Response to EPBC Submissions, Heathcote Ridge, West Menai

RESPONSE TO EPBC SUBMISSIONS HEATHCOTE RIDGE, WEST MENAI

August 2012

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

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 3. 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 29 February 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.

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 2

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;

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 3

 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.

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 4

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.

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 5

Figure 1. Revised Structure Plan

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 6

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.

J:\2009\09191\Reports\strategic assessment\FINAL JULY 2012\Response to EPBC Report - Final.doc 7

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

Organisation Submissions

1 Sutherland Greens  That the plateau areas of at least Precincts 6,7,9 and the part of Matter for Government EPBC 10 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.

 That the proponent, Gandangara LALC, be encouraged to Noted and can be considered in the facilitate responsible access throughout the entire 15-25 year Biodiversity Management Plan for the project time span to undeveloped portions of their West Menai environmental lands. 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.

 The Commonwealth should facilitate and fund collaboration Matter for Commonwealth 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.

 NSW Planning should promote and research by Local Matter for DoP&I 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy henceforth influence development planning.

 In preparing residential subdivisions for sale, pre-emptive Noted. Matter for DA. 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.

 Development standards for ridge top development should Noted. Matter for DA. 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 Noted. Matter for DA. 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 Noted. Matter for DA. 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 Noted. Matter for DA. 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 Shire Sustainability Criteria not met in areas such as: This submission is similar to the submission Environment Centre  Infrastructure provision; from Sutherland Shire Council to the exhibition of the SSS Study under the NSW  Access; EP&A Act. The response to Council’s  Housing diversity;

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy submission is included below.  Employment lands;  Avoidance of risk (bushfires, incompatible uses);  Environmental protection;  Quality and equity of service.  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 Shire Council

Sustainability Criteria  The proposed Heathcote Ridge development does not satisfy the Section 2.3 of the SSS Study adequately For new land requirement that a new land release area must be consistent with addresses the sustainability criteria for releases not met “any relevant development strategy, subregional strategy, new land releases in the 2005 Metropolitan Strategy. This includes

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy regional infrastructure strategy and Metropolitan Plan” compliance with strategies (Section 2.1 of SSS Study).

 Infrastructure: The Submission fails to satisfy the requirement to Costs of all infrastructure have been sufficiently cost the provision of infrastructure for the proposed calculated as detailed in Section 2.3 of the development. SSS study.

 Access: The proposal fails to demonstrate potential for cost The proposal includes the provision of effective public transport 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 See point 3 in the Table 1 in Section 2.2 of criteria in any detailed or meaningful way the SSS Study.

 Employment Lands: The proposal fails to demonstrate how the This is adequately addressed in Section 2.2 development will make a significant positive contribution to of SSS Study. Changes to the amount and meeting the subregional employment targets, or to improving nature of employment land have been employment self-containment rates. made in response to submissions with the revised proposal presented in Section 4.

 Avoidance of risk: The proposal fails to ability demonstrate it can Bushfire management issues have been provide a safe bushfire evacuation route addressed by RFS. The Employment land buffer is considered appropriate by RFS  The proposal fails to avoid risks associated with land use conflicts subject to bushfire management originating from existing and future uses at the adjacent arrangements being in place for Liverpool Military Area (Holsworthy) Heathcote Road and the employment lands until developed. Lucas Heights Resource Recovery Centre.

 Environmental Protection: The proposal will have an Discussed in final PR and SAR Reports in so unacceptable impact on a range of threatened flora and fauna, far as MNES are concerned. and ecological communities protected under State and Federal legislation.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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

 The proposal does not demonstrate how it will protect areas of Aboriginal 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 The social composition of the new suburb is from other urban centres and the difficulties in providing cost expected to be similar to that of other areas effective public transport to the site, it is considered that the of Menai. development could create a pocket of social disadvantage.

Land not suitable for  Site constraints from bushfire risk as so great that the Bushfire management issues dealt with by urban development development is fundamentally flawed and the land use and RFS. APZ provided to HTA in accordance because of bushfire scale of development is inappropriate; with RFS requirements. risk  Additional bushfire risk from west (LMA) because UXO limits ability for fire management works

Land not suitable for  Additional bushfire risk from west (LMA) because UXO limits ability See above. residential use for fire management works; because of proximity to incompatible uses

 Helicopter and small arms firing noise from LMA; Relationship with adjoining land addressed in 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 This is a matter for assessment at DA stage. uses in employment zone

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Because the proposed urban form is essentially a reflection of The topography of the site is similar to the topography coupled with the maximisation of residential lots from remainder of the wider Menai release area the site, the result is a series of communities where the shape of and creates a series of neighbourhoods with the neighbourhood follows the contours of the ridge. This results in separate identities which is conducive to urban area with a greater portion of lots facing bushland and social cohesion and sense of belonging. exacerbates the extent of bushfire protection needed. The proposal creates over 40 km of interface between bush and Alternative means of bushfire management development. This is an inefficient urban form because it spreads can be explored during design the potential for greater risk to more properties. A consolidated development for individual development circular form would be the optimal urban from in a bushfire risk applications based on more detailed area because it would have a far more efficient ratio of edge to consideration of site conditions. Alternatives core. In fact Direction G20 – Planning for Bushfire Protection, to perimeter road and edge ratios can be ‘Planning Principles for Rezoning Land for Residential Purposes’ in explored in greater detail. bush fire prone areas, specifically states at point (e) “minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed”.

Lack of Demand for  The proposal does not demonstrate demand for the proposed Based on submissions received and Employment land addition of 71 hectares of new ‘employment land’ and forecast discussions with DPI, the amount of projections of 10,000 to 15,000 for the site can be achieved in the employment land has been reduced to 51.4 subregion. The ‘Economic and Social Benefits Study’ (Final Report ha and the nature changed. 2009) prepared for the proponent states, “The higher proportion of [employment land] supply relative to the quantity of jobs suggests 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, which forms part of the applicant’s submission, though it is still consistent with the findings of the ELDP 2010 report.

 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 Noted and employment potential reduced. ‘employment’ in Sutherland Shire at a time when the Shire is

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 The supply of vacant land is limited with employment land in the south and south west with additional projections reliant on redevelopment. land planned 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 in The proponent remains of the view that the Sutherland or Liverpool site is suitable for employment land and some provision of employment opportunities is justified.

 Council prefers a low density campus style development for the Noted. The amount of employment land site similar to density at ANSTO and resulting employment potential has been reduced.

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

 Permissible uses in B6 Enterprise Zone (employment zone) to Zoning provisions have been amended in broad: response to submissions. The Heathcote  A wide range of retail uses permissible to lead to big Road frontage is considered a suitable box retailing along Heathcote Road with no attempt location for big box retailing such as bulky to limit the volume or type of retail activity; goods.  B6 zone allows seniors housing and child care centres Some form of housing and special fire which are inappropriate in a bushfire zone. protection purpose uses are appropriate in

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy part of this zone outside APZ areas as considered by the RFS with greater fire separation distances required. This is a matter for determination at DA stage.

 Density in Employment Zone: This is an overall density for employment lands and is generally consistent with FSR  Allowable density of 1:1 too high compared to the controls in recent precinct planning in the employment study recommendations; SW and NW Growth Centres.

 Permissible uses in Bushland Areas: It is appropriate that some flexibility is maintained to develop residential solutions  Zoning and subdivision controls do not reflect the in the bushland environmental housing structure plan intentions with small lot subdivision areas to reflect the need to accommodate permissible and R1 zoning bushfire APZ in innovative ways that can include clusters of housing.

 Residential Zoning:

 R1 zoning for whole area does not allow structure R2 and R3 zones are introduced. plan intentions to be realised; A finer grain of zoning is not warranted for the bushfront lots because the dimensions and extent of the bushfront lots  Council recommends finer zoning allocation incorporating bushfire APZ varies from distinguishing bushfire, tradition residential and location to location and are not prescribed medium density residential areas; with the precision necessary for zone boundary delineation.

Child care and seniors housing are generally  Child care centres and seniors housing not permissible uses in residential zones and will acceptable in bush front zones be retained with controls effected through integrated development provisions and bushfire planning guidelines.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Precinct 8 should not be in a residential zone as Precinct 8 removed from Structure Plan structure plan identifies this land as special uses

 Density in residential areas:

 Council objects to the minimum lot size in residential Minimum lot size now 250 square metres areas in general and bush front lots in particular. 360 consistent with small lot housing provisions in square metres (reducible to 200 square metres too other release areas in metropolitan Sydney. small. Density targets also introduced.

 Density should more reflect the natural bushland Density targets do not apply to defined setting, cultural qualities and should be reduced; bushfront land.

 Bush front lots of 700 square metres restricts ability to Flexibility in lot size is proposed to encourage protect trees. Council requires minimum of 850 designs that respond to local conditions. No square metres in localities adjoining bushland; specific requirement for the protection of trees in bushfront lands.  Bush front lots require a 20 metre asset protection zone and should have a width capable of access for This is a performance requirement best fire fighting purposes. Council suggests an increase in achieved by identifying outcomes rather the minimum lot size to at least 750 square metres; prescribing a minimum lot size.

 Traditional housing lots too small at 360 square metres Council’s minimum may not enable in an isolated fringe location. Council minimum size is residential density targets to be achieved. 550 square metres

 Lot size in medium density areas too small at 170 Noted and minimum lot size increased with square metres council considers. Council prefers a the potential for strata and community title minimum lot size for medium density development subdivision. with the traditional lot size as the default standard; Noted and removed although it is noted  Council objects to inclusion of clause 14(4) allowing that dwellings on lots of 200 square metres subdivision down to 200 square metres and 125 are permissible under the Exempt and square metres for semi -detached dwellings;

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Complying SEPP.

 Council is opposed to subdivision certificates being issued by an Can be required by condition of consent to accredited certifier (clause 15) so that council can ensure any subdivision application. consistency that the planned asset protection zones are realised

 Council is of the view that a 9.5 metre height limit is excessive in Height of Buildings in standard template LEPs the residential zone as it can allow 3 storeys. Council suggests 8.5 is measured to the top of the building with a metres. 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 This provides flexibility in the event that uses B6 zone 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 Noted. Residential density controlled by employment zones respectively as logical outcomes for the zones measures other than FSR in low density and objects to there being no FSR for residential lots. It calls for residential areas. an FSR of 0.45:1 for all dwellings in line with the rest of Sutherland.

 Council is disappointed that cultural heritage items are not It is not advisable that sites are located in protected in the plan by inclusion of the sites in Schedule 5. this manner in order to protect them from disturbance.

 Land use table for B2 zone applying to local centre to be Noted and provided. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 E2 zone may lead to acquisition on grounds of hardship Noted

Biodiversity -  Council considers that a broader consideration of biodiversity As noted by Sutherland Shire Council, the communities values should have been required, addressing regional and local Ecological Assessment focuses primarily on significance of the site, beyond those species and communities threatened species and endangered listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. ecological communities. This approach was undertaken in accordance with the Director General’s Requirements.

 Council considers the flora and fauna survey methodology Noted. 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

 Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland: As noted within the Ecological Assessment, Council considers the removal of 211ha (or 88%) of this Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus vegetation type from the site represents an unacceptable, haemastoma Heath-Woodland is the significant and irreversible impact on the biodiversity of the vegetation community that would be most region. 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 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 22.71ha of 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 (previously 6.47% 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  Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath occurs in of this community under the current proposal, the majority of the scattered locations throughout the remainder is present within close proximity to the development project area. Portions of this community and will be impacted by edge effects and changes to local have been modified as the result of hydrology. Therefore, it is likely that the majority of this clearance for the establishment of the endangered community (ie., the entire 10.92 ha) will be power line easement and tracks with impacted by the proposal. some areas facing ongoing impacts from edge effects and alteration of hydrology. The largest occurrences of this community occur within the central and south eastern portions of the project

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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, an additional 2.11ha of Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath will be retained within the project area. Under the current proposed footprint, the project would directly impact 1.83ha or 16.84% of this community within the project area (previously 36.08% under the exhibited zoning plan). The reduction is proposed to occur in the south eastern portion of the 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 of the development footprint has incorporated an APZ which includes modified vegetation and stormwater retention basins in an effort to minimise impacts to adjacent vegetation.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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  Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp included as CUS. 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. The community 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 Upland

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Swamp. The results of this analysis indicated that this community does not conform to Coastal Upland Swamp. The analysis determined that very few of the species recorded within the relevant quadrats are characteristic of Coastal Upland Swamp. In particular, Leptospermum polygalifolium dominates the community within the project area but is not listed as a characteristic species for Coastal Upland Swamp within the final determination.

Additional information regarding the analysis of floristic data in relation to the final determination for Coastal Upland Swamp is provided within the SSS Study Response.

 Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath: the loss of 96% of this  Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp community on the site to development is not considered Heath has been subject to modification acceptable. 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 EEC description of Coastal Upland Swamp. It is highly modified and it not of high conservation value.

 Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus brevifolius Wet Heath: Ninety-  Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus seven per cent (97%) of this EEC is proposed for removal as a brevifolious Wet Heath occurs at one result of development of the site. Again, the Ecological location in the south eastern portion of Assessment notes that the community is represented in the Royal, the project area. This represents the

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Garrigal and Georges River National Parks and Dharawal State smallest component of Coastal Upland Recreation Areas; but again, this representation cannot be Swamp within the project area. This considered adequate for conservation purposes, as only 53ha in community is in a modified condition total is conserved in these reserves, representing less than 10% of with impacts from runoff and weed the extant area of this community. 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 biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, all 0.94ha of Lepidosperma neesii – Shoenus brevifolius Wet Heath will be retained within the E2 – Environmental Conservation zone. The northern edge of this community which adjoins the development footprint is proposed to be buffered 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 outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 The removal of EEC Coastal Upland Swamp is not considered  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote acceptable 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 3.05ha of Coastal Upland Swamp will be retained within the project area. The proposed amendment to the development footprint includes the reduction of vegetation clearance within 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 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 Coastal Upland Swamp most impacted by the proposed footprint predominately comprise the smaller occurrences of this community within the project area.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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  Corymbia gummifera – Angophora considers that, given the site’s proximity to the coast and shale costata Woodland is closely aligned with influenced soils, an assessment of individual quadrats for the SMCMA community Woronora consistency of this community with Southern Sydney Sheltered Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood Forest and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is appropriate Woodland, which is not aligned with either Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest or Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest. Key elements described within the final determination of these communities are not reflected within Corymbia gummifera – Angophora costata Woodland within the project area.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland: The  The area mapped as Corymbia Ecological Assessment notes that there was difficulty determining gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis the exact nature of this vegetation community, in that it had Woodland within the Ecological affinities with several vegetation mapping units from the SMCMA Assessment is mapped in the SMCMA study and several EECs, most notably Southern Sydney Sheltered vegetation mapping as predominately Forest and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest. It is considered that Woronora Sandstone Exposed due to the limited occurrence of both these communities within Bloodwood Woodland with two the SMCMA sub-region, the proposal would have an occurrences of Hinterland Sandstone unacceptable impact on these endangered communities at the Transition Grey Gum Forest, the latter of sub-regional and regional level. 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 completely absent. Additional information regarding the analysis of floristic data in relation to the final determination for Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest and

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 Exposed Bloodwood Woodland;

 -Hinterland Sandstone Transition Grey Gum Forest:

 -Coastal Shale/Sandstone Forest; and

 -Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest.

Of these communities, Corymbia gummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland had the highest affinity with Woronora Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood Woodland. However, the presence of Eucalyptus pilularis indicated that the community could also share affinities with other SMCMA communities, hence it not being assigned an equivalent SMCMA community within the Ecological Assessment.

As this community was not considered to confirm to Shale/Sandstone Transition

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Forest, the design of the development footprint did not seek to exclude the extent of the community. The project will retain 40.03ha of this community, which represents 71.91% of the extent within the project area. It is considered that a sufficient representation of this community will be retained within the project area. The biodiversity value of this community will be increased through the implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan.

 Melaleuca linarifolia Forest: This vegetation community is the Since the exhibition of the Heathcote rarest vegetation community in the whole of Sutherland Shire. Ridge SSS, amendments have been Any removal of this small vegetation community is considered made to the project which have unacceptable. The footprint for the proposed east-west roadway reduced the development footprint to from the Bangor By Pass passes directly through a distinct island of provide a higher retention of biodiversity this vegetation community which covers an area of 0.02 hectares values. As a result of these amendments, (200 m2). While the Ecological Assessment notes that this all 0.61ha of Melaleuca linarifolia Forest community is represented within a range of reserves within the will be retained within the E2 – SMCMA area, this assumption is based on the community being a Environmental Conservation zone. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on coastal floodplains which it clearly is not. 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 SSS Study).

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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy and upper slope woodlands and heaths. These communities particularly to the north and east, has have experienced significant impacts associated with removal been subject to extensive clearing, and disturbance for urban development over the past 70 years or primarily for suburban development, and more. These vegetation communities, which experience the has resulted in the presence of a mosaic greatest impact from the proposed development, such the of modified vegetation scattered Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath – throughout suburbs. The vegetation Woodland, are also the ones that are the least well conserved within the project area does not within the reserve system of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment constitute the largest and most intact Management Area. remnant within the locality. Extensive areas of vegetation within the locality  Conversely, it is the communities that are best conserved within occur within Holsworthy Military Area, the region that are proposed for conservation under the current Georges River National Park, Heathcote proposal. Communities such as Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora National Park and Royal National Park. costata forest which make up the majority of the conservation area are extremely well represented in both formal and informal  As noted within the Ecological reserves within the SMCMA area, with over 5,000ha of this Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS community in formal and informal reserves representing 57% of Study), the regional context of the the extant area. project area vegetation communities and associated habitat was considered  Therefore the proposal will continue the loss of rarer and less well within the impact assessment. represented and conserved vegetation types while proposing for Consideration of the communities and conservation communities which are mostly common and well associated habitats within the locality to represented and conserved within the SMCMA region. determine the context of the impacts is considered appropriate. The distribution  This balance of clearing of inadequately conserved communities of the vegetation communities which are and preserving well represented communities is not considered currently represented within the project an acceptable balance. area occurs primarily to the west and south of the project area and are shown in Figure 4.2 of the Ecological Assessment. The project will primarily result in the clearance of non-listed communities. The Ecological Assessment acknowledges that there will be impacts to a range of communities within the

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 a Biodiversity Management Plan.

 Communities such as Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata Forest provide suitable habitat for a range of threatened species, including the Eastern Bentwing-bat, Varied Sittella and Powerful Owl, and re-zoning of these areas for conservation will assist in providing habitat for these species in perpetuity. They also contribute to the corridor linking habitat within Georges River National Park south towards Heathcote National Park.

 The project will also provide a conservation zoning across all known areas of Shale/Sandstone Transition

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 Upland Swamp will be conserved.

Biodiversity – flora  the majority of threatened flora on the site exists on the ridges Threatened flora has been recorded across and upper slopes of the site, which are the areas most heavily a range of habitats within the project area. impacted by the proposed development. Areas proposed for The Ecological Assessment noted that the conservation have minimal presence of threatened flora and development footprint had been reduced provide marginal habitat for these species at best. 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 the conservation area.

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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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  Many of the threatened flora present on the site are not does not constitute the largest and most adequately conserved in formal conservation reserves within the intact habitat for the threatened species locality, placing increased reliance on preservation in-situ on this within the locality and wider region. site for their persistence at the regional level. 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

species, including habitat improvement. 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). Monitoring of the species and management of their habitats will assist in the ongoing persistence of the species within the project area. The persistence of these species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

 The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9  Loss of up to 88% of some threatened individuals from the site as of the SSS Study) acknowledges that a result of the development, and loss of the majority of their there will be impacts to threatened flora habitat cannot be considered acceptable. 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 a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments additional areas supporting threatened flora species and potential habitat will be conserved.

Mitigation and compensatory measures have been proposed to minimise

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

impacts to threatened flora species.

 Overall it is considered that the balance of loss of threatened  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote species to the development and their conservation on site is not Ridge SSS, amendments have been acceptable. It is considered that the proposal will contribute to made to the project which have the loss of these species from the locality and potentially result in reduced the development footprint to their extinction from the region. provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potential habitat for the suite of threatened flora known from the project area will be included within the conservation area.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

 Acacia bynoeana: Loss of this population from the site along with  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote the majority of the habitat, therefore has significant impacts at Ridge SSS, amendments have been the regional and potentially state level and is likely to lead to a made to the project which have localised extinction. reduced the development footprint to provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of potential habitat for Acacia 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 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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  Individuals of Melaleuca deanei will be significant population of this species at the regional level and the retained at a number of locations within extremely high level of loss due to the development (more than the project area. Since the exhibition of half of all species at the regional/local scale), there is a high the Heathcote Ridge SSS, amendments likelihood that the survival of this species at the local level will be have been made to the project which compromised by this development. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy persistence of the species within the project area. The persistence of this species can contribute to the occurrences 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 range and 75% of the conserved populations within the ‘southern range’ (DECCW, 2010). Melaleuca deanei 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.

 Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’: The current proposal involves the direct loss  Numerous individuals of Hibbertia sp. of 61 of the approximately 250 individuals located on the site. ‘Menai’ will be retained at a number of While this may appear an acceptable loss rate, retained locations within the project area. The individuals will be within close proximity to proposed Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of development and will be indirectly, adversely impacted by edge the SSS Study) noted that the effects associated with the development. development footprint had been reduced at two locations in the northern portion of the project area to avoid direct impacts to patches of Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’. Other amendments made to the footprint also avoided areas of known and potential habitat for this species.

Since the exhibition of the Heathcote

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 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  The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 nominated under the TSC list as endangered species and is of the SSS Study) focuses primarily on currently being considered by the Scientific Committee. This threatened species and endangered

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy community will be almost entirely removed by this proposal ecological communities in accordance (212ha or 88% of extent on this site). This is the biggest known with the Director General’s population of this species within the Sydney Basin. Requirements. As such Allocasuarina diminuta 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 Apple Heath-Woodland, the records are considered likely to be individuals of Allocasuarina 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 SMCMA indicates that Hinterland

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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. Additional areas of this community and known occurrences of Allocasuarina diminuta subsp. mimica occur within Lucas Heights Conservation Area.

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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Management Plan.

 Hibbertia puberula: This plant has not been recorded for 40 years  Occurrences of Hibbertia puberula have (OEH Threatened species website). This species has not been recently been recorded within the recorded in the area previously. Removal of this individual and project area, including within the the majority of the habitat for this species is expected to have a development footprint and within the significant impact and lead to the localised extinction of this conservation area. 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 biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of known and potential habitat for Hibbertia puberula will be conserved, primarily within Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-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 Biodiversity Management Plan. Management of known occurrences of Acacia Hibbertia puberula 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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  The Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 by the Scientific Committee after a recent nomination to have it of the SSS Study) focuses primarily on listed as endangered on the TSC Act. It is known and has been threatened species and endangered seen on Gandangara land within the Angophora hispida – ecological communities in accordance Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath –Woodland community. This is an with the Director General’s extremely rare species. There are only three records for this Requirements. As such Prostanthera species in the Sutherland Shire, two of which are historic records saxicola was not addressed in detail as it for this site. This species has not been recorded in any is not listed under the TSC Act or EPBC conservation reserves in the region. It is expected that the Act. removal of significant areas of habitat for this species has potential to lead to its localised extinction. 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 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 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy within Holsworthy Military Area. Additional areas of this community and known occurrences of Prostanthera saxicola occur within Lucas Heights Conservation Area.

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

Biodiversity –fauna  Red-crowned Toadlet: This species was recorded at 5 locations  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote within the project area, with all either within the development Ridge SSS, amendments have been

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy footprint or within close proximity to development. The loss of all made to the project which have recorded sites and the majority of habitat for this vulnerable reduced the development footprint to species is not considered acceptable. While the Ecological provide a higher retention of biodiversity Assessment notes that this species is conserved within the values. As a result of these amendments, Georges River, Heathcote and Royal National Parks, DECCW additional areas of known and potential (2011) notes that within the area it has declined notably within habitat for the Red-crowned Toadlet will the Heathcote NP. Given the fire history of the Holsworthy Military be conserved. Area, the habitats in HMA while no doubt important for the conservation of this species cannot be relied upon heavily for the As noted within the Ecological conservation of this species (high frequency fires are a noted Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS threat to this species). The Woronora Plateau is a key hot spot for Study), known and potential habitat in the conservation of this species, and given the noted decline of areas adjacent to the development this species from the area, the loss of all sites where this species footprint will be impacted by indirect was recorded and the loss of the majority of its habitat from the impacts. The design of the development site is not considered acceptable. Taking all these factors into footprint has incorporated an APZ which consideration, it is considered that the development may includes modified vegetation and contribute to the localised extinction of this species. stormwater retention basins in an effort to minimise impacts to adjacent vegetation and associated habitats, including habitat for the Red-crowned Toadlet. The components of the APZ will assist in reducing surface water run-off from the development area to the community, 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 under a Biodiversity Management Plan, which is proposed to include measures for rehabilitation of riparian zones and monitoring of threatened species.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Further details of the 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 the species within the project area. The persistence of 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 Varied Sittella was recorded in the the region, connectivity of habitats is likely to play a key role in its northern portion of the project area, with continued persistence in the region. While the proposal does the home range likely to extend into provide for corridors linking vegetation to the north and south, Georges River National Park. The primary linkages between suitable habitat for this species (ie. flatter habitat for this species within the project forested environments) to the west in the Holsworthy Military Area area occurs within the woodland areas are significantly impacted by this proposal. This may have the where rough-barked species are present. consequence of isolating the populations on this site, and the Georges River National Park to the north, resulting in the loss of Since the exhibition of the Heathcote this species from this area. Greater habitat connectivity between Ridge SSS, amendments have been this site and Holsworthy is required to prevent these impacts. 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 north-south corridor within the project area will be strengthened. As noted within the Ecological Assessment, minor corridors will exist between the

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy proposed commercial zone and Holsworthy Military Area. These corridors will have some function for the movement of the Varied Sittella. Georges River National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for the species between the known habitat within the project area and Holsworthy Military Area. This connectivity occurs in the form 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 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 the species within the project area. The persistence of this species can contribute to the occurrences within the locality and wider region.

The Varied Sittella is known from other sites within the locality and wider region. As such its persistence is not solely reliant upon conservation of the occurrences

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy within the project area.

 Little Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat: The loss of east –  These are highly mobile bat species that west linkages with the Holsworthy Military Area will compromise are not solely reliant upon corridor this ability to move from the site to adjoining habitat and may connections to move between patches impact on the long term survival of this species in the region 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 project area. The primary habitat for these species within the project area occurs within the gully forest where substantial sandstone outcropping occurs and caves 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 biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, the north-south corridor within the project area will be strengthened. This corridor 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. These corridors will have some function for the movement of the Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat. Georges River

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for these species between the known habitat within the project area 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 of the 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Rosenberg’s Goanna: The loss of almost all suitable habitat (over  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote 300ha) for this species from this site is considered unacceptable. Ridge SSS, amendments have been This coupled with the other increased threats to this species from made to the project which have the development will increase the likelihood of localised reduced the development footprint to extinctions for this species. provide a higher retention of biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, additional areas of potential habitat for Rosenberg’s Goanna will be conserved, primarily within Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath- Woodland and Corymbia gummifera – Angophora costata Woodland. Additionally, the north-south corridor within the project area will be strengthened.

Potential habitat for Rosenberg’s Goanna within the conservation area will be protected under an E2 – Environmental Conservation zone and will be managed under a Biodiversity Management 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.

Rosenberg’s Goanna is known from other sites within the region. As such its persistence is not solely reliant upon

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy conservation of the occurrences within the project area.

 Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl: While the proposal includes corridor  The Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl were linkages to the north and south, the key linkages utilising the not recorded within the current study, gullies between the site and Holsworthy Military Area to the east however the Ecological Assessment and west will be severed by the proposal. This will significantly notes that they have the potential to reduce the access for these species to roosting and foraging occur. The primary habitat for these habitat on adjoining lands. 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 biodiversity values. As a result of these amendments, the north-south corridor within the project area will be strengthened. This corridor 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. These corridors will have some function for the movement of the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl. Georges River National Park will continue to provide a habitat link for these species between the potential habitat within the project area and Holsworthy Military Area. This connectivity occurs in the form of woodland and forest habitat.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment.

 Koala: Koalas mainly enter the site from the Holsworthy Military  Numerous records of the Koala exist to Area to the west, when moving from the larger colony at the north of the project area within Wedderburn to the west, as is evident by the number of Georges River National Park. Vegetation individuals hit by vehicles on Heathcote Road, and recording of occurring within this area includes movement patterns of individual species. The widening of Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), Heathcote Road necessitated by this proposal, along with the a SEPP 44 feed tree species. Additional significant barrier represented by the asset protection zones and records occur within Holsworthy Military linear employment lands along Heathcote Road, will represent a Area. The Koala is considered to enter significant and impenetrable barrier for this species. 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy of potential habitat will be retained within the project area linking Georges River National Park and habitat to the south. Retained vegetation includes potential foraging habitat (including SEPP 44 listed feed tree species) and nesting habitat which is of a size that would be able to support a low-density population of the Koala. In conjunction with 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 of the proposed content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment.

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

Biodiversity - Wildlife  The Ecological Assessment notes the importance of wildlife  As noted within the Ecological Corridors corridors in the conservation of biodiversity in the region and the Assessment, connectivity from the proposal provides for the retention of significant wildlife corridors project area to Holsworthy Military Area between this site and the formal reserves to the south, such as will be reduced. This reduction in Heathcote and Royal National Parks. However important wildlife connectivity occurs along the central linkages to the west will be severed by the proposal, resulting and northern portion of the western

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy from the widening of Heathcote Road, the creation and boundary of the project area. Within this maintenance of asset protection zones and the relatively hostile area, minor corridors will exist between environment of the employment lands strip along Heathcote the conservation area and Holsworthy Road. This is expected to significantly isolate the site from Military Area and will function as wildlife exchange of individuals in habitats to the west and limit access to corridors for some fauna. habitats to the west. This has the potential to significantly isolate the site and lead to localised extinctions of several species, Widening of Heathcote Road would be including species listed under the TSC Act. contained within the existing road reserve.

Reduction and modification of the corridors linking the central and northern portions of the project area to Holsworthy Military Area is not considered to lead to isolation of the site. Connectivity from the project area to Holsworthy Military Area will be maintained through retention of habitat along the southern portion of the western boundary. Within the project area, this connection is approximately 1km in length and extends further south of the project area. Connectivity will also remain to the north of the project area through Georges River National Park.

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 area forms the conservation area. This provides sufficient habitat for a range of threatened species known and

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy potentially occurring within the project area. For species with larger home ranges, connectivity exist primarily through a north south corridor, as well west through the southern portion of the project area and to the north of the project area through Georges River National 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 within the project area which will facilitate ongoing movements throughout the conservation area and adjacent land.

Biodiversity - Edge  A major concern arising from the development is the large area  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Effects of edge associated with the proposed development footprint. Ridge SSS, amendments have been The development has an exceptionally high edge to area ratio. made to the project which have The additional of approximately 106ha of impacted bushland to reduced the development footprint to the already directly impacted 330ha of bushland mean that the provide a higher retention of biodiversity total impacted area of bushland arising from the development is values. As a result of these amendments ion the order of 436ha. Considering the total area of the site as the edge to area ratio has been 849ha this means that over half of the vegetation on the site will reduced, primarily as a result of the be impacted by some degree. This does not represent a removal of Precinct 9. “maintain or improve” situation for biodiversity and indicates that the development: conservation balance for the development is Under the revised footprint the southern not acceptable. envelope of development has the highest edge to area ratio. The edge to

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy area ratio in this area has altered since the exhibition of the SSS as amendments have been made to minimise impacts to Coastal 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 content of the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined within Section 5.4.3 of the Ecological Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS Study).

Biodiversity -  Council also has concerns over the ability of the land owner to  Noted. The GLALC propose a long term Management of comply with biodiversity management requirements in the future involvement with the site and are in a Conservation Area and to manage the proposed conservation area. position to comply with the proposed Biodiversity Management Plan.  However there is no proposed legislative mechanism to ensure that the lands are managed primarily for conservation in  The conservation area will be protected accordance with any management plan. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Whilst the main purpose is conservation this is contradicted by  The surrounding community currently statements from other consultants and the land owner, which uses the site for a number of recreational indicate that recreation uses such as 4WD and trail bikes are also purposes. Some of these are likely to be options to be considered for these lands. Such uses are in conflict compatible with the conservation of the with the conservation objectives. area. It is envisaged that the management regime for the conservation area will include controlled access for limited recreational purposes.

 The management actions outlined in the Ecological Assessment  Noted. The GLALC propose a long term will require significant and continual allocation of funds in involvement with the site and are in a perpetuity. The ability of the land owners to implement these position to comply with the proposed actions over time is questionable given the past history of their Biodiversity Management Plan. management of this land. Similar commitments have been given by the proponent on other developments in the Sutherland Shire,  The conservation area will be protected but the proponents have not delivered on these commitments by an E2 – Environmental Conservation and the outcomes for biodiversity have been suboptimal. 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.

 Recent actions from the land owner have also demonstrated a  Noted. The GLALC propose a long term lack of willingness to become involved in regional initiatives to involvement with the site and are in a effectively manage these lands for conservation purposes 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Given recent history and comments, there can be little  Noted. The GLALC propose a long term confidence that the area will be managed strictly in accordance involvement with the site and are in a with the intent of the Ecological Assessment. position to comply with the proposed Biodiversity Management Plan.

Biodiversity - Impact Council considers that the proposal will have an unacceptable  The Ecological Assessment report on EPBC Protected impact on a range of threatened flora and fauna, and ecological considered a suite of threatened species Items communities protected under state and federal legislation. These known or potentially occurring within the impacts arise from direct removal of species and habitats and project area as well as their habitat indirect impacts, such as fragmentation, isolation, and edge effects. requirements, the extent of direct habitat clearance and probable indirect Specifically Council considers the following to be at significant risk of impacts. The level of impacts varied localised extinction as a result of the proposal: across the suite of threatened species considered. A number of avoidance,  Coastal Upland Swamp – through direct removal of mitigation and compensatory measures approximately half of this community as a result of development have been proposed to address the and the unacceptable impact to the remaining half through impacts to threatened species and edge impacts (due to its proximity to development) and communities. It was concluded within changed hydrological regimes. This has implications for the the Ecological Assessment that the broader sub-region given its inadequate conservation in formal impacts of the project could be ameliorated for all species by the reserves in the SMCMA (3%). combination of avoidance, mitigation  Shale Sandstone Transition Forest – through direct removal of over and compensation measures. a quarter of this community on the site, in particular in the region of Bardens Trig, and edge impacts to the majority of the Since the exhibition of the Heathcote remaining community. This has implications for the broader sub- Ridge SSS, amendments have been region given its inadequate conservation in formal reserves in the made to the project which have

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy SMCMA (8ha or 0%). reduced the development footprint from  Melaleuca deanii – given the direct removal of nearly 80% of the 332ha to 283ha. The conservation area entire population from the site, and the removal of more than will increase from 511ha to 566ha. Additional information regarding these 80% of the suitable habitat for this species on the site. This has amendments are provided in the SSS implications for the broader sub-region given its inadequate Study Response. The proposed conservation in formal reserves in the SMCMA (only 12 other amendments have resulted in better records in formal conservation reserves). outcomes for the suite of threatened  Acacia byoneana – through the direct removal of the 21 species and communities occurring individuals from the two locations on site, representing a 100% loss within the project area. 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.  Red-crowned Toadlet – through the direct loss a significant areas

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy of habitat on the ridge edges, and changes to the hydrology of the 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 to the south west, due to the loss of links across Heathcote Road.

Biodiversity -  The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on groundwater  Since the exhibition of the Heathcote Groundwater dependent ecosystems. As noted above for the Coastal Upland Ridge SSS, amendments have been Impacts Swamp endangered community, the majority of this ecosystem made to the project which have will be directly impacted by the proposal. The remaining reduced the development footprint to ecosystems are all in close proximity to proposed development provide a higher retention of biodiversity (mostly within 40m) and will experience significant edge effects values. As a result of these amendments, and changes to local hydrology. an additional 3.05ha of Coastal Upland Swamp will be retained within the project area. The proposed amendment to the development footprint includes the reduction of vegetation clearance within 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 15.46% of this community within the project area

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy (previously 41.04% under the exhibited zoning plan).

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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy implementation of a Biodiversity Management Strategy, is considered a suitable outcome for the project.

Biodiversity - Riparian  There has been no assessment of the proposal against the The location of the streams and associated Impacts recommendations of the Riparian Study and there is no riparian zones has been taken into account conclusion that the development that will not have an as development constraints in the unacceptable impact on riparian systems. It is considered that preparation of the Structure Plan. the development will encroach within the recommended riparian buffer widths, resulting in unacceptable impacts to riparian zones and aquatic ecosystems.

Biodiversity -  The proposal generally involves the removal of species and  As noted within the Ecological Inadequate Offsets communities that are not common in the area and not well Assessment (Appendix 9 of the SSS represented in conservation reserves in the area. Vegetation Study), the regional context of the communities which experience greater than 30% removal under project area vegetation communities the proposal have less than 5% of their extant vegetation and associated habitat was considered conserved in formal conservation reserves. Conversely, the within the impact assessment. majority of vegetation communities that experience the lowest Consideration of the communities and levels of removal (i.e. less than 10%) have greater than 10% and associated habitats within the locality to upwards to 40% of their extant vegetation conserved in formal determine the context of the impacts is conservation reserves. What the proposal essentially does is considered appropriate. The distribution remove the rarer, poorly conserved vegetation communities of the vegetation communities which are within the region and conserve the common well conserved currently represented within the project communities. This does not represent an acceptable balance area occurs primarily to the west and between development and conservation and the conservation south of the project area and are shown of these lands does not represent appropriate or adequate in Figure 4.2 of the Ecological mitigation for the impacts of the development. Assessment. The project will primarily result in the clearance of non-listed  The proposal currently involves the removal of 33ha of vegetated communities. The Ecological Assessment land for development and the conservation of 503ha. However acknowledges that there will be impacts much of the conserved land will be indirectly adversely impacted to a range of communities within the by edge effects from adjoining development. Given a typical project area. edge distance of 40m and the high perimeter area ration of the

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

development, this results in impacts to a further 100ha of The assessment found that there are bushland. This then gives a loss, retention ratio of close to 1:1 for large areas of nearby known habitats for this development. all of the impacted communities, threatened flora and threatened fauna  This indicates that not only is the type of vegetation provided for within the locality. Although it is off-sets not appropriate but the scale of the off-sets is also not recognised that the project will impact appropriate. 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 from 332ha to 283ha. The conservation area will increase from 511ha to 566ha. The amendments to the development footprint includes the reduction of impacts to EECs and threatened species habitat and reduction in the edge to area ratio. Additional information regarding these amendments is provided in the SSS Study Response.

Under the currently proposed footprint, the offset ratio for land within the project area would be 2:1 (previously 1.5:1 under the exhibited zoning plan). This ratio meets the minimum standard of 2:1

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy recommended within the Interim policy on assessing and offsetting biodiversity impacts of Part 3A, State significant development 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 of the landscape that is conserved. As discussed within the Ecological Assessment, the project area is in proximity to a substantial reserve system that supports habitats similar to those within the project area and are afforded long-term security. For this reason, the need for an offset ratio well above the minimum standard is not considered necessary for the project.

The proposed avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures proposed for the project are considered to sufficiently ameliorate the impacts of the project.

Aboriginal Culture  (Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee strongly opposes the Discussed in response to DoP&I 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 as part 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 heritage sites 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. Further information regarding additional sites Trees and rock formations are very significant. Creeks and and areas of Aboriginal cultural significance ridgelines need to be checked for significant sites. Ridge tops has been sought from Aboriginal Advisory have engravings and carvings, valleys have middens. There are a Committee members Mr Max Dulumunmun lot more than the 80 sites identified by the consultants for GLALC, Harrison and Mr Les Bursill. No specific details and new sites are discovered with each visit to the area. There of any specific sites or area of Aboriginal needs to be more consultation regarding paintings, engravings, cultural significance beyond those culture, history, secret women's sites, men's caves, burial sites and documented in the MDCA report has been dreaming tracks. There is a need to validate further sites before provided in public submissions. the project moves forward. This is acknowledged as possible, but no  Cutting into the landscape can change the contours of the land details of these features and their locations and therefore change the story of dreaming tracks. Story lines, have been provided in any submissions to song lines, how long Aboriginal people have been here, are all date. depicted in this landscape. Major bridge structures plus several small bridges will permanently scar the landscape. Requests have been made on several occasions during the MDCA study and after  It is Council’s view that there needs to be a detailed comparison for further details of such sites (and it is made between Aboriginal archaeological site lists held by noted that there is a legal obligation to Gandangara and those held by others with local knowledge report such sites). No further details have expertise. This process needs to be exhaustive and must be been provided. It is unclear how MDCA can carried out before a zoning pattern and land use mix is set respond to the assertion that such sites exist through the declaration of the site as State Significant. until this information is provided.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

MDCA disagree (see DPI response re timing of investigations). Further investigations,  Recommendation 2 of the consultant’s report requires additional particularly archaeological excavations, field study, a program of archaeological test excavations, should not be conducted except where recording of art and Aboriginal community research to develop warranted and should be targeted by an appropriate strategy for the long term management and actual proposed development footprints. protection of Aboriginal heritage within the subject lands in Had these investigations been undertaken relation to future development. However, to ensure the best as proposed by Council, a number of areas outcomes for the archaeological significance of the land, this would have been needlessly impacted study should be undertaken before a decision is made to declare given the reduced scope of development the site State Significant. 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.  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”. It is MDCAs understanding that there is a requirement that there is no net increase in  New subdivisions could divert storm water to significant cave sites, stormwater runoff from the proposed which will get overgrown with moss from changed water flow developments. Hence, no additional patterns ( due to the encroachment of houses). This could stormwater is anticipated to be diverted into

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy erode/damage carvings, etchings and damage ochre paintings. rockshelter sites. The possibility of this can however be considered in management plans for such sites.

This is outside of the current study area.

 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 Conservation of Aboriginal heritage is little protection. important and is the basis for the management planning outlined and  Elders want to hand a legacy down to Koori Kids. There is a need recommended in the MDCA report. It is to get as many Koori Kids together with other young men and unclear how management planning over a women, and educate them on these sites. This is a very important century or more into the future can part of the conservation and management of Aboriginal cultural adequately be made now and is not a heritage. The submission needs to address how conservation principle upon which any management management of the sites be achieved over the next 100 years document, including National Parks, is and beyond. 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.  Given that this land is owned and being developed by the The scale of the current proposal may be GLALC, Sutherland Shire Council expected that this development larger, but this also provides for a wider concept would set a new standard for the of protection and range of opportunities for protection of respect given to Aboriginal cultural heritage. However, the Aboriginal heritage. It is noted that most

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy submission falls well short of this expectation. Instead it will result in comparable projects at this stage of the a dense residential neighbourhoods sitting very close to planning process would not have significant shelter and art sites. Visitation to sites cannot be undertaken the amount of Aboriginal avoided or properly managed. Whether future residents and heritage investigations documented in the children respect the sites or not, the significance of the sites will MDCA study, nor would they have be eroded over time and ultimately lost as a result. amended development plans to avoid documented sites to the level that the current proponent has.

Roads, Traffic and  The projected traffic increases are significant in that they indicate The traffic study accompanying the SSS Transport – that the majority of the existing State Road network has Study included detailed modelling and inadequate road insufficient lane capacity to cater for the 2031 proposed identification of road infrastructure capacity provided development scenario. In particular the figures indicate that, upgrades required for the development. additional lane capacity is required in Alfords Point Road, Heathcote Road (north of the proposed new Bangor Bypass east The revisions to the Structure Plan results in a west link), Bangor Bypass (east of New Illawarra Rd), the reduction in traffic generation and Woronora River Bridge (River Road) and Alfords Point Bridge. consequently a reduction in impacts on the road network.  Of these roads, the applicant proposes increased lane capacity in the northern section of Heathcote Road only: The revised Structure Plan would generate about 40% lower trip generation compared  Failure to provide additional capacity on the Bangor to original plan. The impact on key roads Bypass River/Road route will add to existing major and intersections would be substantially delays on River Road and potentially divert additional lower than previously estimated. traffic to Heathcote Road between Princes Highway and the development site. Heathcote Road is The M5 West widening would expand the already identified as having a significant safety South West Motorway from two to three problem and accident history. lanes in each direction generally from  Failure to provide additional capacity on the Alfords Camden Valley Way to King Georges Road. Point Road route will only compound existing major This would reduce travel time for motorists delays to motorists leaving the Alfords Point, Illawong using the motorway and surrounding roads and North Menai areas at the Brushwood Drive on (within the Sutherland Shire Council) and ramp. support planned residential and employment growth in south west Sydney. It

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy is expected that construction could commence in mid 2012. Construction is expected to take approximately two to two and a half years to complete.

A revised traffic and transport impact assessment will be undertaken.

Roads, Traffic and  The proposed development scenario will result in a significant loss The revised Structure Plan would generate Transport – of capacity at 10 intersections within the Sutherland LGA, 7 of about 40% lower trip generation compared inadequate which would be operating at Level of Service F (Unsatisfactory to original plan. The impact on key roads intersection capacity with excessive queuing). Of these intersections, the applicant and intersections would be substantially provided proposes improvements to the Bangor Bypass/New Illawarra lower than previously estimated. Road intersection only (grade separation). Failure to provide additional capacity at these intersections will result in major A revised traffic and transport impact delays within both the State Network and Council’s adjoining assessment will be undertaken. local road system.

Roads, Traffic and Additional Information: The traffic and transport study (Appendix 13 Transport – of SSS Study) has assessed impact on both inadequate  The study area should be expanded to consider the impact local and broader regional levels. In information provided beyond the intersection of The Grand Parade and Linden Street, general, the road network impact of the in particular the Princes Highway in the vicinity of the proposed Heathcote Ridge proposal will decline with Kirrawee Brick Pit Development and include the projected traffic greater distance from the site. The generation from the Brick Pit site in its analysis. additional traffic impact from Heathcote Ridge beyond the intersection of The Grand  The study should also consider the impact on traffic flows from Parade and Linden Street is expected to be Alfords Point, Illawong and north Menai at the Brushwood low. Drive/Alfords Point Road on ramp. It is anticipated that the impact on these locations will be significant in that they are The revised Structure Plan would generate already experience major delays. about 40% lower trip generation compared to original plan. The impact on key roads  It would appear that intersections have only been modelled in and intersections would be substantially isolation which does not take into consideration other factors lower than previously estimated.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

such as residual queuing. This is relevant for the Menai Road A revised traffic and transport impact intersections with Alison Crescent, Old Illawarra Road and New assessment will be undertaken. Illawarra Road and River Road/Linden Street route as well as that requested 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 has been 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 Council considers that this will impose an unbalanced and unfair The topography of the site is similar to other Transport – Future maintenance burden on Council for the following reasons: areas in Menai to the east all of which Council Roads comprised the original Menai Release Area.  The topography of the site dictates scattered ridge top developments requiring excessive length of fire protection The proponent will investigate alternative means of providing bushfire protection at

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy perimeter roads and collector link roads between each precinct. the DA stage.

 Major road bridge infrastructure is required across deep valleys It is expected that the east west link road between Precincts 7, 8 and 9. would be maintained by the RMS. The changes to the Structure Plan reduce the  Proposed small lot sizes requiring additional length of local roads. local roads crossing valleys.

 The proposed use of permeable road pavements to satisfy water The appropriate pavement material will be sensitive urban design requirements. determined at DA stage in consultation with council.

Roads, Traffic and  The proposed internal road network and associated Maintenance of local roads is a standard Transport – local road infrastructure, including bridges, retaining structures, stormwater function of Council and is paid for by rate network drainage, footpaths, shared paths, street lighting etc. will impose revenue and grants and other established an unbalanced and unfair maintenance burden on Council. funding sources. The reduction in the development footprint includes the removal  Ongoing maintenance costs for this infrastructure will not be of major valley crossings other than the east adequately covered by the rate income generated by the west link road reducing the infrastructure development proposal and will require considerable subsidy from costs and bridge structures for local roads. other income sources. In particular, the long term maintenance of 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 conservation lands.

Roads, Traffic and  While traffic demand management intervention is included as a The provision of the east west link road will Transport – Mode means of reducing car use at West Menai, combined mode provide the opportunity for enhancing Share share growth to public and active transport of between 8 and regional bus services and services between 9.5% (pg 83) is considered overly ambitious. Sutherland and Liverpool and Holsworthy

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 The travel behaviour change measures proposed for West Menai Station. This has the potential to increase rely strongly on community and work place (Travel Plan) public transport use in the area generally participation. It is a concern that without additional incentives, and substantiates the mode share measures and management to maintain a long term assumptions. commitment to travel change behaviour any initial uptake of The first phases of development will most high frequency bus services, travel plans and infrastructure is likely be focussed around the eastern side of unlikely to be sustained. It is unclear how any of these measures the site. Provision needs to be made for will be managed and funded. With this high degree of peak and off peak bus services between uncertainty, the measures proposed are considered unlikely to be the site and Sutherland Station. A bus sufficiently robust to achieve the results sought. service link between the site and Holsworthy  If public transport mode share targets proposed are to be met, is considered important in the longer term consideration also needs to be given to infrastructure capacity at when the east west link is open because Sutherland and Holsworthy railway stations to accommodate the travel times between the site and number of passengers and frequency of bus services modelled. It Holsworthy will be comparatively quicker is of note that increased demand for public transport will arise than those to Sutherland Station. Moreover, from not only residential but also employment generators at West the Railcorp line load data reaffirms that the Menai. East Hills line is better placed to accommodate the additional peak period  Past experience also indicates that the inefficient servicing of the passenger loads from developments such as proposed scattered ridge top residential precincts will remain Heathcote Ridge. The establishment of a problematic and is not conducive to usage of public transport for cross regional bus service linking Sutherland local and connecting journeys. The ability of local bus service Station and Liverpool Station via the site and providers to provide adequate or even minimal service to the Holsworthy Station should be facilitated isolated residential precincts remains questionable. early in the development phase. In this regard completion of the East West Link  The increased number of passengers and services will have Road between Heathcote and New implications on current plans by the NSW Government to increase Illawarra Roads becomes more critical. bus capacity and upgrade the bus / rail interchange at Sutherland. An increase in rail commuters together with limited The current public transport plan provides accessibility measures and passenger capacity raises concerns for diversion of some of the peak period about the potential for increased traffic and pedestrian conflicts M92 cross regional services via Bangor around the station precinct. Growth in passenger numbers and Bypass and into the eastern sector of the need for improved access increases the justification for an site. Originally envisaged as a longer term

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy alternative new larger concourse to be constructed at the measure (7-10 years) this could be brought southern end of Sutherland railway station in the short to medium forward as a potential short term measure in term. the event the construction of the East West Link Road through to Heathcote Road could  The applicant’s report shows that additional lane and intersection not be delivered early in the development capacity is required along the Bangor Bypass/River Road/Linden phase. The proposed 50 space on-site park Street route to Sutherland yet fails to provide any detail on how and ride facility should therefore be this is to be achieved and funded. retained to service these M92 diversions. Both the M92 diversions and the on-site park  The applicants report also proposes that bus priority measures will and ride facility could be removed once the be required along this route to support the public transport mode East West Link Road and cross regional share targets. Given existing constraints, the manner in which through bus service are introduced. these competing demands can be accommodated is unclear. Nothing would preclude them being Not addressing this issue will have major adverse impacts on the retained if demand warranted although the performance of the road network and public transport reliability costs of maintaining the M92 route diversion and uptake. will not be insignificant.

 If public transport mode share targets are not met, greater In this context (a short term diversion of reliance on car use is likely to increase pressure for the provision of some M92 services followed by a short to an additional multi storey commuter car park at Sutherland. 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 agencies to plan infrastructure upgrades.

The development envisaged by the

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 Addressed in SSS Study (Appendix 11) and in acceptable level of risk to life, property and the environment response from RFS. 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.

 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: Separation at the interface is proposed by  Council’s estimate is that some 40 kilometres of way of perimeter roads. Alternatives will be interface with the adjoining bushfire hazard will considered at DA stage in accordance with remain; the guidelines. Perimeter roads are used in Barden Ridge and other recently developed  There is a requirement for an extensive system of parts of the wider Menai Release Area. 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 Noted and similar to existing areas. management of bushfire fuels along roadways linking the development precincts, so that access/egress is retained during bushfires The perimeter road concept does not  The extent of perimeter road proposed therefore create a greater than usual burden for creates a greater than usual burden for Council Council because it is a concept that is used when in public ownership, all while eliminating elsewhere in the Menai area. ratable properties capable of contributing to cost of maintenance from one side of the road.

 In relation to Neighbourhood Safer Places, there has The Neighbourhood Safer Places concept been no analysis as to whether residents can shelter, will be developed and applied at the DA and how the safe shelter of the intended populations stage for each precinct. The amendments can be achieved, within each precinct. 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  A dispersed settlement pattern with multiple bushfire within the development precinct. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Introduction of controls which avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas. The RFS submission raises this issue and  Then the critical unanswered question is, how will a suggests an agreement under S88B as being buffer zone be funded, established and maintained an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that between Heathcote Road and new residential areas the APZ in the employment lands is until and after the employment lands are fully maintained until the employment lands are developed taking into consideration the long term sold. establishment of the employment zone is questionable on economic grounds?

 If the employment lands precinct is ultimately The changes to the Structure Plan reduce developed as planned, it is estimated that upwards the employment potential for this area to a of 15,000 people could work in the locality. It is more realistic maximum of 4,700 workers. located in close proximity to an extreme bushfire risk which cannot otherwise be mitigated through hazard It is envisaged that businesses would reduction or fire suppression operations. It is therefore prepare and implement evacuation plans in considered that insufficient consideration has been advance of impending risk. given as to how these people will be managed during times of extreme bushfire risk.

 Land uses in the B6 zone and some residential Refer to response from RFS. locations are inappropriate for bushfire location

 The ownership of the bioswales area and hence the liability for Management and maintenance of ongoing maintenance for asset protection purposes is has not drainage works is a normal function of local been adequately resolved. It must be resolved before the full government and is directly related to road implications of the proposal can be assessed. It is most maintenance. Council meets this appropriate that this responsibility rests with Gandangara. responsibility in other areas and West Menai is no different.  The ongoing vegetation maintenance of 36.2km of perimeter road reserve for fire protection purposes places an unreasonable burden on Council.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 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 This is a matter for State Government 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.

Contamination and  The preliminary report has not complied with the Director The Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment Subsidence Generals requirements in that it has not addressed contamination by JBS Environmental (Appendix 7 of SSS issues across the entire proposed site, nor potential impacts from Study) focussed on the development area off-site sources such as the adjacent former landfill. There is still a and found that there are no significant degree of uncertainty with regard to the level of contamination onsite potential sources of contamination and associated risk. The report has not proposed a method of apart from illegally tipped material. The treatment to address existing contamination. The investigations also found that the potential recommendation from the author (JBS) is to undertake further for migration of contaminants from the site assessment and produce a Remediation Action Plan to address via surface water is low based on the limited remediation and validation of the site. 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 site and drain into Mill

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy Creek, outside the development areas. This included results of investigations into off site migration of contamination from these sources by the relevant authorities.

Geotechnical Issues  Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd have concluded that the site is Noted and are issues for DA consideration. 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

Water Quality –  The Riparian Corridor Assessment does not include the entirety of This area has been investigated by Riparian Corridors the development site. Sites in the SE portion of the site, including Cumberland Ecology and Harris the area proposed for multiple dwelling are not surveyed or Environmental Consulting. The changes to mapped, and hence no classification or recommendation for the Structure Plan in this area result in CRZ and VBZ provided. development being away from water courses and upland swamp areas.  There has been no consideration of the need to provide vegetated buffer zones to the many wetlands which exist on the Discussed in response to DoP&I site. Assessment would be undertaken as part of  There is potential for many of these higher order streams to be impact assessment for crossings at which impacted by infrastructure provision, in particular roads and time the details of the structure and method bridges servicing the isolated developments. It is noted that the of construction would be known. Ecology proposed access over Bardens Creek is predominantly via a filled impacts have been considered in the embankment, rather than a suspended bridge. Such additional advice from Cumberland construction has significant potential to encroach within the Ecology. recommended riparian buffers. These impacts have not been addressed in the Riparian Corridors Assessment. The Riparian Corridor Assessment (Appendix 8) states that:  There is no assessment as to whether the proposed development DECC (2010) states that the Vegetated Buffer

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy complies with these recommended corridor widths. No maps or (VB) should be wide enough to protect the CRZ diagrams are provided which overlay the proposed riparian from weed invasion, micro-climate changes, zones against the proposed development footprint to assist in litter, trampling and pollution and the assessment of compliance of the recommendations with the recommended width is 10 metres although this is subject to merit assessment. As a general rule, proposal. This is a major shortcoming with the assessment. The SEE this assessment recommends a 20m buffer on notes that while the riparian assessment recommends a 20m each side of the CRZ for all 1st order drainage vegetated buffer on each side of the Core Riparian Zone (CRZ) a CRZ's. However, a 10m VB is justifiable for some of 10 metre buffer may be justifiable in some cases. There is no the 1st order drainage lines on the western indication of where a 10m VBZ is proposed or assessment to show catchment where there is currently little how these reduced VBZ are appropriate in those instances. This is vegetation already present a major shortcoming in the assessment process. .

Water Quality –  This report contains a catalogue of WSUD initiatives and an Noted Water Sensitive assessment of their relative performance at a range of sites with Urban Design limited general applicability to this site.

Water Quality –  Heavy reliance is placed on infiltration strategies and This statement is incorrect because Stormwater technologies as part of the overall stormwater management infiltration is not suggested. Bioretention Management strategy for the site when the soils have a much lower ponds and swales can, and are constructed permeability soil then typical sandstone. Council therefore has with liners to prevent infiltration where concern over the heavy reliance on infiltrative measures in the infiltration is not required/recommended overall stormwater management strategy given this significant such as in acid sulphate soils where site constraint. 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

recharge groundwater.

Each report presented by ACOR consultants discusses the soil profile present on site, and this has and will be considered during the DA design and specification process.  The water quality objectives for the development are appropriate and consistent with Council objectives and legislative Noted requirements.

 No water quality monitoring has been undertaken for this site in order to establish baseline water quality conditions on the site. Water quality baseline monitoring could be Many assumptions are made relating to erosion and sediment carried out at DA stage if required. loads, but no data is provided. Such data is an important input to Currently denuded areas where vegetation any modelling, and again raises doubts as to the accuracy of the has been removed will be delivering a modelling results. higher sediment load to the water courses throughout the site that could be reduced once stabilised and developed.

 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 This is normal practice. All infrastructure will management of Council with the dedication of the road system. be designed to the relevant Authority This is not acceptable to Council. Council has concern over the Standards with due regard to maintenance expected performance and high maintenance costs of many of requirements etc. All design work will be the WSUD measures such as permeable pavements. This is approved by the relevant authorities to particularly relevant as, unlike the rest of the Shire where ensure it is in accordance with their stormwater measures are installed largely to protect public assets, guidelines. All systems to prevent polluting downstream, in this instance such measures will be maintained to the natural system require maintenance. protect the private assets of the Gandangara Local Aboriginal

Land Council which exist downstream from the urban development. Council considers it is unreasonable for the

developer to cause the impacts and gain the financial benefits of the development causing these impacts and then expect

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 This statement is incorrect. Infiltration is not success of such a strategy. relied upon or required.

Water Quality – DGs  Identify all watercourses, riparian land and wetlands that could Watercourses and riparian corridors have Study Requirements be potentially affected - The Riparian Corridors Assessment failed been identified and addressed. not met 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 This is a matter for consideration at DA and quantity of receiving waterways, riparian land, wetlands and stage. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 the assumed 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 the shallow 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. The Riparian Corridor Assessment (Appendix  Establish minimum riparian widths required to maintain channel 8) states that: stability and significant ecological values: The Riparian Corridors Assessment (RCA) identifies appropriate riparian corridor widths DECC (2010) states that the Vegetated Buffer for much of the development to west of the site along Heathcote (VB) should be wide enough to protect the CRZ Road. There has been little or no assessment of such riparian from weed invasion, micro-climate changes, corridors to the south east of the site, nor has there been any litter, trampling and pollution and the assessment of the need for riparian buffers to the wetlands recommended width is 10 metres although this is present on the site. The RCA notes that the recommended subject to merit assessment. As a general rule, riparian corridor widths may be varied on a case by case basis, this assessment recommends a 20m buffer on each side of the CRZ for all 1st order drainage but no case specific justification is provided for any such CRZ's. However, a 10m VB is justifiable for some of variations. While riparian corridor widths are recommended for the 1st order drainage lines on the western large areas of the site there is no assessment of compliance of catchment where there is currently little the development with these recommended riparian widths. vegetation already present Council considers that while appropriate recommendations have been made for riparian widths, they have not been adequately Additional investigations have been applied to the whole of the development. Also, no provision has undertaken into the riparian corridors to the been made for application of riparian buffers to wetlands on the south east of the site and the Structure Plan site. Accordingly while appropriate riparian widths may have has been amended to avoid coastal been established they have not been applied to the upland swamp area and associated development to ensure that channel stability and significant streams. ecological values are maintained.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 Assess constraints and strategies for stormwater management: No infiltration is proposed. Measures are The Water Sensitive Urban Design Initiatives Report and the proposed and will be investigated in greater Stormwater Management Strategy, provide a catalogue of detail at DA stage. 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.

Infrastructure  A direct nexus therefore exists between the development of land The proponent has established the feasibility Provision - Roads along Heathcote Road and the construction of the East/West link of the construction to the satisfaction of road. The cost of this link was previously found prohibitive. State government.

 In addition to the Arterial East/West link between Heathcote Changes to the Structure Plan have resulted Road and New Illawarra Road, the fragmented and widespread in the removal of more isolated precincts locations of the developable lands requires the construction of a with expensive collector road connections. series of Collector Roads incorporating three substantial bridges to link the areas of developable land with the East/West arterial A revised traffic and transport impact to provide everyday access to and bushfire emergency egress to assessment will be undertaken. the east. The cost of these Collector Roads and their associated bridges, cuttings and retaining structures shall again be at the full Mitigation measures would be staged and cost of the developer as shall be the full cost of the construction agreed with relevant transport agencies

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

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 proposed and works required external to the site that are generated solely by the development. In accordance with accepted practice, it is  Despite acknowledging the requirement to mitigate against the reasonable that the development make a development’s external impacts, the applicant fails to contribution towards the provision of public acknowledge the nature and extent of its responsibilities with amenities for which it created a demand. regard to the external road network and at Section 5.2 only The development of the site would acknowledges its responsibility to meet at least some of the cost generate a demand for works off the site of off-site transport and services required to achieve sustainable but is not the only source of demand for transport to and from the site. such works in all cases.

 When fully developed the Heathcote Ridge site is forecast to Traffic assessment will be revised as a increase traffic volumes on these key roads within the Shire consequence of changes to the Structure between 36% and 60% above that if the proposed development Plan. 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 This is contrary to the strategic benefits of provide Heathcote Ridge with a bushfire emergency evacuation the link as identified by RMS. 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 The revised Structure Plan results in a construction of two additional traffic lanes on Alford’s Point Road, reduction in the traffic generation of the Alford’s Point bridge, Bangor Bypass, Woronora River bridge and development and thus need for off site River Road/Linden Street together with the widening of works. A revised traffic and transport impact Heathcote Road to four lanes north of the East/West Arterial. assessment will be undertaken.

 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 bridges and

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

therefore, on the applicant’s own submission, the applicant A revised traffic and transport impact should also be responsible for the majority of the funding of these assessment will be undertaken. additional roadworks on that surrounding arterial road system. No such 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 earth Refer to revised VPA outline discussed in embankments, the intersection upgrades, including New Illawarra Section 4. 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 Refer to revised VPA outline discussed in surroundings. Section 4.

 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 Road maintenance is a normal function of structures together with the additional costs to maintain the local Council. Local and collector road network and Collector Road infrastructure, it shall have a detrimental has been reduced in the revised Structure effect on the surrounding road network, the total effects of which Plan. have not been adequately canvassed and there are no projected costs for the works.

Infrastructure  No potable water supply reservoirs exist within the area of the Noted Provision – Potable lands proposed to be developed. Water  Sydney Water have indicated that the proposed development can be serviced with potable water from the two existing Noted reservoirs located on New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights and

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

Menai Reservoir located at Bishop Road. The potable water Refer to advice from Sydney Water. A supply system includes a provision for structural fire fighting commercial agreement will be required with purposes. Sydney Water for the provision of infrastructure.  No details of the estimated costs or funding of any of the potable water supply system for the development have been supplied by This is a matter for more detailed design the applicant. following rezoning.  No details have been provided as to how the staging of the water reticulation system is to be accomplished.

Infrastructure  Apart from a single Sydney Water sewerage main located within Sewerage services will be provided in Provision – Sewerage the development’s proposed conservation areas that currently accordance with Sydney Water services existing subdivisions west of New Illawarra Road and requirements. 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 and therefore

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 grounds of 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  Sydney Water has indicated that the recycled water network will, Water will be provided in accordance with Provision – Recycled in all likelihood, never be extended to the Heathcote Ridge site. Sydney Water requirements. Water 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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 who would 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  The applicant has indicated that Ausgrid has two options for the Noted. Refer to submission from Ausgrid Provision – Electricity installation of the trunk power supply to the development lands. that favours option A with some upgrading Supply The first, Option A, involves the connection of the site to the required to the Menai Zone Substation. 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.

Infrastructure  NBN Co has indicated that the development proposal lies within Noted. Costs for services will be negotiated Provision – its fibre optic supply footprint and satisfies its statutory with service providers in accordance with Telecommunications requirements to provide that servicing. their infrastructure charging policies.

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

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy point of the development lands in accordance with its current policy i.e., only to Precinct 10, or if it shall provide the trunk cabling to the isolated development lands through the site. In the event 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 to all residential allotments or the Employment Lands.

Infrastructure  The applicant has indicated that the nearest gas mains supply Noted. Costs for services will be negotiated Provision – Gas exists at Blaxland Drive, Alford’s Point, some 3.2km from the with service providers in accordance with Bangor Bypass entry to the site but 4.47km from the boundary of their infrastructure charging policies. 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.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

Infrastructure  The applicant’s submission relative to its Master Plan Servicing Noted Provision – Other Strategy has been limited to the provision of Public Utility and Infrastructure 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 Noted. 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 Fire Brigade Station proposed. 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 Noted. individual s.94 Contributions plans.

Planning Agreement Council has not been a part to the content of the draft VPA. As and Developer currently proposed, the level of provision of local community facilities Contribution 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 Noted. Final VPA costs will be based on space is shown as $1,045,000 whereas council is of the view that specific proposals in the event that Council the embellishment costs of 1 field is approximately $1 million. enters into a VPA.

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy

 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 The development will generate a demand on organised sports at all levels. The proposed rate of active for open space similar to other open space simply falls far short of minimum requirements. The development in the Shire. However the distribution of playing fields should reflect the pattern and density Structure Plan has been amended to make of development. Given that Precinct 3 – Residential North and provision for additional playing fields in a Precinct 4 – Residential Core North make provision for over 1500 centralised location. Space is provided for dwellings, at least three (3) playing fields are required. passive open space also.

 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 financial capacity to meet the ongoing costs associated with a

No Submitter Issues Raised Response and Mitigation Strategy 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 new community.