By Mark Barnett,
Technical Director
E: Mark@28south.com.au;
M: 0411 251 072
In Queensland, certain activities are regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 as environmentally relevant activities (ERAs). These activities are listed in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019 and range from industrial and extractive processes to waste handling, treatment and storage.
Where an activity meets the definition of an ERA, it generally requires an Environmental Authority (EA) before it can be lawfully undertaken. Some ERAs can be approved directly by the Department of Environment, Technology, Science and Innovation (DETSI), while others are classified as concurrent ERAs, meaning they must also be authorised through the planning system via a development permit.
For many proponents, EAs are well understood when they sit at the core of a business.
If you operate a timber mill, you are unlikely to be surprised by the need to hold an EA for activities like timber treatment or milling. The same applies to poultry farming – it is a well-established ERA, and proponents generally understand the approval requirements upfront. Where an ERA is the business, regulatory awareness usually comes with the territory.
That’s not where most projects run into trouble.
More often, ERAs arise incidentally – through early works, construction activities, or changes in methodology as a project progresses. These secondary activities are easy to overlook, particularly when they’re not central to the ultimate land use, but they’re often the ones that create the most pressure once identified.
Material extraction and screening, crushing or milling, waste handling, resource recovery, water treatment, fuel burning and chemical storage are all prescribed under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Protection Regulation. They’re frequently treated as enabling works rather than activities with standalone approval implications.
A case study in unintended exposure
Midway through early civil works on a large residential development, a contractor encountered hardrock in planned borrow areas. While shallow excavation could proceed conventionally, deeper works might require blasting – a change in methodology that was immediately recognised as a potential ERA trigger requiring closer examination.
A review of approvals confirmed the site held a valid development permit for material change of use, but it did not authorise the undertaking of a concurrent ERA. That wasn’t surprising. The extent of hardrock and the potential need for blasting weren’t known when the development approval was originally obtained.
The issue was timing. The contractor was approaching the limit of what could be achieved without blasting, and any approval delay would have translated directly into programme and cost risk.
Rather than stopping works, the focus shifted to sequencing.
Under Schedule 2, extraction for reshaping land is excluded from an extractive ERA where blasting is avoided and material is retained on site. That meant the upper material horizons – roughly the first five metres – could be excavated without triggering an extraction ERA. Screening material at scale, however, was still a prescribed activity.
An EA was therefore secured for ERA 16(3)(b) (screening), a non-concurrent ERA that could be approved directly by DETSI. In parallel, preparation commenced to add ERA 16(2)(b) once blasting became unavoidable, by change process, via the State Assessment and Referral Agency.
While that process ran its course, works continued under the initial EA. No stand-downs. No lost time. No compliance exposure.
The lesson was simple: the problem wasn’t that an ERA arose – it was that it arose mid-project, under time pressure. Understanding exemptions, thresholds and concurrence pathways early created options. Without that understanding, the outcome would have been very different.
What proponents should think about early
Projects that manage ERAs well tend to do so because these issues are considered early, not treated as a downstream compliance exercise.
There are several questions worth asking:
- Is there a material change of use approval, and does it allow for all activities that may reasonably occur during early works, construction and operation?
- Are there any secondary or incidental activities that may fall within Schedule 2? ‘Incidental’ Schedule 3 activities are much less likely.
- Are there exemptions or threshold triggers that could be worked within to circumvent needing an EA?
- If an EA is required, does an ERA standard apply – and can the activity comply with that standard in full, without variation?
- If an ERA is unavoidable, when will the triggering threshold be reached – on day one or years down the track?
Answering those questions early often creates flexibility. Leaving them late usually removes it.
The wrap up
Environmental Authorities are not just a regulatory hurdle to clear once a design is finalised. They sit at the intersection of land use planning, construction methodology and delivery certainty – and require early, structured thinking.
At 28 South Environmental, we have extensive experience strategising, assessing and navigating EA requirements under the Environmental Protection Act. We work with proponents, contractors and planners to identify risks early, test exemptions and thresholds, and sequence approvals to protect programme outcomes.
If there’s one consistent lesson across the projects we support, it’s this: the earlier we’re engaged, the more options are on the table. And in a regulatory environment where time and certainty matter, having options often matters.