses the make-up of the Commission [21].

**2.2. Exclusion zones, protection and ongoing contestation**

operators and communities alike.

In an attempt to further assuage these concerns, the NSW government introduced an 'Aquifer Interference Policy' in 2013 [17]. This was seen as 'a key plank' to the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy (SRLUP), but it was essentially left to the Minister for Planning to provide appropriate advice to the GAP on the potential impacts on aquifers from mining, CSG extraction, exploration and other activities based on the minimal impact considerations set out by the Aquifer Interference Policy [17]. There was nothing put in place, however, to either ensure the quality of aquifers and groundwater after CSG activities had occurred, nor penalties or fines for operators if damage was deemed to have been committed. This was seen by many to be a major flaw in the policy suite and did little to quell community disquiet. Other methods employed by government to try to reduce community objections are discussed below in the other sub-sections of this chapter.

### **2.1. Property law, 'co-existence' and citizen rights**

In NSW (like the rest of Australia, and in the UK), all land or 'property' is assumed to be owned by or leased from the crown (or the State) [18]. This control of land tenure also extends to 'free-hold' titles where private ownership is not absolute, with the crown's representatives empowered to withhold certain rights, such as the right to any mineral or petroleum source found on or under the land [19]. It is the prevalence of this ancient paradigm of property rights transcribed onto modern law, that thus allows all land to be viewed as a commodity, as something "fungible, [and] infinitely tradeable" ([8], p. 6). This regime by its very nature is designed to separate people from place and to valorise the material or physical realm as something separate and 'other' to human subjectivity. It is this legacy that provides modern governments with the power not only to licence State intervention in land use practices such as establishing energy infrastructure, but also to determine the path this intervention will take.

As suggested at the start of Section 2, the NSW government through the SRLUP sought to balance land use and promote what it refers to as 'co-existence'. It suggests that: 'agriculture and mining are both vital industries in NSW and share many common beliefs and interests" [20]. It does not attempt to state what these are, only to suggest further that "the successful coexistence of these industries has enormous benefits for the state, particularly in regional areas" [20]. It also makes it very clear, that "although landholders may own the land, most mineral resources in NSW are owned by the state. This means that the royalties and economic benefits from the mining of these resources contribute to the provision of services for the people of NSW" [20]. To ensure the unimpeded continuity of what it calls "the orderly search for minerals"1 , the government has also recently altered how it approves the development of these resources [20].

Under the 2018 amendments to NSW *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979*, all mining and gas operations are to be classified as 'State Significant Development' (SSD). Under this classification, an Independent Planning Commission (IPC) becomes the consent authority instead of the Minister for Planning, especially when there is significant community opposition. Under this guise, once there have been 25 or more public objections to a project

<sup>1</sup> The NSW government includes gas (tight, shale, coal seam, off-shore) and petroleum under its definition of 'minerals' on this site.

application, the IPC can call a public hearing [21]. This is seen by government as a way to build the community's confidence and trust in the Commission's independence by ensuring that assessment and land use planning processes are open and transparent, even though it is the Minister who chooses the make-up of the Commission [21].

While this is considered by some as a way to depoliticise the planning system, in effect it can actually further reduce the rights of the citizen public by closing off avenues to test the legitimacy of decision-making. For example, once a public hearing has been called, this effectively rules out any further questioning of the process or outcome in the Land and Environment Court of NSW where previously, merit and judicial review of planning decisions could be taken for further scrutiny. This essentially means that any matters raised at the public hearing that citizens feel are not dealt with satisfactorily or fairly, can no longer be responded to by the courts; thus removing the only external review mechanism for State government decision-making.

#### **2.2. Exclusion zones, protection and ongoing contestation**

the impacts from mining and fracking activities may not only be site specific, but could also potentially affect a greater proportion of a region than initially considered ([16], p. 12).

In an attempt to further assuage these concerns, the NSW government introduced an 'Aquifer Interference Policy' in 2013 [17]. This was seen as 'a key plank' to the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy (SRLUP), but it was essentially left to the Minister for Planning to provide appropriate advice to the GAP on the potential impacts on aquifers from mining, CSG extraction, exploration and other activities based on the minimal impact considerations set out by the Aquifer Interference Policy [17]. There was nothing put in place, however, to either ensure the quality of aquifers and groundwater after CSG activities had occurred, nor penalties or fines for operators if damage was deemed to have been committed. This was seen by many to be a major flaw in the policy suite and did little to quell community disquiet. Other methods employed by government to try to reduce community objections are discussed below in the

In NSW (like the rest of Australia, and in the UK), all land or 'property' is assumed to be owned by or leased from the crown (or the State) [18]. This control of land tenure also extends to 'free-hold' titles where private ownership is not absolute, with the crown's representatives empowered to withhold certain rights, such as the right to any mineral or petroleum source found on or under the land [19]. It is the prevalence of this ancient paradigm of property rights transcribed onto modern law, that thus allows all land to be viewed as a commodity, as something "fungible, [and] infinitely tradeable" ([8], p. 6). This regime by its very nature is designed to separate people from place and to valorise the material or physical realm as something separate and 'other' to human subjectivity. It is this legacy that provides modern governments with the power not only to licence State intervention in land use practices such as establishing energy infrastructure, but also to determine the path this intervention will take. As suggested at the start of Section 2, the NSW government through the SRLUP sought to balance land use and promote what it refers to as 'co-existence'. It suggests that: 'agriculture and mining are both vital industries in NSW and share many common beliefs and interests" [20]. It does not attempt to state what these are, only to suggest further that "the successful coexistence of these industries has enormous benefits for the state, particularly in regional areas" [20]. It also makes it very clear, that "although landholders may own the land, most mineral resources in NSW are owned by the state. This means that the royalties and economic benefits from the mining of these resources contribute to the provision of services for the people of NSW" [20]. To ensure the unimpeded continuity of what it calls "the orderly search for minerals"1

government has also recently altered how it approves the development of these resources [20]. Under the 2018 amendments to NSW *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979*, all mining and gas operations are to be classified as 'State Significant Development' (SSD). Under this classification, an Independent Planning Commission (IPC) becomes the consent authority instead of the Minister for Planning, especially when there is significant community opposition. Under this guise, once there have been 25 or more public objections to a project

The NSW government includes gas (tight, shale, coal seam, off-shore) and petroleum under its definition of 'minerals'

, the

other sub-sections of this chapter.

290 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

1

on this site.

**2.1. Property law, 'co-existence' and citizen rights**

While the SRLUP has been heavily critiqued by many, one large alteration made to it in 2013/2014 to try to address community concerns was the introduction of 'exclusion zones'. These zones effectively made areas of the State 'off-limits' to CSG exploration and mining. This was considered to be a much needed addition to the policy to provide certainty for CSG operators and communities alike.

When the list of exclusion zones was announced, however, it was met with mixed emotions. In urban areas of the State where existing residential suburbs were present, as well as in the North West and South West 'Growth Centres' of the State's capital – Sydney, protection from CSG exploration was guaranteed by the government [22]. In the rural regions of the State, however, it was a vastly different story. While the government introduced CSG exclusion zones for seven rural villages across NSW, and the equine and viticulture critical industry clusters of the Upper Hunter region, it did not choose to protect the agricultural areas of the New England region (and other similar regions throughout the state) [22]. This is despite it identifying in its own 'New England North West Regional Plan' that 'the New England North West is one of Australia's most productive agricultural areas" and that the "gross value of agricultural commodities produced in the region for 2016 was worth \$2.1 billion" ([23], p. 4).

For many, this lack of protection was seen as continued evidence of an urban/rural (policy) divide where decisions are made at a distance by city-centric government officials who often have little comprehension of their impact locally [2]. In the New England region where the case study (to follow) is located, this and the idea of the urban/rural divide is reinforced through the concept of 'the Sandstone Curtain' [2]. This metaphor is used by many to describe the physical barrier of the Great Dividing (mountain) Range which splits NSW in two with many rural regions located over the range to the west and the urban areas located on the coast and surrounds to the east.

Overall, it is no exaggeration to suggest that changing land uses and increased government support of the extractives sector has been largely responsible for the rising discontent that can be found in many communities throughout rural NSW today. This in conjunction with changes to planning legislation and withdrawal of the right to seek merit and judicial review of most government planning decisions, has essentially been behind the rise in activism over the past few years and the appearance of new mergers between traditionally old foes—farmers and environmentalists. More than this though, the government's framing of its decision-making as in the 'public's economic interest' has led many to question its wisdom and to turn the debate into one about protectionism versus globalised trade. As influential Australian commentator Alan Jones has noted:

one. Over the past 50 years, it has experienced significant land use change including the introduction of the cotton industry and then later, the advent of genetically modified (GM) cotton. Whilst these developments generated considerable concern in the community at the time, it is the more recent expansion of coal mining and CSG development in the Shire that has engendered the most conflict [2, 6]. Disputes have emerged between those who ultimately see extractive industries facilitating economic growth and diversity, and those who see these activities as a threat to the

Unlikely Alliances in the Battle for Land and Water Security: Unconventional Gas and the Politics…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78795

293

The research this chapter discusses, is a sample of the findings from a collaborative study carried out in Narrabri shire in 2015–2016. Narrabri shire consists of 8 towns (including Boggabri, Narrabri, Pilliga and Wee Waa—**Figure 1**), with a total—population of approximately 14,000 residents. The research used qualitative methods that set out to explore the lived experiences of individuals and community in regards to changing land use patterns. It included voluntary, face-to-face interviews with a mix of rural, village and Narrabri town residents [30].

Ultimately, Narrabri shire was chosen for this study due to its history of significant land use change, the intensification of coal mining and the emergence of CSG interests that are seen to currently challenge the traditional agricultural base of the community ([6], p. 103). Narrabri also presented an opportunity to explore the changing nature of land use contestation and the formation of new allegiances due to the fact that recent civil disobedience campaigns against energy company 'Santos' were situated there ([6], p. 103). These campaigns garnered nationwide attention as environmentalists from across Australia joined local farmers and community groups to protest against what they perceived as an unsustainable and undesirable land use change. Consequently, Narrabri shire presented a unique lens through which to explore

This chapter highlights several themes to emerge from this research. These are represented below under Sections 3 and 4. Overall, these articulations represent the values, perceptions,

core agricultural functions upon which Narrabri Shire was founded back in 1848 [2, 6].

**Figure 2** outlines the methods used for sampling and recruitment of participants.

the intricacies and complexities that exist around land use change today [2, 6, 31].

**Figure 2.** The methodological approach.

*"This is not just a battle about mining prime farm land or destroying fresh water or covering our land with salt or risking public health. This is about something far more damaging and dangerous: the loss of our rights as Australian citizens, the loss of basic freedoms we have always taken for granted. State and federal governments have conspired to remove our rights over the ownership of our land. They have deliberately conspired to bully, to abuse, and to force Australians into court if they don't comply with the demands of foreign-owned multinational mining companies" [24].*

Jones's comments echo the concerns of many, not just local communities, as they speak to larger issues such as loss of place, the demise of rural landscapes, environments being eroded and overall, rural places beginning to represent what Murton has referred to as 'the countryside under construction" ([25], p. 1). With extractive industries and their associated infrastructure playing a large role in this transformation, it is worth acknowledging that 'there are deeply emotional ramifications [associated with] resource extraction" ([26], p. 1).

As Urry ([27], p. 77) notes further, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, 'emotions are intimately tied to place "and as such, places are prompts for often intense feelings, springboards for memories and motivators for action. Acknowledging this, is essential if serious attempts are to be made to resolve some of the more contentious issues surrounding changing land uses today. As regional planners such as Godschalk ([28], p. 5) suggest:

*Twenty-first century land use planning faces both an opportunity and a threat. On the one hand, it is widely counted on and expected to deliver both sustainable development and livable communities. On the other hand, it must cope with serious conflicts in the values related to these two beguiling visions, which represent the big visionary ideas of contemporary… planning. The future of land use planning may well depend on how it resolves these conflicts and creates settlement patterns that are both livable and sustainable. [Italics in original].*

In Narrabri Shire, where the focus of this chapter now shifts (**Figure 1**), government, industry and civil society have all been drawn into a conversation around land use change and the differing visions for the region's long-term future. Why and how this manifests itself on the ground is discussed further in Section 3.
