response to epbc submissions, heathcote ridge, west menai€¦ · web viewthe response to these...

RESPONSE TO EPBC SUBMISSIONSHEATHCOTE RIDGE, WEST MENAIAugust 2012

Prepared for Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land CouncilBy BBC Consulting Planners with input from the consultant team

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 22. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 33. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS........................................................................... 7

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The draft 'Heathcote Ridge Program Report' dated December 2011 and the draft'Strategic Impact Assessment Report' dated December 2011 was jointly exhibited with the ‘State Significant Site Study’ dated December 2011. This public exhibition and comment process meets the requirements of the EPBC Act and the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

As a result of the submissions made during the exhibition process, amendments have been made to the program which are incorporated into the final 'Heathcote Ridge Program Report' and 'Strategic Impact Assessment Report' dated August 2011.

The study and draft PR and SAR were exhibited from 14 December 2011 to 29February 2012.

The Proponent (GLALC) has considered the issues raised in the submissions made during the exhibition period and has implemented various actions in relation thereto. This includes some significant changes to the structure plan and associated planning controls which are described in the final Program Report for the Strategic Assessment of the Heathcote Ridge Development, West Menai, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) dated August 2012.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council’s proposal for Heathcote Ridge at West Menai is the largest Aboriginal owned and managed project in Australia. Covering around 850 hectares, the project seeks to help address Sydney’s housing and employment land shortages whilst still protecting two thirds of the site for conservation.

Capital raised by the fifteen to twenty year project will fund education, employment, housing and transport programs for Aboriginal people in Sydney’s south west in an effort to break welfare dependency and help Aboriginal people achieve the type of financial and social independence that other Australians take for granted.

The project itself will:

provide thousands of quality local jobs; help ease local housing pressures; enable more local residents to live near their work; open up a spectacular conservation park for public enjoyment; provide recreational and retail hubs for the local community; rehabilitate areas degraded by decades of dumping; and provide nearly $100 million of improved local roads and infrastructure at

no net cost to government.

The Heathcote Ridge State Significant Site Study (SSS Study) was submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) in December 2011 and publicly exhibited for a period of almost three months - to the end of February 2012.

The consultation with community, government agencies and interested stakeholders in the lead up to and during the formal consultation phase for the SSS Study has been extensive. GLALC hosted two immediate neighbour forums, three broader community forums and two community information display sessions with experts on hand to answer community questions. More than 30 different stakeholders have been directly consulted.

Following the exhibition and consultation phase, GLALC had an opportunity to consider all the submissions and take on board the variety of feedback received. An amended Land Use Structure Plan for the site has been prepared (Figure 1).

The key elements of the revised proposal are:

The provision of a conservation area comprising an area of 566 hectares

(66.7%) of the site which is an additional 50 hectares;

Of the remaining 283 hectares of land, the proposed urban purposes comprise:

o 51.4 hectares of employment land (including a new village centre)

estimated to provide 4,700 jobs;o 182.7 hectares of land for residential and associated purposes

including local open space capable of accommodating an estimated 2,400 homes (7,200 persons);

o New sportsfields and other open space (17.2 hectares), provision for a school and community facilities; and

o A visitors and cultural heritage centre as a gateway to the proposed

Heathcote Conservation Area; Creation of distinct residential neighbourhoods linked together via

walking trails, pathways and a central collector road spine; Provision of an east west arterial road connecting New Illawarra Road with

Heathcote Road; The provision of bushfire management measures including asset

protection zones, access routes and water services and neighbourhood safe places.

Overall the project continues to deliver on GLALC’s vision to create a high quality, environmentally-sustainable new community that is well connected, protects important ecological areas, integrates with adjoining urban and bushland areas and provides a range of living, working and recreational opportunities in the Sutherland Shire.

The protection of both Aboriginal cultural heritage and important biodiversity on the site has always been a key consideration in the design of the development footprint. All the relevant studies, plus the guidance of an independent advisory committee, have resulted in a footprint that operates on the ‘avoidance’ principle.

There are no known Aboriginal sites in the development area and any potential sites in the footprint will undergo further investigation during the Development Application stage following rezoning. If any additional actual sites are found in the development footprint, they too will be protected. Any sites indirectly impacted will also attract management actions as the project proceeds depending on their type, location and most effective protection action on a case by case basis.

Similarly, the conservation area, now 566 hectares, will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan which will ensure the area is actively managed for conservation in perpetuity and funded by the capital raised by the project. This provides an offset ratio of 2:1 and is a net gain for the environment. The removal of the former southern precincts provides an expansion of the important north-south wildlife corridor running through the site.

While the reduction in traffic volume afforded by the reduction in the size of the employment area and residential areas is significant (trips on local and regional roads will be cut by approximately 40% from the exhibited plan), the proponent still proposes to upgrade a range of local infrastructure including funding the critical east-west transport link between Sutherland and Liverpool which will provide benefits to the community through reduction in travel times and provision of new public transport services.

In its entirety this proposal will assist the NSW State Government to meet housing and job targets, provide a new, vibrant integrated bushland community in West Menai and protect forever a large conservation area for the people of Sydney, Sutherland and beyond.


Figure 1. Revised Structure Plan


3. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

The table following presents a summary of the issues raised in the submissions made during the exhibition period and the proponent’s response to the submissions. A total of 2 submissions were received in response to EPBC documents.

The response to these submissions is discussed in the following table and have been taken into consideration in the preparation of final Program Report for the final Program Report for the Strategic Assessment of the Heathcote Ridge Development, West Menai, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) dated August 2012 and the final Strategic Assessment Report Heathcote Ridge, West Menai dated August 2012.

It is noted that the submission from Sutherland Environment Centre is similar to the submission from Sutherland Shire Council and addresses the SSS Study with no specific reference to MNES. Nevertheless the response to the Council submission is also provided.

8

No Submitter Issues Raised

Response and Mitigation Strategy

Organis a t i o n Su b missio n s

1 Sutherland GreensEPBC

That the plateau areas of at least Precincts 6,7,9 and the part of10 North of Barden Trig, together with the Mill Creek Valley should be leased or repurchased by the NSW Government to be protected under NPWS management, entirely or jointly with Gandangara LALC to conserve its endangered flora and avoid blocking a fauna migration corridor.

Matter for Government

That the proponent, Gandangara LALC, be encouraged to facilitate responsible access throughout the entire 15-25 year project time span to undeveloped portions of their West Menai landholding for continued environmental exploration and study and failing this

Failing Recommendation 1, the ridge tops of Barden Ridge and along Heathcote Road should be afforded interim EPBC protection , pending research on advanced development controls necessary to preserve viable low-maintenance bushland in adjoining valleys.

Noted and can be considered in the Biodiversity Management Plan for the environmental lands.

The Commonwealth should facilitate and fund collaboration between the Gandangara LALC's proposed Aboriginal Conservation Ranger training facility and an appropriate tertiary education institution to promote the reconciliation and integration of traditional knowledge and scientific principles in caring for this country.

Matter for Commonwealth

NSW Planning should promote and research by Local Government Authorities into the cost of effective management for weed invasion problems anticipated to arise from ridge-top developments. This data should be collated and a spatial model developed to guide user-pays cost recovery measures that may

Matter for DoP&I

9



henceforth influence development planning.

In preparing residential subdivisions for sale, pre-emptive landscaping by scraping all vegetation, rock and topsoil from every block must be banned to prevent gross nutrient and silt pollution of watercourses. Each purchaser must be allowed the choice of individual landscaping options, including the retention of trees, rocks and topsoil on parts of the block.

Noted. Matter for DA.

Development standards for ridge top development should explicitly address the requirement to prevent weed invasion of downslope bushland in addition to existing erosion and flood control provisions.


Quality standards for released stormwater should ensure that total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in treated stormwater outflows are within the range of natural runoff measured at corresponding locations prior to any site disturbance.


Constructed wetlands should be employed for nutrient control on all stormwater outlets and should be supplied with a small continuous flow of water and planted with wetland vegetation to trap and inhibit germination of dry land weed seeds.


Councils should require and monitor a maintenance schedule for constructed wetlands as part of every development plan, ensuring regular removal of weed infestation from banks and excessive accumulations of silt and plant growth from the pond.


2 Sutherland ShireEnvironment Centre

Sustainability Criteria not met in areas such as: Infrastructure provision; Access; Housing diversity;

This submission is similar to the submission from Sutherland Shire Council to the exhibition of the SSS Study under the NSW EP&A Act. The response to Council’s

10



Employment lands; Avoidance of risk (bushfires, incompatible uses); Environmental protection; Quality and equity of service.

submission is included below.

Land use controls in standard instrument are inappropriate;

Lack of demand for employment land;

Incompatible land uses adjoining residential areas;

Significant biodiversity impacts;

Inadequate road and traffic assessment and infrastructure;

Significant bushfire risk;

Concerns over contamination and subsidence

Adverse water quality impacts

Infrastructure provision costly

Submission from Sutherland Shire Council to SSS Study

Sutherland ShireCouncil

S u s t ainab i l i t y Cri t er i a For new la n d releases n o t m e t

The proposed Heathcote Ridge development does not satisfy the requirement that a new land release area must be consistent with “any relevant development strategy, subregional strategy,

Section 2.3 of the SSS Study adequately addresses the sustainability criteria for new land releases in the 2005Metropolitan Strategy. This

11



regional infrastructure strategy and Metropolitan Plan” compliance with strategies (Section 2.1 ofSSS Study).

Infrastructure: The Submission fails to satisfy the requirement to sufficiently cost the provision of infrastructure for the proposed development.

Costs of all infrastructure have been calculated as detailed in Section 2.3 of the SSS study.

Access: The proposal fails to demonstrate potential for cost effective public transport

The proposal includes the provision of improved road access and associated public transport Improvements including improvements in regional bus movements of benefit to the wider community.

Housing Diversity: The proposal does not address housing diversity criteria in any detailed or meaningful way

See point 3 in the Table 1 in Section 2.2 of the SSS Study.

Employment Lands: The proposal fails to demonstrate how the development will make a significant positive contribution to meeting the subregional employment targets, or to improving employment self-containment rates.

This is adequately addressed in Section 2.2 of SSS Study. Changes to the amount and nature of employment land have been made in response to submissions with the revised proposal presented in Section 4.

Avoidance of risk: The proposal fails to ability demonstrate it can provide a safe bushfire evacuation route

The proposal fails to avoid risks associated with land use conflicts originating from existing and future uses at the adjacent Liverpool Military Area (Holsworthy) Heathcote Road and the Lucas Heights Resource Recovery Centre.

Bushfire management issues have been addressed by RFS. The Employment land buffer is considered appropriate by RFS subject to bushfire management arrangements being in place for employment lands until developed.

Environmental Protection: The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on a range of threatened flora and fauna, and ecological communities protected under State and Federal legislation.

Discussed in final PR and SAR Reports in so far as MNES are concerned.

12



The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems.

The proposal does not demonstrate how it will protect areas ofAboriginal cultural heritage value (as agreed by DEC). Areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage

value are protected by legislation.

Quality and Equity of Services: Given the area’s relative isolation from other urban centres and the difficulties in providing cost effective public transport to the site, it is considered that the development could create a pocket of social disadvantage.

The social composition of the new suburb is expected to be similar to that of other areas of Menai.

Land n o t s u i table f or urban d e velopme n t bec a u s e o f bushfire risk

Site constraints from bushfire risk as so great that the development is fundamentally flawed and the land use and scale of development is inappropriate;

Additional bushfire risk from west (LMA) because UXO limits ability for fire management works

Bushfire management issues dealt with by RFS. APZ provided to HTA in accordance with RFS requirements.

Land n o t s u i table f or resi d e n t ial use bec a u s e o f proxim i t y to inc o mp a ti b le u s es

Additional bushfire risk from west (LMA) because UXO limits ability for fire management works;

See above.

Helicopter and small arms firing noise from LMA; Relationship with adjoining land addressedin Section 7.9 of SSS Study. Acoustic impacts addressed in Appendix 14 the SSS Study.

Odour from Sita facility Addressed in SSS Study response.

Traffic noise from Heathcote Road not suitable for sensitive land uses in employment zone

This is a matter for assessment at DA stage.

13



Because the proposed urban form is essentially a reflection of topography coupled with the maximisation of residential lots from the site, the result is a series of communities where the shape of the neighbourhood follows the contours of the ridge. This results in urban area with a greater portion of lots facing bushland and exacerbates the extent of bushfire protection needed. The proposal creates over 40 km of interface between bush and development. This is an inefficient urban form because it spreads the potential for greater risk to more properties. A consolidated circular form would be the optimal urban from in a bushfire risk area because it would have a far more efficient ratio of edge to core. In fact Direction G20 – Planning for Bushfire Protection,‘Planning Principles for Rezoning Land for Residential Purposes’ in bush fire prone areas, specifically states at point (e) “minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed”.

The topography of the site is similar to the remainder of the wider Menai release area and creates a series of neighbourhoods with separate identities which is conducive to social cohesion and sense of belonging.

Alternative means of bushfire management can be explored during design development for individual development applications based on more detailedconsideration of site conditions. Alternatives to perimeter road and edge ratios can be explored in greater detail.

Lack o f D e mand f or E m pl o y men t land

The proposal does not demonstrate demand for the proposed addition of 71 hectares of new ‘employment land’ and forecast projections of 10,000 to 15,000 for the site can be achieved in the subregion. The ‘Economic and Social Benefits Study’ (Final Report2009) prepared for the proponent states, “The higher proportion of [employment land] supply relative to the quantity of jobssuggests that the study area [South Sydney] may already have capacity to accommodate more jobs within existing employment lands, before additional employment lands are required” (pg 38).This assessment was omitted from the Urbis 2011 report,

Based on submissions received and discussions with DPI, the amount of employment land has been reduced to 51.4 ha and the nature changed.

10,000 – 15,000 jobs is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Plan Noted and employment potential reduced.

The proposal represents a 17% increase in land zoned for‘employment’ in Sutherland Shire at a time when the Shire is

Noted and employment potential reduced.

14



experiencing a loss of industrial, warehousing and related jobs as these employment opportunities disappear or move to cheaper and better connected sites in Sydney’s West

There is an adequate supply of developed and undeveloped employment land in the south and south west with additional land planned

The supply of vacant land is limited with projections reliant on redevelopment. Supply of employment land is western part of Shire is limited.

Demand for large sites is not a compelling argument The potential for a range of lot sizes is seen as advantageous.

Take up rate for employment land questioned Noted, see above.

Demand for employment land can be met elsewhere inSutherland or Liverpool

The proponent remains of the view that the site is suitable for employment land and some provision of employment opportunities is justified.

Council prefers a low density campus style development for the site similar to density at ANSTO

Noted. The amount of employment land and resulting employment potential has been reduced.

De t a iled P l a nning Co n t r o ls:

Council raises concerns at proposed statutory planning controls and suggests some changes:

Permissible uses in B6 Enterprise Zone (employment zone) to broad:

A wide range of retail uses permissible to lead to big box retailing along Heathcote Road with no attempt to limit the volume or type of retail activity;

B6 zone allows seniors housing and child care centres which are inappropriate in a bushfire zone.

Zoning provisions have been amended in response to submissions. The Heathcote Road frontage is considered a suitable location for big box retailing such as bulky goods.

Some form of housing and special fire protection purpose uses are appropriate in

15



part of this zone outside APZ areas as considered by the RFS with greater fire separation distances required. This is amatter for determination at DA stage.

Density in Employment Zone:

Allowable density of 1:1 too high compared to the employment study recommendations;

This is an overall density for employment lands and is generally consistent with FSR controls in recent precinct planning in the SW and NW Growth Centres.

Permissible uses in Bushland Areas:

Zoning and subdivision controls do not reflect the structure plan intentions with small lot subdivision permissible and R1 zoning

It is appropriate that some flexibility is maintained to develop residential solutions in the bushland environmental housing areas to reflect the need to accommodate bushfire APZ in innovative ways that can include clusters of housing.

Residential Zoning:

R1 zoning for whole area does not allow structure plan intentions to be realised;

Council recommends finer zoning allocation distinguishing bushfire, tradition residential and medium density residential areas;

Child care centres and seniors housing not acceptable in bush front zones

R2 and R3 zones are introduced.

A finer grain of zoning is not warranted for the bushfront lots because the dimensions and extent of the bushfront lots incorporating bushfire APZ varies from location to location and are not prescribed with the precision necessary for zone boundary delineation.

Child care and seniors housing are generally permissible uses in residential zones and will be retained with controls effected through integrated development provisions and bushfire planning guidelines.

16



Precinct 8 should not be in a residential zone as structure plan identifies this land as special uses

Precinct 8 removed from Structure Plan

Density in residential areas:

Council objects to the minimum lot size in residential areas in general and bush front lots in particular. 360 square metres (reducible to 200 square metres too small.

Density should more reflect the natural bushland setting, cultural qualities and should be reduced;

Bush front lots of 700 square metres restricts ability to protect trees. Council requires minimum of 850 square metres in localities adjoining bushland;

Bush front lots require a 20 metre asset protection zone and should have a width capable of access for fire fighting purposes. Council suggests an increase in the minimum lot size to at least 750 square metres;

Traditional housing lots too small at 360 square metres in an isolated fringe location. Council minimum size is550 square metres

Lot size in medium density areas too small at 170 square metres council considers. Council prefers a minimum lot size for medium density development with the traditional lot size as the default standard;

Minimum lot size now 250 square metres consistent with small lot housing provisions in other release areas in metropolitan Sydney. Density targets also introduced.

Density targets do not apply to defined bushfront land.

Flexibility in lot size is proposed to encourage designs that respond to local conditions. No specific requirement for the protection of trees in bushfront lands.

This is a performance requirement best achieved by identifying outcomes rather prescribing a minimum lot size.

Council’s minimum may not enable residential density targets to be achieved.

Noted and minimum lot size increased with the potential for strata and community title subdivision.

Noted and removed although it is noted that dwellings on lots of 200 square metres are permissible under the

17



Complying SEPP.

Council is opposed to subdivision certificates being issued by an accredited certifier (clause 15) so that council can ensure consistency that the planned asset protection zones are realised

Can be required by condition of consent to any subdivision application.

Council is of the view that a 9.5 metre height limit is excessive in the residential zone as it can allow 3 storeys. Council suggests 8.5 metres.

Height of Buildings in standard template LEPs is measured to the top of the building with a general allowance of 3 metres floor to floor.9.5 metres provides greater flexibility in roof designs and forms. However height reduced to 9.0m.

Council considers that the 18 metre height limits is excessive in the

B6 zone

This provides flexibility in the event that uses require extra building height. This standard is typical of other release areas.

Council considers FSR of 0.7:1 and 1:1 in medium density and employment zones respectively as logical outcomes for the zones and objects to there being no FSR for residential lots. It calls foran FSR of 0.45:1 for all dwellings in line with the rest of

Noted. Residential density controlled by measures other than FSR in low density residential areas.

Council is disappointed that cultural heritage items are not protected in the plan by inclusion of the sites in Schedule 5.

It is not advisable that sites are located in this manner in order to protect them from disturbance.

Land use table for B2 zone applying to local centre to be provided

Noted and provided.

RE1 Public Recreation Zone should be identified Some areas of RE1 zone are now identified. Local parks will be designed as part of the subdivision process and their location cannot be predetermined at this stage.

18



E2 zone may lead to acquisition on grounds of hardship Noted

Biodiversity - commun i t ies

Council considers that a broader consideration of biodiversity values should have been required, addressing regional and local significance of the site, beyond those species and communities listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act.

As noted by Sutherland Shire Council, the Ecological Assessment focuses primarily on threatened species and endangered ecological communities. This approach was undertaken in accordance with the Director General’s Requirements.

Council considers the flora and fauna survey methodology undertaken for the assessment appropriate and well executed. Surveys were conducted at appropriate seasons/times and at appropriate densities/effort. The provision of information such as survey effort data and weather condition data is to be commended. Analysis of data and classification of vegetation utilising Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA) standards is also appropriate

Noted.

Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland: Council considers the removal of 211ha (or 88%) of this vegetation type from the site represents an unacceptable, significant and irreversible impact on the biodiversity of the region.

As noted within the Ecological Assessment, Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland is the vegetation community that would be most impacted by the proposed project. The regional context of this vegetation community was taken into consideration in the impact assessment. As shown in Figure4.2 of the Ecological Assessment, mapping by SMCMA indicates that Hinterland Sandstone Dwarf Apple Heath Woodland (the equivalent map unit) occurs extensively to the west and south west of the project area, in particular within Holsworthy Military Area.

19



Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, an additional 22.71haof Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland will be retained within the project area. Under the current proposed footprint, the project would directly impact 188.85ha or 78.66% of this community within the project area (previously 88.03% under the exhibited zoning plan) which represents 5.78% of the community within the locality (previously6.47% under the exhibited zoning plan).

Retained areas of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan.

Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath: In addition to the direct removal of this community under the current proposal, the majority of the remainder is present within close proximity to the development and will be impacted by edge effects and changes to local hydrology. Therefore, it is likely that the majority of this endangered community (ie., the entire 10.92 ha) will be impacted by the proposal.

Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath occurs in scattered locations throughout the project area. Portions of this community have been modified as the result of clearance for the establishment of the power line easement and tracks with some areas facing ongoing impacts from edge effects and alteration ofhydrology. The largest occurrences of this community occur within the central

20



area.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, an additional 2.11ha of Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath will be retained within the project area. Under the currentproposed footprint, the project would directly impact 1.83ha or 16.84% of thiscommunity within the project area(previously 36.08% under the exhibited zoning plan). The reduction is proposedto occur in the south eastern portion ofthe community, which forms the largest extent within the project area.

Some retained portions of this community will be in close proximity to the development footprint. As noted within the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study), the portions of the community adjacent to the development footprint will be indirectly impacted by edge effects and alteration of hydrology. The design ofthe development footprint has incorporated an APZ which includes

21



Retained areas of Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for enhancement and rehabilitation of Coastal Upland Swamp. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

Recommends that Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath be included as CUS.

Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath has been subject to modification with the majority of the community having been cleared prior to 1978. This clearance has resulted in the presence of a highly modified community and as such, as noted within the Ecological Assessment, it is difficult to ascertain specific details on distribution and conservation status given. Thecommunity has affinities with Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland and Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath, the latter of which corresponds to the Coastal Upland Swamp EEC.

Cumberland Ecology undertook floristic analysis of the quadrats undertaken within Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath in relation to the final determination for Coastal

22



Swamp. The results of this analysis indicated that this community does not conform to Coastal Upland Swamp. Theanalysis determined that very few of the species recorded within the relevant quadrats are characteristic of CoastalUpland Swamp. In particular, Leptospermum polygalifolium dominates the community within the project areabut is not listed as a characteristicspecies for Coastal Upland Swamp within the final determination.

Additional information regarding the analysis of floristic data in relation to the final determination for Coastal

Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath: the loss of 96% of this community on the site to development is not considered acceptable.

Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath has been subject to modification with the majority of the community having been cleared prior to 1978. This clearance has resulted in the presence of a highly modified community. This community does not conform to the EECdescription of Coastal Upland Swamp. It is highly modified and it not of highconservation value.

Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus brevifolius Wet Heath: Ninety- seven per cent (97%) of this EEC is proposed for removal as a result of development of the site. Again, the Ecological Assessment notes that the community is represented in the Royal,

Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus brevifolious Wet Heath occurs at one location in the south eastern portion of the project area. This represents the

23



Garrigal and Georges River National Parks and Dharawal State Recreation Areas; but again, this representation cannot be considered adequate for conservation purposes, as only 53ha intotal is conserved in these reserves, representing less than 10% of the extant area of this community.

smallest component of Coastal Upland Swamp within the project area. This community is in a modified conditionwith impacts from runoff and weed invasion.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, all 0.94ha of Lepidosperma neesii –Shoenus brevifolius Wet Heath will be retained within the E2 – EnvironmentalConservation zone. The northern edge of this community which adjoins the development footprint is proposed to bebuffered by the establishment of an APZ.

Retained areas of Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus brevifolius Wet Heath will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under q Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for enhancement and rehabilitation of Coastal Upland Swamp. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are

24



The removal of EEC Coastal Upland Swamp is not considered acceptable

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, an additional 3.05ha of Coastal UplandSwamp will be retained within theproject area. The proposed amendment to the development footprint includesthe reduction of vegetation clearancewithin south eastern portion of the community, which forms the largestextent within the project area. Under thecurrent proposed footprint, the project would directly impact 1.83ha or 15.46%of this community within the project area(previously 41.04% under the exhibited zoning plan).

The proposed amendment of the development footprint has been developed to minimise impacts to the largest occurrence of Coastal Upland Swamp within the project area. The reduction is proposed to occur in the south eastern portion of the community, which forms the largest extent within the project area. Areas of

25



Retained areas of Coastal Upland Swamp will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for enhancement and rehabilitation of the community. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

Conservation of 10.01ha of Coastal Upland Swamp within the project area, and the proposed ongoing management through the implementation of a Biodiversity Management Strategy, is considered a suitable outcome for the project.

Corymbia gummifera – Angophora costata Woodland: Council considers that, given the site’s proximity to the coast and shale influenced soils, an assessment of individual quadrats for consistency of this community with Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is appropriate

Corymbia gummifera – Angophora costata Woodland is closely aligned with the SMCMA community Woronora Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood Woodland, which is not aligned with either Shale/Sandstone Transition Forestor Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest. Key elements described within the final determination of these communities are not reflected within Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costataWoodland within the project area.

26



Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland: The Ecological Assessment notes that there was difficulty determining the exact nature of this vegetation community, in that it had affinities with several vegetation mapping units from the SMCMA study and several EECs, most notably Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest. It is considered that due to the limited occurrence of both these communities within the SMCMA sub-region, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on these endangered communities at the sub-regional and regional level.

The area mapped as Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland within the Ecological Assessment is mapped in the SMCMA vegetation mapping as predominately Woronora Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood Woodland with two occurrences of Hinterland Sandstone Transition Grey Gum Forest, the latter of which corresponds to Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest. Key elements described within the final determination of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest and Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest are not reflected within Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland within the project area.

Cumberland Ecology undertook floristic analysis of the quadrats undertaken within Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland in relation to the final determination for Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest. The analysis determined that although the quadrats included some of the characteristic understorey and ground stratum species within the final determination, the dominant diagnostic tree species specified by the final determination are completelyabsent. Additional information regarding the analysis of floristic data in relation to the final determination for Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest and

27



Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest is provided in the SSS Study response and in the final SAR and PR.

Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland was initially considered to have potential affinities within the following SMCMA communities:

-Woronora Sandstone ExposedBloodwood Woodland;

-Hinterland Sandstone Transition GreyGum Forest:

-Coastal Shale/Sandstone Forest; and

-Southern Sydney Sheltered

Forest. Of these communities,

Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus pilularisWoodland had the highest affinity withWoronora Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood Woodland. However, the presence of Eucalyptus pilularisindicated that the community could also share affinities with other SMCMA communities, hence it not beingassigned an equivalent SMCMA community within the Ecological Assessment.

As this community was not considered

28



Forest, the design of the development footprint did not seek to exclude the extent of the community. The project willretain 40.03ha of this community, which represents 71.91% of the extent within the project area. It is considered that asufficient representation of this community will be retained within the project area. The biodiversity value ofthis community will be increased

Melaleuca linarifolia Forest: This vegetation community is the rarest vegetation community in the whole of Sutherland Shire. Any removal of this small vegetation community is consideredunacceptable. The footprint for the proposed east-west roadway from the Bangor By Pass passes directly through a distinct island ofthis vegetation community which covers an area of 0.02 hectares(200 m2). While the Ecological Assessment notes that this community is represented within a range of reserves within theSMCMA area, this assumption is based on the community being aSwamp Sclerophyll Forest on coastal floodplains which it clearly is not.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, all 0.61ha of Melaleuca linarifolia Forestwill be retained within the E2 – Environmental Conservation zone.

Retained areas of Melaleuca linarifolia Forest will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under q Biodiversity Management Plan. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of

The proposal involves the removal of the majority of ridge top Vegetation within the locality,

29



and upper slope woodlands and heaths. These communities have experienced significant impacts associated with removal and disturbance for urban development over the past 70 years ormore. These vegetation communities, which experience the greatest impact from the proposed development, such the Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath –Woodland, are also the ones that are the least well conserved within the reserve system of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Area.

Conversely, it is the communities that are best conserved within the region that are proposed for conservation under the current proposal. Communities such as Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata forest which make up the majority of the conservation area are extremely well represented in both formal and informal reserves within the SMCMA area, with over 5,000ha of this community in formal and informal reserves representing 57% of the extant area.

Therefore the proposal will continue the loss of rarer and less well represented and conserved vegetation types while proposing for conservation communities which are mostly common and well represented and conserved within the SMCMA region.

This balance of clearing of inadequately conserved communities and preserving well represented communities is not considered an acceptable balance.

particularly to the north and east, has been subject to extensive clearing, primarily for suburban development, andhas resulted in the presence of a mosaic of modified vegetation scattered throughout suburbs. The vegetationwithin the project area does not constitute the largest and most intact remnant within the locality. Extensiveareas of vegetation within the locality occur within Holsworthy Military Area, Georges River National Park, HeathcoteNational Park and Royal National Park.

As noted within the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study), the regional context of the project area vegetation communities and associated habitat was considered within the impact assessment. Consideration of the communities and associated habitats within the locality to determine the context of the impacts is considered appropriate. The distributionof the vegetation communities which are currently represented within the project area occurs primarily to the west and south of the project area and are shown in Figure 4.2 of the Ecological

30



project area.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments additional areas of ridgetop and upper slope woodland and heath vegetation including Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland and Corymbia gummifera –Angophora costata Woodland has been retained. Retained areas of these will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under aBiodiversity Management Plan.

Communities such as Eucalyptus piperita

– Angophora costata Forest provide suitable habitat for a range ofthreatened species, including theEastern Bentwing-bat, Varied Sittella andPowerful Owl, and re-zoning of these areas for conservation will assist inproviding habitat for these species inperpetuity. They also contribute to the corridor linking habitat within Georges

31



Forest (19.96ha) and Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (1.72ha) which are listed under both the TSC Act and EPBC Act.Additionally, 10.01ha of Coastal UplandSwamp will be conserved.

Biodiversity – flora the majority of threatened flora on the site exists on the ridges and upper slopes of the site, which are the areas most heavily impacted by the proposed development. Areas proposed for conservation have minimal presence of threatened flora and provide marginal habitat for these species at best.

Threatened flora has been recorded across a range of habitats within the project area. The Ecological Assessment noted that the development footprint had been reduced at two locations in the northern portion of the project area to avoid direct impacts to patches of Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark) and Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’.Other amendments made to the footprint also avoided areas of known and potential habitat for these species on the plateau along Heathcote Road.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potential habitat (including ridges and upper slopes) for the suite of threatened flora known from the project area will be included within theconservation area.

The proposed conservation areas also contains endangered ecological communities and known and potential

32



Many of the threatened flora present on the site are not adequately conserved in formal conservation reserves within the locality, placing increased reliance on preservation in-situ on this site for their persistence at the regional level.

habitat for threatened fauna species.

The location of the development footprint has taken into account other constraints. Development in other areas would present another suite of issues.

The vegetation within the project area does not constitute the largest and most intact habitat for the threatened species within the locality and wider region. Extensive areas of known and potential habitat within the locality occur within Holsworthy Military Area, Georges River National Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park.

The suite of threatened species recorded within the project area are also known from other sites within the locality and wider region, as such their persistence within the region is not reliant upon conservation of the occurrences within the project area. At a regional level, many of the threatened flora species present are conserved within conservation reserves.

Individuals of all the threatened flora species recorded within the project area occur within the conservation area. A Biodiversity Management Plan is proposed to be implemented within the conservation area which will include management of threatened flora

33



Loss of up to 88% of some threatened individuals from the site as a result of the development, and loss of the majority of their habitat cannot be considered acceptable.

species, including habitat improvement. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan areoutlined within Section 5.4.3 of theEcological Assessment (Appendix 9 ofthe SSS Study). Monitoring of the species and management of their habitats willassist in the ongoing persistence of thespecies within the project area. The persistence of these species cancontribute to the occurrences within thelocality and wider region.

The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study) acknowledges that there will be impacts to threatened flora species as a result of the project. The design of the development footprint was amended to minimise impacts to some threatened species. Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide ahigher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments additionalareas supporting threatened flora species and potential habitat will

34



Overall it is considered that the balance of loss of threatened species to the development and their conservation on site is not acceptable. It is considered that the proposal will contribute to the loss of these species from the locality and potentially result in their extinction from the region.

impacts to threatened flora species.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potentialhabitat for the suite of threatened flora known from the project area will be included within the conservation area.

The suite of threatened species recorded within the project area are also known from other sites within the locality and wider region, as such their persistence within the region is not reliant upon conservation of the occurrences within the project area. At a regional level, many of the threatened flora species present are conserved within conservation reserves.

Individuals of all the threatened flora species recorded within the project area occur within the conservation area. A Biodiversity Management Plan is proposed to be implemented within the conservation area which will include management of threatened

35



of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 ofthe SSS Study).

Acacia bynoeana: Loss of this population from the site along with the majority of the habitat, therefore has significant impacts atthe regional and potentially state level and is likely to lead to a localised extinction.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of potential habitat forAcacia bynoeana will be conserved, primarily within Angophora hispida –Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland.

Additional occurrences of Acacia bynoeana have been recorded within the project area, including within the development footprint and within the conservation area. The individuals occurring within the conservation area will be protected under an E2 – Environmental Conservation zone and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan. Management of known occurrences of Acacia bynoeana within the conservation area will include monitoring of the speciesand management of its habitats. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of

36



to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

Acacia bynoeana is known from other sites within the region, as such its persistence is not solely reliant upon conservation of the occurrences within the project area. Removal of individuals within the project area is not considered to result in a significant impact to the species at the state level.

Melaleuca deanii: Given that this site represents the most significant population of this species at the regional level and the extremely high level of loss due to the development (more than half of all species at the regional/local scale), there is a high likelihood that the survival of this species at the local level will be compromised by this development.

Individuals of Melaleuca deanei will be retained at a number of locations within the project area. Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of potential habitat for Melaleuca deanei will be conserved.

The individuals occurring within the conservation area will be protected under an E2 – Environmental Conservation zone and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan. Management of known occurrences of Melaleuca deanei within the conservation area will include monitoring of the species and management of its habitats. This will assist in the ongoing

37



persistence of the species within the project area. The persistence of this species can contribute to theoccurrences within the locality and wider region.

As noted within the draft recovery plan for Melaleuca deanei, populations within Sutherland Local Government Area(LGA) account for 48% of the total populations within the southern rangeand 75% of the conserved populationswithin the ‘southern range’ (DECCW,2010). Melaleuca deanei is known from other sites within the region, as such its persistence is not solely

Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’: The current proposal involves the direct loss of 61 of the approximately 250 individuals located on the site. While this may appear an acceptable loss rate, retained individuals will be within close proximity to proposeddevelopment and will be indirectly, adversely impacted by edge effects associated with the development.

Numerous individuals of Hibbertia sp.‘Menai’ will be retained at a number of locations within the project area. TheEcological Assessment (Appendix 9 ofthe SSS Study) noted that the development footprint had beenreduced at two locations in the northernportion of the project area to avoid direct impacts to patches of Hibbertiasp. ‘Menai’. Other amendments madeto the footprint also avoided areas of known and potential habitat for this

38



Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint toprovide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potentialhabitat for Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’ will be conserved.

The species is known from disturbed edges of bushland (Mills, 2009). Several of the occurrences within the project area are situated near tracks and other disturbed areas.

The individuals occurring within the conservation area will be protected under an E2 – Environmental Conservation zone and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan. Management of known occurrences of Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’ within the conservation area will include monitoring of the species and management of its habitats. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of the species within the project area. The persistence of this species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

Allocasuarina diminuta ssp. Mimica: This species has been nominated under the TSC list as endangered species and is currently being considered by the Scientific

The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study) focuses primarily on threatened species and

39



community will be almost entirely removed by this proposal (212ha or 88% of extent on this site). This is the biggest known population of this species within the Sydney Basin.

ecological communities in accordance with the Director General’s Requirements. As such Allocasuarinadiminuta subsp. mimica was not addressed in detail as it is not listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act.

Habitat for this species is primarily comprised of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland. However, this species was also recorded within Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus punctata Woodland.

Allocasuarina diminuta has been recorded within Holsworthy Military Area. Given the records within the project area and surrounds as well as the presence of Hinterland Sandstone Dwarf AppleHeath-Woodland, the records are considered likely to be individuals ofAllocasuarina diminuta subsp. mimica.

As noted within the Ecological Assessment, Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland is the vegetation community that would be most impacted by the proposed project. The regional context of this vegetation community was taken into consideration in the impact assessment. As shown in Figure 4.2 of the Ecological Assessment, mapping by

40



Sandstone Dwarf Apple Heath Woodland (the equivalent map unit) occurs extensively to the west and southwest of the project area, in particular within Holsworthy Military Area. Additional areas of this community andknown occurrences of Allocasuarina diminuta subsp. mimica occur within Lucas Heights Conservation Area.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, an additional 22.71ha of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastomaHeath-Woodland will be retained within the project area. Under the current proposed footprint, the project woulddirectly impact 188.85ha or 78.66% of this community within the project area (previously 88.03% under the exhibitedzoning plan) which represents 5.78% of the community within the locality (previously 6.47% under the exhibitedzoning plan).

41



Management Plan.

Hibbertia puberula: This plant has not been recorded for 40 years (OEH Threatened species website). This species has not been recorded in the area previously. Removal of this individual and the majority of the habitat for this species is expected to have a significant impact and lead to the localised extinction of this species.

Occurrences of Hibbertia puberula have recently been recorded within the project area, including within the development footprint and within the conservation area.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potential habitat for Hibbertia puberula will be conserved, primarily within Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastomaHeath-Woodland.

Hibbertia puberula has been recorded within the conservation area. These individuals will be protected under an E2– Environmental Conservation zone and will be managed under a BiodiversityManagement Plan. Management of known occurrences of Acacia Hibbertia puberula within the conservation areawill include monitoring of the speciesand management of its habitats. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of the

42



and wider region.

Further discussion on the occurrence of Hibbertia puberula is provided in the SSS study Response.

Prostanthera saxicola: This species is currently being determined by the Scientific Committee after a recent nomination to have it listed as endangered on the TSC Act. It is known and has been seen on Gandangara land within the Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath –Woodland community. This is an extremely rare species. There are only three records for thisspecies in the Sutherland Shire, two of which are historic records for this site. This species has not been recorded in anyconservation reserves in the region. It is expected that theremoval of significant areas of habitat for this species has potential to lead to its localised extinction.

The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study) focuses primarily on threatened species and endangered ecological communities in accordance with the Director General’s Requirements. As such Prostanthera saxicola was not addressed in detail as it is not listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act.

Habitat for this species is primarily comprised of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland. As noted within the Ecological Assessment, Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland is the vegetation community that would be mostimpacted by the proposed project. The regional context of this vegetationcommunity was taken into considerationin the impact assessment. As shown inFigure 4.2 of the Ecological Assessment, mapping by SMCMA indicates that Hinterland Sandstone Dwarf Apple Heath Woodland (the equivalent map unit) occurs extensively to the west and south west of the project area, in particular

43



within Holsworthy Military Area. Additional areas of this community and known occurrences of Prostantherasaxicola occur within Lucas HeightsConservation Area.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, an additional 22.71ha of Angophorahispida – Eucalyptus haemastomaHeath-Woodland will be retained within the project area. Under the currentproposed footprint, the project woulddirectly impact 188.85ha or 78.66% of this community within the project area(previously 88.03% under the exhibitedzoning plan) which represents 5.78% of the community within the locality(previously 6.47% under the exhibitedzoning plan).

Retained areas of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will Biodiversity – f auna Red-crowned Toadlet: This species was recorded at 5

locations within the project area, with all either within the Since the exhibition of the

HeathcoteRidge SSS, amendments have

44



footprint or within close proximity to development. The loss of all recorded sites and the majority of habitat for this vulnerable species is not considered acceptable. While the EcologicalAssessment notes that this species is conserved within the Georges River, Heathcote and Royal National Parks, DECCW (2011) notes that within the area it has declined notably withinthe Heathcote NP. Given the fire history of the Holsworthy Military Area, the habitats in HMA while no doubt important for the conservation of this species cannot be relied upon heavily for theconservation of this species (high frequency fires are a noted threat to this species). The Woronora Plateau is a key hot spot for the conservation of this species, and given the noted decline ofthis species from the area, the loss of all sites where this species was recorded and the loss of the majority of its habitat from thesite is not considered acceptable. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is considered that the development may contribute to the localised extinction of this species.

made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potential habitat for the Red-crowned Toadlet willbe conserved.

As noted within the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study), known and potential habitat in areas adjacent to the development footprint will be impacted by indirectimpacts. The design of the development footprint has incorporated an APZ which includes modified vegetation and stormwater retention basins in an effortto minimise impacts to adjacent vegetation and associated habitats,including habitat for the Red-crownedToadlet. The components of the APZ will assist in reducing surface water run-offfrom the development area to thecommunity, as well as reducing sediment and nutrient loads in the runoff.

Retained areas of known and potential habitat for the Red-crowned Toadlet will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed

45



Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of theEcological Assessment. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of the species within the project area. The persistenceof this species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

The Red-crowned Toadlet is known from other sites within the locality, as such its persistence is not solely reliant upon conservation of the occurrences within the project area.

Varied Sitella: Due to its low density and widespread status within the region, connectivity of habitats is likely to play a key role in its continued persistence in the region. While the proposal does provide for corridors linking vegetation to the north and south, linkages between suitable habitat for this species (ie. flatter forested environments) to the west in the Holsworthy Military Area are significantly impacted by this proposal. This may have the consequence of isolating the populations on this site, and the Georges River National Park to the north, resulting in the loss ofthis species from this area. Greater habitat connectivity between this site and Holsworthy is required to prevent these impacts.

The Varied Sittella was recorded in the northern portion of the project area, with the home range likely to extend into Georges River National Park. The primary habitat for this species within the project area occurs within the woodland areas where rough-barked species are present.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, the north-south corridor within theproject area will be strengthened. As

46



proposed commercial zone and Holsworthy Military Area. These corridors will have some function for themovement of the Varied Sittella.Georges River National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for the speciesbetween the known habitat within the project area and Holsworthy Military Area. This connectivity occurs in theform of woodland habitat. Connectivity also exists between the project area and Holsworthy Military Area in the south.

Retained areas of known and potential habitat for the Varied Sittella will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for monitoring of threatened species. Further details of the proposed contentof the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of the species within the project area. The persistence of this species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

47



within the project area.

Little Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat: The loss of east – west linkages with the Holsworthy Military Area will compromise this ability to move from the site to adjoining habitat and may impact on the long term survival of this species in the region

These are highly mobile bat species that are not solely reliant upon corridor connections to move between patches of vegetation.

The Little Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat were recorded within the gullies and adjacent forests in the central and southern portions of the projectarea. The primary habitat for these species within the project area occurswithin the gully forest where substantial sandstone outcropping occurs andcaves are present.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, the north-south corridor within theproject area will be strengthened. Thiscorridor constitutes a substantial movement corridor for these species. As noted within the Ecological Assessment, minor corridors will exist between the proposed commercial zone and Holsworthy Military Area.

48



National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for these species between the known habitat within the projectarea and Holsworthy Military Area. This connectivity occurs in the form of woodland and forest habitat.Connectivity also exists between the project area and Holsworthy Military Area in the south.

Retained areas of known and potential habitat for the Little Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for monitoring of threatened species. Further details ofthe proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of these species within the project area. The persistence of these species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

These species are known from other sites within the locality and wider region. As such its persistence is not solely reliant upon conservation of the occurrences within the project area.

49



Rosenberg’s Goanna: The loss of almost all suitable habitat (over

300ha) for this species from this site is considered unacceptable. This coupled with the other increased threats to this species fromthe development will increase the likelihood of localised extinctions for this species.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of potential habitat forRosenberg’s Goanna will be conserved,primarily within Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland and Corymbia gummifera –Angophora costata Woodland. Additionally, the north-south corridorwithin the project area will bestrengthened.

Potential habitat for Rosenberg’sGoanna within the conservation area will be protected under an E2 –Environmental Conservation zone andwill be managed under a BiodiversityManagement Plan. Management of potential habitat within the conservation area will include monitoring of the species and management of its habitats. This will assist in the ongoing persistence of the species within the project area.The persistence of this species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

50



conservation of the occurrences within the project area.

Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl: While the proposal includes corridor linkages to the north and south, the key linkages utilising the gullies between the site and Holsworthy Military Area to the east and west will be severed by the proposal. This will significantly reduce the access for these species to roosting and foraging habitat on adjoining lands.

The Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl were not recorded within the current study, however the Ecological Assessment notes that they have the potential to occur. The primary habitat for these species within the project area occurs within the woodland and forest habitats.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, the north-south corridor within theproject area will be strengthened. This corridor constitutes a substantial movement corridor for these species. Asnoted within the Ecological Assessment, minor corridors will exist between the proposed commercial zone andHolsworthy Military Area. These corridors will have some function for the movement of the Powerful Owl andSooty Owl. Georges River National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for these species between the

51



Connectivity also exists between the project area and Holsworthy Military Area in the south.

Retained areas of potential habitat for the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for monitoring of threatened species. Further details of the proposed contentof the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of theEcological Assessment.

Koala: Koalas mainly enter the site from the Holsworthy Military Area to the west, when moving from the larger colony at Wedderburn to the west, as is evident by the number of individuals hit by vehicles on Heathcote Road, and recording of movement patterns of individual species. The widening of Heathcote Road necessitated by this proposal, along with the significant barrier represented by the asset protection zones and linear employment lands along Heathcote Road, will represent a significant and impenetrable barrier for this species.

Numerous records of the Koala exist to the north of the project area within Georges River National Park. Vegetation occurring within this area includes Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), a SEPP 44 feed tree species. Additional records occur within Holsworthy Military Area. The Koala is considered to enter the project area from both Holsworthy Military Area and Georges River National Park.

Koala activity searches of the project area failed to detect the species, however it is considered likely to occur given a recent sighting to the east of the project area. As noted within the Ecological Assessment, substantial areas

52



of potential habitat will be retained within the project area linking Georges River National Park and habitat to thesouth. Retained vegetation includes potential foraging habitat (including SEPP 44 listed feed tree species) andnesting habitat which is of a size that would be able to support a low-density population of the Koala. In conjunctionwith adjoining properties, potential habitat will remain in the locality.

Retained areas of potential habitat for the Koala will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for monitoring of threatened species. Further details ofthe proposed content of the BiodiversityManagement Plan are outlined withinSection 5.4.3 of the EcologicalAssessment.

Widening of Heathcote Road would be Biodiversity - W il d l i fe Corridors

The Ecological Assessment notes the importance of wildlife corridors in the conservation of biodiversity in the region and the proposal provides for the retention of significant wildlife corridors between this site and the formal reserves to the south, such as Heathcote and Royal National Parks. However important wildlife linkages to the west will be severed by the proposal, resulting

As noted within the Ecological Assessment, connectivity from the project area to Holsworthy Military Area will be reduced. This reduction in connectivity occurs along the central and northern portion of the western

53



from the widening of Heathcote Road, the creation and maintenance of asset protection zones and the relatively hostile environment of the employment lands strip along HeathcoteRoad. This is expected to significantly isolate the site from exchange of individuals in habitats to the west and limit access to habitats to the west. This has the potential to significantly isolatethe site and lead to localised extinctions of several species, including species listed under the TSC Act.

boundary of the project area. Within this area, minor corridors will exist between the conservation area and HolsworthyMilitary Area and will function as wildlife corridors for some fauna.

Widening of Heathcote Road would be contained within the existing road reserve.

Reduction and modification of the corridors linking the central and northern portions of the project area toHolsworthy Military Area is not considered to lead to isolation of the site.Connectivity from the project area toHolsworthy Military Area will be maintained through retention of habitat along the southern portion of the western boundary. Within the project area, this connection is approximately1km in length and extends further south of the project area. Connectivity willalso remain to the north of the projectarea through Georges River NationalPark.

The reduction in linkages to the west is not considered likely to result in the extinction of the threatened species known within the project area. Approximately 566ha of the project

54



potentially occurring within the project area. For species with larger home ranges, connectivity exist primarilythrough a north south corridor, as well west through the southern portion of the project area and to the north of theproject area through Georges RiverNational Park.

Staged development is proposed, which will allow fauna to relocate into adjacent woodland without assistance by using surrounding habitat connectivity to facilitate dispersal. Habitat improvement resulting from the implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan will enhance the retained corridors withinthe project area which will facilitate ongoing movements throughout Biodiversity - E d ge

E ff ec t s A major concern arising from the development is the large

area of edge associated with the proposed development footprint. The development has an exceptionally high edge to area ratio. The additional of approximately 106ha of impacted bushland to the already directly impacted 330ha of bushland mean that the total impacted area of bushland arising from the development is ion the order of 436ha. Considering the total area of the site as849ha this means that over half of the vegetation on the site will be impacted by some degree. This does not represent a“maintain or improve” situation for biodiversity and indicates that the development: conservation balance for the development is not acceptable.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments the edge to area ratio has been reduced, primarily as a result of the removal of Precinct 9.

Under the revised footprint the southern envelope of development has the highest edge to area ratio. The edge to

55



area ratio in this area has altered since the exhibition of the SSS as amendments have been made to minimise impacts toCoastal Upland Swamp in this area.

A suite of mitigation measures are either utilised or proposed to occur to minimise impacts to retained vegetation. These mitigation measures are outlined within Section 5.3 of the Ecological Assessment. Retained vegetation will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for erosion and sediment control, weed management and monitoring of the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Further details of the proposed contentof the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of theEcological Assessment (Appendix 9 ofthe SSS Study).

Biodiversity - Management o f Con s erv a t i o n Ar e a

Council also has concerns over the ability of the land owner to comply with biodiversity management requirements in the future and to manage the proposed conservation area.

However there is no proposed legislative mechanism to ensure that the lands are managed primarily for conservation in accordance with any management plan.

Noted. The GLALC propose a long term involvement with the site and are in a position to comply with the proposed Biodiversity Management Plan.

The conservation area will be protected by an E2 – Environmental Conservation zoning. It is anticipated that the conditions of approval of the project will set out the criteria for the development of the Biodiversity Management Plan.

56



Whilst the main purpose is conservation this is contradicted by statements from other consultants and the land owner, which indicate that recreation uses such as 4WD and trail bikes are also options to be considered for these lands. Such uses are in conflict with the conservation objectives.

The surrounding community currentlyuses the site for a number of recreational purposes. Some of these are likely to becompatible with the conservation of the area. It is envisaged that the management regime for theconservation area will include controlled access for limited

The management actions outlined in the Ecological Assessment will require significant and continual allocation of funds in perpetuity. The ability of the land owners to implement these actions over time is questionable given the past history of their management of this land. Similar commitments have been given by the proponent on other developments in the Sutherland Shire, but the proponents have not delivered on these commitments and the outcomes for biodiversity have been suboptimal.



Recent actions from the land owner have also demonstrated a lack of willingness to become involved in regional initiatives to effectively manage these lands for conservation purposes



57



Given recent history and comments, there can be little confidence that the area will be managed strictly in accordance with the intent of the Ecological Assessment.


The conservation area will be protected by an E2 – Environmental Conservation zoning. It is anticipated that the conditions of approval of the project will set out the criteria for the development of the Biodiversity Management Plan.Biodiversity -

I m pact on EPBC Pr o t e c t e d Ite m s

Council considers that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on a range of threatened flora and fauna, and ecological communities protected under state and federal legislation. These impacts arise from direct removal of species and habitats and indirect impacts, such as fragmentation, isolation, and edge effects.

Specifically Council considers the following to be at significant risk of localised extinction as a result of the proposal: Coastal Upland Swamp – through direct removal of

approximately half of this community as a result of development and the unacceptable impact to the remaining half through edge impacts (due to its proximity to development) and changed hydrological regimes. This has implications for the broader sub-region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the SMCMA (3%).

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest – through direct removal of over a quarter of this community on the site, in particular in the region of Bardens Trig, and edge impacts to the majority of the remaining community. This has implications for the broader sub- region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the

The Ecological Assessment report considered a suite of threatened species known or potentially occurring within the project area as well as their habitat requirements, the extent of direct habitat clearance and probable indirect impacts. The level of impacts varied across the suite of threatened species considered. A number of avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures have been proposed to address the impacts to threatened species and communities. It was concluded withinthe Ecological Assessment that the impacts of the project could beameliorated for all species by the combination of avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project

58



SMCMA (8ha or 0%). Melaleuca deanii – given the direct removal of nearly 80% of

the entire population from the site, and the removal of more than80% of the suitable habitat for this species on the site. This has implications for the broader sub-region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the SMCMA (only 12 other records in formal conservation reserves).

Acacia byoneana – through the direct removal of the 21 individuals from the two locations on site, representing a 100% loss rate for this species. While translocation is proposed there is no certainty of the success of this measure and inadequate habitat for translocation sites given the greater than 80% loss of suitable habitat on the site. This has implications for the broader sub- region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the SMCMA (no records).

Hibbertia spp. Menai – through the direct removal of approximately a quarter of all individuals on the site and the removal of the majority of habitat available for recolonisation. Regional conservation status is not well known.

Allocasuarina diminuta ssp. mimica – (not currently listed under TSC Act, but likely future listing) – through direct removal of the majority of the population (numbering in the several hundreds to thousands) and the removal of more than 80% of the habitat for this species. This has implications for the broader sub-region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the SMCMA(only 2 other records).

Hibbertian puberula and Prostanthera saxicola – through removal of significant areas of habitat (885) for these species, which are not represented in regional conservation reserves.

reduced the development footprint from332ha to 283ha. The conservation area will increase from 511ha to 566ha.Additional information regarding these amendments are provided in the SSS Study Response. The proposedamendments have resulted in better outcomes for the suite of threatened species and communities occurringwithin the project area.

59



of habitat on the ridge edges, and changes to the hydrology ofthe remaining areas of habitat due to urban development immediately above the habitat areas. This has implications for the broader sub-region given that this area is considered a hot spot for the conservation of this species.

Varied Sittella – through the fragmentation of the site and isolation from habitats to the west in Holsworthy Military Area.

Rosenberg’s Goanna – through direct loss of 80% of its preferred habitat, increased threat from road kill, and isolation from suitable habitats to the west in the Holsworthy Military Area. This has implications for the broader sub-region given that this area is considered a hot spot for the conservation of this species.

Koala – through the isolation of populations to the north of the site in the Georges River national Park from those populations

Biodiversity - Groun d w a ter I m p ac t s

The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems. As noted above for the Coastal Upland Swamp endangered community, the majority of this ecosystem will be directly impacted by the proposal. The remaining ecosystems are all in close proximity to proposed development (mostly within 40m) and will experience significant edge effects and changes to local hydrology.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversityvalues. As a result of these amendments, an additional 3.05ha of Coastal Upland Swamp will be retained within theproject area. The proposed amendment to the development footprint includesthe reduction of vegetation clearancewithin south eastern portion of the community, which forms the largest extent within the project area. Under the current proposed footprint, the project would directly impact 1.83ha or

60



(previously 41.04% under the exhibited zoning plan).

The proposed amendment of the development footprint has been developed to minimise impacts to the largest occurrence of Coastal Upland Swamp within the project area. The reduction is proposed to occur in the south eastern portion of the community, which forms the largest extent within the project area. Areas of Coastal Upland Swamp most impacted by the proposed footprint predominately comprise the smaller occurrences of this community within the project area.

Retained areas of Coastal Upland Swamp will be zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for enhancement and rehabilitation of the community and management of edge effects. Further details of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

Conservation of 10.01ha of Coastal Upland Swamp within the project area, and the proposed ongoing management through the

61



implementation of a Biodiversity Management Strategy, is considered a suitable outcome for the project.

Biodiversity - Ripari a n I m p ac t s

There has been no assessment of the proposal against the recommendations of the Riparian Study and there is no conclusion that the development that will not have an unacceptable impact on riparian systems. It is considered thatthe development will encroach within the recommended riparian buffer widths, resulting in unacceptable impacts to riparian zones

The location of the streams and associated riparian zones has been taken into account as development constraints in the preparation of the Structure Plan.

Biodiversity - I n a d e q ua te O ffs e t s

The proposal generally involves the removal of species and communities that are not common in the area and not well represented in conservation reserves in the area. Vegetation communities which experience greater than 30% removal under the proposal have less than 5% of their extant vegetation conserved in formal conservation reserves. Conversely, the majority of vegetation communities that experience the lowest levels of removal (i.e. less than 10%) have greater than 10% and upwards to 40% of their extant vegetation conserved in formal conservation reserves. What the proposal essentially does is remove the rarer, poorly conserved vegetation communities within the region and conserve the common well conserved communities. This does not represent an acceptable balance between development and conservation and the conservation of these lands does not represent appropriate or adequate mitigation for the impacts of the development.

The proposal currently involves the removal of 33ha of vegetated land for development and the conservation of 503ha. However much of the conserved land will be indirectly adversely impacted by edge effects from adjoining development. Given a typical edge distance of 40m and the high perimeter area ration of the

As noted within the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study), the regional context of the project area vegetation communities and associated habitat was considered within the impact assessment. Consideration of the communities and associated habitats within the locality to determine the context of the impacts is considered appropriate. The distributionof the vegetation communities which are currently represented within the projectarea occurs primarily to the west andsouth of the project area and are shown in Figure 4.2 of the EcologicalAssessment. The project will primarilyresult in the clearance of non-listed communities. The Ecological Assessmentacknowledges that there will be impactsto a range of communities within

62



development, this results in impacts to a further 100ha of bushland. This then gives a loss, retention ratio of close to 1:1 for this development.

This indicates that not only is the type of vegetation provided for off-sets not appropriate but the scale of the off-sets is also not appropriate.

The assessment found that there are large areas of nearby known habitats for all of the impacted communities, threatened flora and threatened fauna within the locality. Although it is recognised that the project will impact the habitat for these communities and species, the combined avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures to be implemented are likely to sufficiently ameliorate these impacts to the extent that no communities or threatened species are likely to become extinct as a result of the project.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments have been made to the project which have reduced the development footprint from332ha to 283ha. The conservation area will increase from 511ha to 566ha. Theamendments to the development footprint includes the reduction of impacts to EECs and threatened specieshabitat and reduction in the edge to area ratio. Additional information regarding these amendments is providedin the SSS Study Response.

Under the currently proposed footprint, the offset ratio for land within the

63



recommended within the Interim policy on assessing and offsetting biodiversity impacts of Part 3A, State significantdevelopment and State significant infrastructure projects (OEH 2011).

Requirements for offsetting will vary depending upon the geographic location of a project because the nature and extent of human impacts varies across NSW, as does the proportion ofthe landscape that is conserved. As discussed within the EcologicalAssessment, the project area is in proximity to a substantial reserve systemthat supports habitats similar to those within the project area and are afforded long-term security. For this reason, theneed for an offset ratio well above the minimum standard is not considered necessary for the project.

The proposed avoidance, mitigation and Abori g in a l C u l t u r e (Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee strongly opposes the

proposed development and has submitted the following comments to form part of Council’s submission. The Committee’s views were endorsed by Council on 31 August 2011 and are submitted in full as Attachment 1 to this submission.)

The Aboriginal Heritage Assessment that forms part of the

Discussed in response to DoP&I


64



Submission states that there are 41 recorded Aboriginal heritage sites and 40 newly recorded sites with proximity to potentially developable areas. In addition, Aboriginal people consulted aspart of the process suggested two areas of potential Aboriginal cultural significance. However, it is Sutherland Shire Council’s view that the number and type of recorded Aboriginal heritagesites does not reflect the complete heritage value of the area. The Heathcote Ridge area is part of the biggest cultural heritage library and museum in Southern and South Western Sydney.

Mill Creek has 14 or 15 sites with shell scatters and open camps.Trees and rock formations are very significant. Creeks and ridgelines need to be checked for significant sites. Ridge topshave engravings and carvings, valleys have middens. There are a lot more than the 80 sites identified by the consultants for GLALC,and new sites are discovered with each visit to the area. There needs to be more consultation regarding paintings, engravings, culture, history, secret women's sites, men's caves, burial sites anddreaming tracks. There is a need to validate further sites before the project moves forward.

Cutting into the landscape can change the contours of the land and therefore change the story of dreaming tracks. Story lines, song lines, how long Aboriginal people have been here, are all depicted in this landscape. Major bridge structures plus several small bridges will permanently scar the landscape.

It is Council’s view that there needs to be a detailed comparison made between Aboriginal archaeological site lists

Further information regarding additional sites and areas of Aboriginal cultural significance has been sought from Aboriginal Advisory Committee members Mr Max Dulumunmun Harrison and Mr Les Bursill. No specific details of any specific sites or area of Aboriginal cultural significance beyond those documented in the MDCA report has been provided in public submissions.

This is acknowledged as possible, but no details of these features and their locations have been provided in any submissions to date.

Requests have been made on several occasions during the MDCA study and after for further details of such sites (and it isnoted that there is a legal obligation to report such sites). No further details havebeen provided. It is unclear how MDCA can respond to the assertion that such sites

65



Recommendation 2 of the consultant’s report requires additional field study, a program of archaeological test excavations, recording of art and Aboriginal community research to develop an appropriate strategy for the long term management and protection of Aboriginal heritage within the subject lands in relation to future development. However, to ensure the best outcomes for the archaeological significance of the land, this study should be undertaken before a decision is made to declare the site State Significant.

The study also needs to address the proposed land use mix and make specific recommendations as to what land uses are most compatible with the long term protection and management of the sites. The consultant’s report states on page 71 that “the most likely threat to Aboriginal heritage from future subdivision within the subject lands is related indirect impacts from increased visitation which is to an extent inevitable from the adjacent residential subdivisions”.

New subdivisions could divert storm water to significant cave sites, which will get overgrown with moss from changed water flow patterns ( due to the encroachment of houses). This could

MDCA disagree (see DPI response re timing of investigations). Further investigations, particularly archaeological excavations, should not be conducted except where warranted and should be targeted by actual proposed development footprints. Had these investigations been undertaken as proposed by Council, a number of areas would have been needlessly impacted given the reduced scope of development now proposed in the amended structure plan. Approval for these excavations would also have been rejected under current OEH policy.

Agreed. This is the basis for the detailed management planning outlined in Section 8 of the MDCA report.

It is MDCAs understanding that there is a requirement that there is no net increase in stormwater runoff from the proposed developments. Hence, no additional stormwater is anticipated to be diverted into

66



erode/damage carvings, etchings and damage ochre paintings.

Sutherland Shire Council is also concerned that the sites will in fact be properly managed over time. It is unacceptable that Sproule Road, Illawong has a traditional Aboriginal grinding / ochre painting site, which is currently only 50 metres from a Gandangara housing estate, yet this site appears to be receiving little protection.

Elders want to hand a legacy down to Koori Kids. There is a need to get as many Koori Kids together with other young men and women, and educate them on these sites. This is a very important part of the conservation and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The submission needs to address how conservation management of the sites be achieved over the next 100 years and beyond.

Given that this land is owned and being developed by the GLALC, Sutherland Shire Council expected that this development concept would set a new standard for the of protection and respect given to Aboriginal cultural heritage. However, the

rockshelter sites. The possibility of this can however be considered in management plans for such sites.

This is outside of the current study area.

Conservation of Aboriginal heritage is important and is the basis for the management planning outlined and recommended in the MDCA report. It is unclear how management planning over a century or more into the future can adequately be made now and is not a principle upon which any management document, including National Parks, is currently made. Long term protection however is planned by the inclusion of most if not all Aboriginal sites in conservation areas.

Noted. Council regularly approves additional dwellings in other parts of the Sutherland Shire despite similar concerns. The scale of the current proposal may be larger, but this also provides for a wider range of opportunities for protection of Aboriginal heritage. It is noted that most

67



submission falls well short of this expectation. Instead it will result in a dense residential neighbourhoods sitting very close tosignificant shelter and art sites. Visitation to sites cannot beavoided or properly managed. Whether future residents and children respect the sites or not, the significance of the sites will be eroded over time and ultimately lost as a result.

comparable projects at this stage of the planning process would not have undertaken the amount of Aboriginalheritage investigations documented in the MDCA study, nor would they have amended development plans to avoiddocumented sites to the level that the current proponent has.

Roads, Traffic and Transport – ina d equ a t e road capa ci ty p r ovi d ed

The projected traffic increases are significant in that they indicate that the majority of the existing State Road network hasinsufficient lane capacity to cater for the 2031 proposeddevelopment scenario. In particular the figures indicate that, additional lane capacity is required in Alfords Point Road, Heathcote Road (north of the proposed new Bangor Bypass east west link), Bangor Bypass (east of New Illawarra Rd), the Woronora River Bridge (River Road) and Alfords Point Bridge.

Of these roads, the applicant proposes increased lane capacity in the northern section of Heathcote Road only:

Failure to provide additional capacity on the Bangor Bypass River/Road route will add to existing major delays on River Road and potentially divert additional traffic to Heathcote Road between Princes Highway and the development site. Heathcote Road isalready identified as having a significant safety problem and accident history.

Failure to provide additional capacity on the Alfords Point Road route will only compound existing major delays to motorists leaving the Alfords Point, Illawongand North Menai areas at the Brushwood Drive

The traffic study accompanying the SSS Study included detailed modelling and identification of road infrastructure upgrades required for the development.

The revisions to the Structure Plan results in a reduction in traffic generation and consequently a reduction in impacts on the road network.

The revised Structure Plan would generate about 40% lower trip generation compared to original plan. The impact on key roads and intersections would be substantially lower than previously estimated.

The M5 West widening would expand the South West Motorway from two to three lanes in each direction generally from Camden Valley Way to King Georges Road. This would reduce travel time for motorists using the motorway and surrounding roads (within the Sutherland Shire Council) and support planned residential andemployment growth in south west Sydney.

68



is expected that construction could commence in mid 2012. Construction is expected to take approximately two to twoand a half years to complete.

A revised traffic and transport impact assessment will be

Roads, Traffic and Transport – ina d e q u a te i n te r s e c ti o n capa ci t y provi d ed

The proposed development scenario will result in a significant loss of capacity at 10 intersections within the Sutherland LGA, 7 of which would be operating at Level of Service F (Unsatisfactory with excessive queuing). Of these intersections, the applicant proposes improvements to the Bangor Bypass/New Illawarra Road intersection only (grade separation). Failure to provide additional capacity at these intersections will result in major delays within both the State Network and Council’s adjoining local road system.


A revised traffic and transport impact assessment will be undertaken.

Roads, Traffic and Transport – ina d e q u a te i n form a t i o n pro v i d ed

Additional Information:

The study area should be expanded to consider the impact beyond the intersection of The Grand Parade and Linden Street, in particular the Princes Highway in the vicinity of the proposed Kirrawee Brick Pit Development and include the projected traffic generation from the Brick Pit site in its analysis.

The study should also consider the impact on traffic flows from Alfords Point, Illawong and north Menai at the Brushwood Drive/Alfords Point Road on ramp. It is anticipated that the impact on these locations will be significant in that they are already experience major delays.

It would appear that intersections have only been modelled in isolation which does not take into consideration other factors

The traffic and transport study (Appendix 13 of SSS Study) has assessed impact on both local and broader regional levels. In general, the road network impact of the Heathcote Ridge proposal will decline with greater distance from the site. The additional traffic impact from HeathcoteRidge beyond the intersection of The GrandParade and Linden Street is expected to be low.


69



such as residual queuing. This is relevant for the Menai Road intersections with Alison Crescent, Old Illawarra Road and New Illawarra Road and River Road/Linden Street route as well as thatrequested for Princes Highway Kirrawee. Additional analysis should be provided.

With the exception of the proposed widening of Heathcote Road north of the site, Bangor Bypass extension between New Illawarra Road and Heathcote Road and grade separation of the New Illawarra Road/ Bangor Bypass intersection no indication hasbeen given as to how and when the existing road network and key intersections are to be treated and funded so as to provide sufficient capacity and avoid major traffic delays for the future development scenario.

As per the Director General Requirements, the provision and funding of all necessary road and service infrastructure and accessibility to Public Transport needs to be clarified with respect to the proposed staging of the development to avoid any interim impacts and longer term funding shortfalls. In this regard the overall economic viability of the proposal is questionable given the cost of the infrastructure involved.

Additional information should also be provided with regard to localised impacts arising from the proposed staging of the development. These need to be addressed up front prior to consideration of any rezoning, in particular, for Precincts 11, 12 and 13.


Roads, Traffic and Transport – Fu t ure Council Roads

Council considers that this will impose an unbalanced and unfair maintenance burden on Council for the following reasons:

The topography of the site dictates scattered ridge top developments requiring excessive length of fire protection

The topography of the site is similar to other areas in Menai to the east all of which comprised the original Menai Release Area.

The proponent will investigate

70



perimeter roads and collector link roads between each precinct.

Major road bridge infrastructure is required across deep valleys between Precincts 7, 8 and 9.

Proposed small lot sizes requiring additional length of local roads.

The proposed use of permeable road pavements to satisfy water sensitive urban design requirements.

the DA stage.

It is expected that the east west link road would be maintained by the RMS. The changes to the Structure Plan reduce the local roads crossing valleys.

The appropriate pavement material will be determined at DA stage in consultation with council.

Roads, Traffic and Transport – local road n e t work

The proposed internal road network and associated infrastructure, including bridges, retaining structures, stormwater drainage, footpaths, shared paths, street lighting etc. will impose an unbalanced and unfair maintenance burden on Council.

Ongoing maintenance costs for this infrastructure will not be adequately covered by the rate income generated by the development proposal and will require considerable subsidy from other income sources. In particular, the long term maintenanceof the proposed major bridge structures is problematic to Local Government bodies as such structures are normally associated with Arterial roadways administered, funded and maintained by State Governments.

The topography of the site dictates scattered ridge top developments requiring connectivity via excessive internal road and bridge infrastructure which in turn impacts on the nature, needs, use and preservation of the proposed

Maintenance of local roads is a standard function of Council and is paid for by rate revenue and grants and other established funding sources. The reduction in the development footprint includes the removal of major valley crossings other than the east west link road reducing the infrastructure costs and bridge structures for local roads.

Roads, Traffic and Transport – Mode Share

While traffic demand management intervention is included as a means of reducing car use at West Menai, combined mode share growth to public and active transport of between 8 and9.5% (pg 83) is considered overly ambitious.

The provision of the east west link road will provide the opportunity for enhancing regional bus services and services between Sutherland and Liverpool and Holsworthy

71



The travel behaviour change measures proposed for West Menai rely strongly on community and work place (Travel Plan) participation. It is a concern that without additional incentives, measures and management to maintain a long term commitment to travel change behaviour any initial uptake of high frequency bus services, travel plans and infrastructure is unlikely to be sustained. It is unclear how any of these measures will be managed and funded. With this high degree ofuncertainty, the measures proposed are considered unlikely to be sufficiently robust to achieve the results sought.

If public transport mode share targets proposed are to be met, consideration also needs to be given to infrastructure capacity at Sutherland and Holsworthy railway stations to accommodate the number of passengers and frequency of bus services modelled. It is of note that increased demand for public transport will arise from not only residential but also employment generators at West Menai.

Past experience also indicates that the inefficient servicing of the proposed scattered ridge top residential precincts will remain problematic and is not conducive to usage of public transport for local and connecting journeys. The ability of local bus service providers to provide adequate or even minimal service to the isolated residential precincts remains questionable.

The increased number of passengers and services will have implications on current plans by the NSW Government to increase bus capacity and upgrade the bus / rail interchange at Sutherland. An increase in rail commuters together with limited accessibility measures and passenger capacity raises concerns about the potential for increased traffic and pedestrian conflicts around the station precinct. Growth in passenger numbers and need for improved access increases

Station. This has the potential to increase public transport use in the area generally and substantiates the mode shareassumptions.

The first phases of development will most likely be focussed around the eastern side of the site. Provision needs to be made for peak and off peak bus services betweenthe site and Sutherland Station. A bus service link between the site and Holsworthyis considered important in the longer termwhen the east west link is open because travel times between the site andHolsworthy will be comparatively quickerthan those to Sutherland Station. Moreover, the Railcorp line load data reaffirms that the East Hills line is better placed to accommodate the additional peak period passenger loads from developments such as Heathcote Ridge. The establishment of a cross regional bus service linking Sutherland Station and Liverpool Station via the site and Holsworthy Station should be facilitatedearly in the development phase. In this regard completion of the East West Link Road between Heathcote and New Illawarra Roads becomes more critical.

The current public transport plan provides for diversion of some of the

72



alternative new larger concourse to be constructed at the southern end of Sutherland railway station in the short to medium term.

The applicant’s report shows that additional lane and intersection capacity is required along the Bangor Bypass/River Road/Linden Street route to Sutherland yet fails to provide any detail on how this is to be achieved and funded.

The applicants report also proposes that bus priority measures will be required along this route to support the public transport mode share targets. Given existing constraints, the manner in which these competing demands can be accommodated is unclear. Not addressing this issue will have major adverse impacts on the performance of the road network and public transport reliability and uptake.

If public transport mode share targets are not met, greater reliance on car use is likely to increase pressure for the provision of an additional multi storey commuter car park at Sutherland.

measure (7-10 years) this could be brought forward as a potential short term measure in the event the construction of the East WestLink Road through to Heathcote Road could not be delivered early in the development phase. The proposed 50 space on-site parkand ride facility should therefore be retained to service these M92 diversions. Both the M92 diversions and the on-site parkand ride facility could be removed once the East West Link Road and cross regional through bus service are introduced.Nothing would preclude them being retained if demand warranted although thecosts of maintaining the M92 route diversion will not be insignificant.

In this context (a short term diversion of some M92 services followed by a short to medium term cross regional bus service through the site) the need for the routing of existing services 961 and/or 963 through the site may not be warranted to achieve anticipated mode shift objectives. This option should not be abandoned and could be discussed with the relevant bus operators at the appropriate time.

The provision of capacity for rail patrons at stations is the responsibility of the rail authority. The SSS process provides sufficient notice for such servicing

73



Structure Plan should bring forward plans for station upgrades at Sutherland and provide greater justification for such works.

Bushfire If the bushfire protection measures necessary to provide an acceptable level of risk to life, property and the environment cannot be implemented with certainty and in a way that results in acceptable economic, environmental and social implications, then the land should not be rezoned to allow for such development.

Addressed in SSS Study (Appendix 11) and in response from RFS.

Having regard to the overarching principles for rezoning of land for residential development contained in Chapter 2 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, the proposed planning scheme fails outright to satisfy two of the principles and when the feasibility of the proposal is taken into account, fails to satisfy the remaining heads of consideration. These two principles (page 4 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006) are:

Minimising the perimeter of the area of land, interfacing the hazard, which may be developed:

Council’s estimate is that some 40 kilometres of interface with the adjoining bushfire hazard will remain;

There is a requirement for an extensive system of Asset Protection Zones around large sections of the development, all of which require ongoing maintenance over the life of the development to retain the desired level of protection. This creates a substantial ongoing maintenance burden for the

Separation at the interface is proposed by way of perimeter roads. Alternatives will be considered at DA stage in accordance with the guidelines. Perimeter roads are used in Barden Ridge and other recently developed parts of the wider Menai Release Area.

74



community. Questions remain over the practicality of the design and details regarding the ownership.

In addition to asset protection zone management, there will also be an ongoing requirement for management of bushfire fuels along roadways linking the development precincts, so that access/egress is retained during bushfires

The extent of perimeter road proposed therefore creates a greater than usual burden for Council when in public ownership, all while eliminating ratable properties capable of contributing to cost of maintenance from one side of the road.

In relation to Neighbourhood Safer Places, there has been no analysis as to whether residents can shelter, and how the safe shelter of the intended populations can be achieved, within each precinct.

A dispersed settlement pattern with multiple bushfire interfaces also results in additional pressures for fire fighting and emergency management. Fire fighting resources will potentially be spread more thinly, protecting multiple interface areas, as well as those existing interface areas at Menai. While the proposed development will break up the current fire path to Menai across the site, sufficient areas of bushland remain to pose a significant threat to this area.

Noted and similar to existing areas.

The perimeter road concept does notcreate a greater than usual burden forCouncil because it is a concept that is used elsewhere in the Menai area.

The Neighbourhood Safer Places concept will be developed and applied at the DA stage for each precinct. The amendments to the Structure Plan with the deletion of the southern urban areas makes this more achievable with the communities adjacent to Heathcote Road.

The proponent offers a Fire Brigade Station within the development precinct.

75



Introduction of controls which avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas.

Then the critical unanswered question is, how will a buffer zone be funded, established and maintained between Heathcote Road and new residential areas until and after the employment lands are fully developed taking into consideration the long term establishment of the employment zone is questionable on economic grounds?

If the employment lands precinct is ultimately developed as planned, it is estimated that upwards of 15,000 people could work in the locality. It is located in close proximity to an extreme bushfire riskwhich cannot otherwise be mitigated through hazard reduction or fire suppression operations. It is thereforeconsidered that insufficient consideration has beengiven as to how these people will be managed during times of extreme bushfire risk.

Land uses in the B6 zone and some residential locations are inappropriate for bushfire

The RFS submission raises this issue and suggests an agreement under S88B as being an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that the APZ in the employment lands is maintained until the employment lands are sold.

The changes to the Structure Plan reduce the employment potential for this area to a more realistic maximum of 4,700 workers.

It is envisaged that businesses wouldprepare and implement evacuation plans in advance of impending risk.

Refer to response from RFS.

The ownership of the bioswales area and hence the liability for ongoing maintenance for asset protection purposes is has not been adequately resolved. It must be resolved before the full implications of the proposal can be assessed. It is most appropriate that this responsibility rests with Gandangara.

The ongoing vegetation maintenance of 36.2km of perimeter road reserve for fire protection purposes places an unreasonable burden on Council.

Management and maintenance of drainage works is a normal function of local government and is directly related to road maintenance. Council meets this responsibility in other areas and West Menai is no different.

76



The economic viability of the east west connection is questionable. The theoretical ability to provide such access is not sufficient grounds for stating that the development is suitable on bushfire grounds. It is also necessary to look at the social, environmental and economic costs of the necessary bushfire protection measures. In these terms, the proposed level of development which generates the need for such costly transport routes, is unsupportable.

This is a matter for State Government

Co n t am in a t ion and Subsiden c e

The preliminary report has not complied with the DirectorGenerals requirements in that it has not addressed contamination issues across the entire proposed site, nor potential impacts fromoff-site sources such as the adjacent former landfill. There is still a degree of uncertainty with regard to the level of contaminationand associated risk. The report has not proposed a method of treatment to address existing contamination. The recommendation from the author (JBS) is to undertake furtherassessment and produce a Remediation Action Plan to address remediation and validation of the site.

The Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment by JBS Environmental (Appendix 7 of SSS Study) focussed on the development area and found that there are no significant onsite potential sources of contamination apart from illegally tipped material. The investigations also found that the potential for migration of contaminants from the sitevia surface water is low based on the limited nature of contaminants identified at the site. Based on the nature of the contaminants, the depth to groundwater and the geology at the site the potential for migration via groundwater is also low.

Section 3.8 of the JBS report describes the nature of contaminating activities to the south and east of the site including the previous land fill operations at the Ridge Sporting Complex, the existing land fill operations managed by Sita, the former Harringtons Quarry, former night soil depot, former liquid waste depot and Little Forest Burial Ground for nuclear wastes lie to the south and east of the

77



Creek, outside the development areas. This included results of investigations into off site migration of contamination from thesesources by the relevant authorities.

Ge o t e ch n i c al I s s u es Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd have concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed rezoning and redevelopment from a geotechnical point of view. Council recommends that any works be staged and appropriate measures put in place to control surface water and stormwater and to reduce any erosion and sedimentation of the land. Also further assessment of acid sulphate soils are required if development is likely to impact on acid sulphate soils

Noted and are issues for DA consideration.

Water Quality –R i parian Co r r i dors

The Riparian Corridor Assessment does not include the entirety of the development site. Sites in the SE portion of the site, including the area proposed for multiple dwelling are not surveyed or mapped, and hence no classification or recommendation for CRZ and VBZ provided.

There has been no consideration of the need to provide vegetated buffer zones to the many wetlands which exist on the site.

There is potential for many of these higher order streams to be impacted by infrastructure provision, in particular roads and bridges servicing the isolated developments. It is noted that the proposed access over Bardens Creek is predominantly via a filled embankment, rather than a suspended bridge. Such construction has significant potential to encroach within the recommended riparian buffers. These impacts have not been addressed in the Riparian Corridors Assessment.

There is no assessment as to whether the proposed development

This area has been investigated by Cumberland Ecology and Harris Environmental Consulting. The changes to the Structure Plan in this area result in development being away from water courses and upland swamp areas.


Assessment would be undertaken as part of impact assessment for crossings at which time the details of the structure and method of construction would be known. Ecology impacts have been considered in the additional advice from Cumberland Ecology.

The Riparian Corridor Assessment (Appendix8) states that:

DECC (2010) states that the Vegetated Buffer

78



complies with these recommended corridor widths. No maps or diagrams are provided which overlay the proposed riparian zones against the proposed development footprint to assist inassessment of compliance of the recommendations with the proposal. This is a major shortcoming with the assessment. The SEE notes that while the riparian assessment recommends a 20mvegetated buffer on each side of the Core Riparian Zone (CRZ) a10 metre buffer may be justifiable in some cases. There is no indication of where a 10m VBZ is proposed or assessment to showhow these reduced VBZ are appropriate in those instances. This is a major shortcoming in the assessment process.

(VB) should be wide enough to protect the CRZ from weed invasion, micro-climate changes, litter, trampling and pollution and the recommended width is 10 metres although this is subject to merit assessment. As a general rule, this assessment recommends a 20m buffer on each side of the CRZ for all 1st order drainageCRZ's. However, a 10m VB is justifiable for some of the 1st order drainage lines on the western catchment where there is currently little vegetation already present

.Water Quality – Wa t e r S e ns i t ive

This report contains a catalogue of WSUD initiatives and an assessment of their relative performance at a range of sites with limited general applicability to this site.

Noted

Water Quality – S t or m wa t er Management

Heavy reliance is placed on infiltration strategies and technologies as part of the overall stormwater management strategy for the site when the soils have a much lower permeability soil then typical sandstone. Council therefore has concern over the heavy reliance on infiltrative measures in the overall stormwater management strategy given this significant site constraint.

This statement is incorrect because infiltration is not suggested. Bioretention ponds and swales can, and are constructed with liners to prevent infiltration where infiltration is not required/recommended such as in acid sulphate soils where infiltration is not encouraged nor required.

Bioretention is recommended as a valid and preferred method of improving stormwater runoff quality, and one in accordance with the WSUD tool box that could and should be adopted on this site.

Pervious pavements are recommended for attenuation of rainfall runoff and filtering of water and capture of pollutants. It is NOT to

79



The water quality objectives for the development are appropriate and consistent with Council objectives and legislative requirements.

No water quality monitoring has been undertaken for this site in order to establish baseline water quality conditions on the site. Many assumptions are made relating to erosion and sediment loads, but no data is provided. Such data is an important input to any modelling, and again raises doubts as to the accuracy of the modelling results.

Stormwater quantity management relies on a wide range of WSUD measures installed largely within the road reserve. As such it is assumed that these control devices will pass to the management of Council with the dedication of the road system. This is not acceptable to Council. Council has concern over the expected performance and high maintenance costs of many of the WSUD measures such as permeable pavements. This is particularly relevant as, unlike the rest of the Shire wherestormwater measures are installed largely to protect public assets, downstream, in this instance such measures will be maintained toprotect the private assets of the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council which exist downstream from the urban development. Council considers it is unreasonable for the

recharge groundwater.

Each report presented by ACOR consultants discusses the soil profile present on site, and this has and will be considered during theDA design and specification process.

Noted

Water quality baseline monitoring could be carried out at DA stage if required.Currently denuded areas where vegetation has been removed will be delivering a higher sediment load to the water coursesthroughout the site that could be reduced once stabilised and developed.

This is normal practice. All infrastructure will be designed to the relevant Authority Standards with due regard to maintenance requirements etc. All design work will be approved by the relevant authorities to ensure it is in accordance with their guidelines. All systems to prevent polluting the natural system require maintenance.

80



Council to maintain the assets necessary to manage these impacts in order to preserve their land and assets below the development.

The achievement of the relevant goals for stormwater quality management relies heavily on infiltration of storm flows. As noted earlier, the low permeability of site soils raises concerns over the success of such a strategy. This statement is incorrect. Infiltration is

not relied upon or required.

Water Quality – DGs S t u d y Re qu i r e m e n t s n o t m e t

Identify all watercourses, riparian land and wetlands that could be potentially affected - The Riparian Corridors Assessment failed to identify all riparian lands and water courses likely to be affected by the proposal. No wetlands were mapped or identified as part of this process and no recommendations were made in relation to adequate buffer zones for protection of the wetlands on the site. Additionally, watercourses and riparian lands were not identified in the south eastern portion of the proposed development. Watercourse assessment and identification was also undertaken during a prolonged dry spell which is not conducive to accurate mapping of watercourses. Therefore it is considered that the proposal has not identified all watercourses, riparian lands and wetlands that could be affected by the proposal.

Assess the potential impacts of the development on water quality and quantity of receiving waterways, riparian land, wetlands and downslope vegetation: No data is provided as to the status of existing water quality in receiving waters and waterways. Many broad assumptions are made, but are not backed up by sampling data or even detailed site observations in downstream receiving waters. Without such baseline data is difficult if not impossible to accurately assess impacts to these environments.

Watercourses and riparian corridors have been identified and addressed.

This is a matter for consideration at DAstage.

81



Council has significant concerns over the accuracy and validity of this modelling given the lack of input data, including assumed degree of imperviousness of the various catchments, and theassumed performance of many of the WSUD measures on this site. Council is concerned that the WSUD measures proposed to treat and manage site stormwater are not appropriate for theshallow and clayey coils of this site and will result in suboptimal performance and excessive maintenance. There has no identification or assessment of impacts to wetlands on this site.Overall Council considers that the proposal has not assessed the potential impacts to receiving waterways, riparian lands, wetlands and downslope vegetation.

Establish minimum riparian widths required to maintain channel stability and significant ecological values: The Riparian Corridors Assessment (RCA) identifies appropriate riparian corridor widthsfor much of the development to west of the site along HeathcoteRoad. There has been little or no assessment of such riparian corridors to the south east of the site, nor has there been anyassessment of the need for riparian buffers to the wetlandspresent on the site. The RCA notes that the recommended riparian corridor widths may be varied on a case by case basis,but no case specific justification is provided for any suchvariations. While riparian corridor widths are recommended for large areas of the site there is no assessment of compliance ofthe development with these recommended riparian widths.Council considers that while appropriate recommendations

The Riparian Corridor Assessment (Appendix8) states that:

DECC (2010) states that the Vegetated Buffer (VB) should be wide enough to protect the CRZ from weed invasion, micro-climate changes, litter, trampling and pollution and the recommended width is 10 metres although this is subject to merit assessment. As a general rule, this assessment recommends a 20m buffer on each side of the CRZ for all 1st order drainageCRZ's. However, a 10m VB is justifiable for some of the 1st order drainage lines on the western catchment where there is currently little vegetation already present

Additional investigations have been undertaken into the riparian corridors to the south east of the site and the Structure Plan has been amended to avoid coastal upland swamp area and associated streams.

82



Assess constraints and strategies for stormwater management: The Water Sensitive Urban Design Initiatives Report and the Stormwater Management Strategy, provide a catalogue of potential measures to manage stormwater. However there is limited to no assessment of their direct applicability to this site. In fact, much of the strategy ignores the constraints of the site, such as shallow soils and low infiltration capacity, making the majority of the proposed measures unsuitable for this site. Other strategies proposed rely on significant ongoing management from a centralised body, such the greywater reuse system, without providing any indication of what such a management system would be, how it would be managed and who would be responsible. Ongoing management of the stormwater system represents a significant constraint, posing a substantial financial and resource burden. There has been no consideration of how these matters will be addressed in the long term and no overall management proposal put forward. Overall Council considers that there has not been adequate assessment of any of the constraints of the site in relation to the proposed strategies for stormwater management.

No infiltration is proposed. Measures are proposed and will be investigated in greater detail at DA stage.

InfrastructureProvision - Roads

A direct nexus therefore exists between the development of land along Heathcote Road and the construction of the East/West link road. The cost of this link was previously found prohibitive.

In addition to the Arterial East/West link between Heathcote Road and New Illawarra Road, the fragmented and widespread locations of the developable lands requires the construction of a series of Collector Roads incorporating three substantial bridges to link the areas of developable land with the East/West arterialto provide everyday access to and bushfire emergency egress to the east. The cost of these Collector Roads and their associated bridges, cuttings and retaining structures shall again be at the full cost of the developer as shall be the full

The proponent has established the feasibility of the construction to the satisfaction of State government.

Changes to the Structure Plan have resulted in the removal of more isolated precincts with expensive collector road connections.


Mitigation measures would be staged

83



of the entire 18km of the lower order local road network.

In addition to the site specific needs of the development, a direct nexus exists between the development of the lands proposedand works required external to the site that are generated solely by the development.

Despite acknowledging the requirement to mitigate against the development’s external impacts, the applicant fails to acknowledge the nature and extent of its responsibilities with regard to the external road network and at Section 5.2 only acknowledges its responsibility to meet at least some of the cost of off-site transport and services required to achieve sustainable transport to and from the site.

When fully developed the Heathcote Ridge site is forecast to increase traffic volumes on these key roads within the Shire between 36% and 60% above that if the proposed development were not to take place.

Further it should again be noted that the East/West link is only necessary to develop the lands abutting Heathcote Road to provide Heathcote Ridge with a bushfire emergency evacuation route and for no other purpose.

The increase in traffic volumes generated principally by the development’s existence give rise to a requirement for the construction of two additional traffic lanes on Alford’s Point Road, Alford’s Point bridge, Bangor Bypass, Woronora River bridge and River Road/Linden Street together with the widening ofHeathcote Road to four lanes north of the East/West Arterial.

There is a direct nexus between the Heathcote Ridge development and the necessity to provide the additional traffic lanes on these surrounding arterial roads and major

In accordance with accepted practice, it is reasonable that the development make a contribution towards the provision of public amenities for which it created a demand. The development of the site wouldgenerate a demand for works off the site but is not the only source of demand forsuch works in all cases.

Traffic assessment will be revised as a consequence of changes to the Structure Plan.

This is contrary to the strategic benefits of the link as identified by RMS.

The revised Structure Plan results in a reduction in the traffic generation of the development and thus need for off site works. A revised traffic and transport impact assessment will be undertaken.

84



therefore, on the applicant’s own submission, the applicant should also be responsible for the majority of the funding of these additional roadworks on that surrounding arterial road system. Nosuch acknowledgement is made within the applicant’s submission.

There are no details provided by the applicant as to how the road infrastructure is to be funded, there are no costings for any of the proposed development area Arterial, Collector and Local road networks, the four major bridges and massive earthembankments, the intersection upgrades, including New Illawarra Road/Bangor Bypass grade separation or the provision of drainage works associated purely with the road network.

In addition, there is no acknowledgement of the responsibility of the developer to upgrade and amplify the surrounding Arterial road network due solely to the effect of the development on its surroundings.

The proposal shall result in considerable long term maintenance costs for Council due to the necessity to link the fragmented ridge spur and hilltop development areas with substantial bridge structures together with the additional costs to maintain the local and Collector Road infrastructure, it shall have a detrimental effect on the surrounding road network, the total effects of which have not been adequately canvassed and there are no projected costs for the works.


Refer to revised VPA outline discussed inSection 4.

Refer to revised VPA outline discussed inSection 4.

Road maintenance is a normal function of Council. Local and collector road network has been reduced in the revised Structure Plan.

Infrastructure Provision – P o t a b l e Wa t e r

No potable water supply reservoirs exist within the area of the lands proposed to be developed.

Sydney Water have indicated that the proposed development can be serviced with potable water from the two existing reservoirs located on New Illawarra Road, Lucas

Noted

Noted

85



Menai Reservoir located at Bishop Road. The potable water supply system includes a provision for structural fire fighting purposes.

No details of the estimated costs or funding of any of the potable water supply system for the development have been supplied by the applicant.

No details have been provided as to how the staging of the water reticulation system is to be accomplished.

Refer to advice from Sydney Water. A commercial agreement will be required with Sydney Water for the provision of infrastructure.

This is a matter for more detailed design following rezoning.

InfrastructureProvision – S e w e rage

Apart from a single Sydney Water sewerage main located within the development’s proposed conservation areas that currently services existing subdivisions west of New Illawarra Road and Alford’s Point Road, no sewerage system is located anywhere within the residential or employment zones of the development site.

Sydney Water has indicated that the development site lays within the catchment area of and can be serviced by the existing Cronulla Waste Water Treatment Plant. However, while it may have the capacity to treat sewage from the site, the existing network delivery pipelines to the treatment plant may not have sufficient capacity to cater for the proposed development.

The applicant has proposed a network of pumping stations rising mains and gravity mains for the development to provide a better environmental outcome within the proposed Conservation Areas.

Sydney Water has also indicated that the provision of a local recycled water scheme incorporating sewer mining would significantly reduce the impact of, and presumably reduce the cost of, any proposed sewerage system. The disadvantage of such a scheme would be that Sydney Water proposes no recycled water scheme for the development

Sewerage services will be provided in accordance with Sydney Water requirements.

86



funding for its construction, maintenance and operation would be the sole responsibility of the developer in perpetuity. The applicant may reject such a proposal principally on the groundsof funding and the lack of an industrial zone within the development that would have a significant demand for recycled water.

The applicant has made an assumption that the upgrade of the sewerage trunk main is limited to 800m and wholly within the boundaries of its development site. There is no detail within Sydney Water’s correspondence to indicate the extent of trunk main amplification required. Therefore, the amplification could be far greater than anticipated and extending outside the development lands.

No details of the estimated costs of the funding of the sewerage system or the amplification of the existing trunk mains have been provided by the applicant.

No details have been provided as to how the staging of the sewage system construction is to be implemented.

Infrastructure Provision – R e c y c l ed Wa t e r

Sydney Water has indicated that the recycled water network will, in all likelihood, never be extended to the Heathcote Ridge site. Further, it has indicated that if such a scheme is to be contemplated the total funding of the construction and ongoing maintenance and operation of such a scheme together with all associated infrastructure shall be the responsibility of the developer.

No details have been provided as to the extent of works required to provide recycled water to all the residential allotments or the Employment lands.

No details of the estimated costs or the funding of a recycled

Water will be provided in accordance withSydney Water requirements.

87



water supply system have been provided by the applicant neither has there been an estimate provided for the yearly maintenance or operating costs for such a scheme nor whowould be responsible for its operation and maintenance..

No details have been provided as to the staging of the provision of any proposed recycled water system.

Infrastructure Provision – El e c t r i ci t y Supply

The applicant has indicated that Ausgrid has two options for the installation of the trunk power supply to the development lands. The first, Option A, involves the connection of the site to the existing Menai Zone Sub-Station providing 11kV to the various residential and employment zoned areas. The second, Option B, involves the construction of a new Sub-Zone Station within the development lands with an associated connection to the existing grid. It has been indicated that the costs of the upgrade of the existing or the provision of a new sub-station would be Ausgrid’s responsibility. However, the provision of the trunk main system would be at the total cost of the developer.

It is estimated that 13.350m (13.35km) alone of 11kV trunk cabling and conduits shall be required to provide power to the site.

No details have been provided by the applicant as to the staging of the electrical supply.

No details have been provided as to the extent or costing of the cabling and conduits required to service all of the residential allotments or the Employment lands.

Noted. Refer to submission from Ausgrid that favours option A with some upgrading required to the Menai Zone Substation.

Infrastructure Provision – T el e c o m mu nic a t i o ns

NBN Co has indicated that the development proposal lies within its fibre optic supply footprint and satisfies its statutory requirements to provide that servicing.

It is unclear if NBN Co shall supply the trunk cabling to the closest

Noted. Costs for services will be negotiated with service providers in accordance with their infrastructure charging policies.

88



point of the development lands in accordance with its current policy i.e., only to Precinct 10, or if it shall provide the trunkcabling to the isolated development lands through the site. In theevent that NBN Co provides the supply only to Precinct 10 at its cost, the developer would be responsible for the remainder of the costs for the trunk system throughout the site.

No estimate of costs for the provision of mains telecommunications infrastructure have been provided by the applicant.

No details have been required of the extent of the telecommunications infrastructure required to provide access

InfrastructureProvision – Gas

The applicant has indicated that the nearest gas mains supply exists at Blaxland Drive, Alford’s Point, some 3.2km from the Bangor Bypass entry to the site but 4.47km from the boundary of Precinct 10 and some 3.7km to the north of Precinct 1 at Voyager Point along Heathcote Road.

There are no preliminary costings for the supply of gas to the site as Jemena, the company that supplies gas to the region, indicated in correspondence to the applicant’s consultants that due to the lack of suitable detail, all that they could indicate is that natural gas was in the vicinity and it can be made available to the site.

There is no information available in any form to indicate how much additional infrastructure shall be required to provide the gas reticulation system to the 2725 lots or to the 71.66 ha of employment lands.

Noted. Costs for services will be negotiated with service providers in accordance with their infrastructure charging policies.

89



Infrastructure Provision – O t h e r I n f r as t r u c t ur e

The applicant’s submission relative to its Master Plan Servicing Strategy has been limited to the provision of Public Utility and Telecommunication services to the development lands.

The development of the site shall require the provision of other services normally associated with the creation of a new suburb, this particularly being the case due to the remote nature of the site and its fragmentation across several development areas.

The site needs to be serviced by the NSW Fire Brigades and therefore shall require the provision of a Station suitable for that purpose. Similarly, due to the site’s remote location and the high risk from bushfire, a station shall be required for the Rural Fire Service.

The provision of other non-public utility service infrastructure such as libraries and other community facilities should be the subject of individual s.94 Contributions plans.

Noted

Noted.

Fire Brigade Station proposed.

Noted.

Pl a n n i ng A g re em e n t and Devel o per Co n t r i bu t i on

Council has not been a part to the content of the draft VPA. As currently proposed, the level of provision of local community facilities and active playing fields falls short of the level of provision that the new community will demand. Should the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure choose to declare the site State Significant, Council reserves the right to enter into full and proper negotiations with the proponents. However, as an interim measure the following shortfalls have been identified:

The draft VPA makes provision for 2.5 hectares of open space to be used as the northern sports fields. Embellishment cost of this space is shown as $1,045,000 whereas council is of the view that the embellishment costs of 1 field is approximately $1 million.

Noted. Final VPA costs will be based on specific proposals in the event that Council enters into a VPA.

90



The disconnected urban form produces means that central playing fields will not serve the future community’s needs. In addition, Sutherland Shire has extremely high participation rates on organised sports at all levels. The proposed rate of active open space simply falls far short of minimum requirements. Thedistribution of playing fields should reflect the pattern and density of development. Given that Precinct 3 – Residential North andPrecinct 4 – Residential Core North make provision for over 1500dwellings, at least three (3) playing fields are required.

These playing fields should be located with passive open space to enhance their utility. The residential population of Precinct 5 – Residential Frame West will combine with the higher population density of the local centre to create a significant precinct. As the central place, a further two (2) playing fields should be located with the school and passive open space. The physical separation of Precinct 6 – Residential South West and Precinct 7 – Campus Park South is such that future residents will not be able to readily access other playing fields. One playing field needs to be located in this precinct adjacent to the passive open space. Similarly, a playing field should also be provided to the community of 806 dwellings in Precinct 10 – Residential “The Bridges”.

In total, Council estimates that at least seven (7) playing fields will be required to serve the planned community’s local sporting needs. To embellish the land to the standard required, an allowance in the order of $7 million dollars is required. As it currently stands, the draft VPA seriously under funds open space provision.

The draft VPA also makes an allowance of $5 million for a 50 metre swimming pool. Sutherland Shire does not have the

The development will generate a demand for open space similar to other development in the Shire. However the Structure Plan has been amended to make provision for additional playing fields in a centralised location. Space is provided for passive open space also.

91



swimming pool in this location. Instead, a far better use of the allocated funds would be to facilitate the expansion of the Menai Central Library so that it can serve the needs of the newcommunity.

response to epbc submissions, heathcote ridge, west menai€¦ · web viewthe response to these...

Documents