INDEX OF APPENDICES

No. Document / Extract Gerrard et al, ‘Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design’ (Conservation Letters, March/April 1 2018) RMIT Centre for Urban Research, ‘Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design’ 2 Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 3 Victorian Government, Plan Melbourne Strategy 2017-2050 4 Victorian Planning Policy, Clause 12.03-1S 5 Melbourne Water, Healthy Waterways Strategy 2018-2028 6 Victorian Planning Policy, Clause 12.01-01S 7 City of Boroondara, Urban Biodiversity Strategy 2013-2023 8 Victorian Government, Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 Second Reading Speech of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2018, Hansard (19 June 2019) 9 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019 (extract) Bare v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission & Ors [2015] VSCA 197 10 Victorian Planning Provisions, Clause 19.03-03S 11 Declared Yarra River Land 12 Victorian Planning Provisions, Clause 12.03-1R 13 State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) 14 State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) (groundwater) 15 Alanvale Pty Ltd & Anor v Southern Rural Waters & Ors (Red Dot) [2010] VCAT 480 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Assessor’s Handbook: 16 Applications to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation (October 2018) Resilient Melbourne and The Nature Conservancy, Living Melbourne: Our Metropolitan 17 Urban Forest (2019) Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Habitat Hectare Assessment: 18 Fact Sheet (2016)

POLICY PERSPECTIVE Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design Georgia E. Garrard1, Nicholas S. G. Williams2, Luis Mata1,JordanThomas1, & Sarah A. Bekessy1

1 Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Australia 2 School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Keywords Abstract Biodiversity rating scheme; conservation planning; grasslands; landscape design; nature Cities are increasingly considered important places for biodiversity conserva- in cities; urban biodiversity; population viability; tion because they can harbor threatened species and because conservation sustainable urban development. in cities represents an opportunity to reconnect people with nature and the range of health and well-being benefits it provides. However, urbanization can Correspondence be catastrophic for native species, and is a well-known threat to biodiversity Georgia E. Garrard, Interdisciplinary worldwide. Urbanization impacts can be mitigated by urban design and devel- Conservation Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT opment improvements, but take-up of these practices has been slow. There University, Australia. is an urgent need to incorporate existing ecological knowledge into a frame- E-mail: [email protected] work that can be used by planners and developers to ensure that biodiversity conservation is considered in decision-making processes. Here, we distill the Received urban biodiversity literature into five principles for biodiversity sensitive ur- 21 September 2016 ban design (BSUD), ranging from creating habitat and promoting dispersal to Accepted facilitating community stewardship. We then present a framework for imple- 28 August 2017 menting BSUD aimed at delivering onsite benefits to biodiversity, and that is Editor applicable across a range of urban development types and densities. We illus- Wayne Linklater trate the application of the BSUD framework in two case studies focusing on the: (1) protection of an endangered vegetation remnant in a new low-density doi: 10.1111/conl.12411 subdivision; and (2) persistence of an endangered reptile in an established sub- urban environment.

Introduction modification of natural disturbance regimes, and in- creased levels of chemical, light and noise pollution Cities are increasingly recognized as important places (Grimm et al. 2008). These changes lead to reduced for biodiversity conservation, and can harbor a diver- species and genetic diversity, biotic homogenization sity of plant and animal species, including threatened (McKinney 2006), and loss of ecological function and species (Ives et al. 2016). They are also important places ecosystem services (Radford & James 2013). Numerous for conservation from a human perspective. Exposure to emerging threats, such as those associated with the up- nature in cities delivers a remarkable range of health take of LED lighting and energy-efficient (but cavity-free) and well-being benefits, including stress reduction, re- homes, are likely to have further impacts (Stanley et al. duced mortality, and improved cognitive development in 2015). These impacts are long-lasting with little option for children (Shanahan et al. 2015). Intriguingly, biodiverse reversal, making urbanization one of the greatest drivers green spaces may deliver greater benefits than less diverse of biodiversity loss (McKinney 2006). spaces (Fuller et al. 2007; Pett et al. 2016). Biodiversity Fortunately, some of the negative impacts of urban- conservation in cities therefore presents a unique oppor- ization can be mitigated by improvements to the de- tunity to reconnect urban residents with nature and its sign and construction of new developments, or through associated benefits. retrofitting existing development (Figure 1). Numerous However, urbanization has myriad impacts on biodi- examples of urban design with positive biodiversity out- versity, including habitat loss and fragmentation, changes comes exist (e.g., Hostetler 2012; Beninde et al. 2015; to resource availability, introduction of exotic species, Ikin et al. 2015, and Table S1 online). However, uptake alteration of local climates via the urban heat island, has been slow when compared to other environmentally

Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al.

Figure 1 The biodiversity impacts of urbanization can be mitigated by sensitive urban design. (A): Residential development across the road from a protected native grassland remnant in northern Melbourne, Australia. This residential property is devoid of vegetation (save for the lawn on the nature strip), providing little habitat or resources for native species that live in the grassland across the road. Compare this to image (B) (also in Melbourne), where the nature strip has been planted with a variety of native species, including trees, shrubs and grasses. The structural diversity creates a mosaic of habitat for a range of species. (C): The roof and walls of the Jerusalem Bird Observatory have been designed to provide habitat for birds and bats. (D): The biodiverse roof at The University of Melbourne provides a diverse range of habitats, including hollow logs, grassland, and an ephemeral stream. Photo credits. A, B: Georgia Garrard; C: Architecture–WEINSTEIN VAADIA ARCHITECTS, Photography–Amir Balaban; D: Nick Williams.

focused design protocols. In the absence of a practical ecological outcomes because retained patches face ongo- framework for incorporating existing urban ecological ing threats from the surrounding environment (Driscoll knowledge into urban design and development, planners et al. 2013), and the offset is unlikely to ever ade- and developers have little guidance about which design quately compensate for the losses incurred (Bekessy et al. elements to implement, or how to balance biodiversity 2010). Furthermore, offsetting ignores the place-based with other objectives. There is now an urgent need for an value of nature, and results in an unmitigated loss of na- evidential urban design protocol that links urban design ture in the places where urban residents live, work, and to biodiversity outcomes. play. We propose a framework for incorporating ecologi- In this Perspective, we outline five principles for bio- cal knowledge into urban planning, design and devel- diversity sensitive urban design (BSUD), and describe opment to achieve onsite biodiversity benefits. This ne- a framework for incorporating BSUD into urban de- cessitates a fundamental shift in thinking from current velopment decision-making. Using two case studies, we practice, where biodiversity losses are “offset” some- demonstrate the application of BSUD to greenfield and where else. Biodiversity offsetting delivers questionable existing urban environments.

2 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. G. E. Garrard et al. Biodiversity sensitive urban design

Figure 2 A framework for implementing biodiversity sensitive urban design.

A framework for BSUD (2) Facilitate dispersal. Dispersal can be facilitated by adding animal movement infrastructure (Taylor & To achieve onsite biodiversity benefits, BSUD must mit- Goldingay 2012), or establishing habitat connectivity igate the detrimental impacts of urbanization, while en- corridors through private and public land (Goddard couraging community stewardship of biodiversity by fa- et al. 2010). Care should be taken to avoid inadver- cilitating positive human–nature interactions. We have tently facilitating the spread of invasive weeds and distilled relevant ecological knowledge for addressing the pests. impacts of urbanization into five BSUD principles: (3) Minimize threats and anthropogenic disturbances.The impact of weeds and exotic predators can be reduced (1) Maintain and introduce habitat. New developments can by landscaping with indigenous plants and establish- be planned to avoid habitat loss by prioritizing de- ing pet containment programs (Ikin et al. 2015). In- velopment in areas of low ecological value (Bekessy creased runoff and nutrient loads can be mitigated et al. 2012). Retaining and protecting existing veg- by vegetated swales and rain gardens, which also de- etation during the development process can also be liver biodiversity benefits. The impact of noise and beneficial for biodiversity (Hostetler 2012; Ikin et al. light pollution can be mitigated by sound barriers (al- 2015). Habitat can be enhanced or created in exist- though take care that this does not affect dispersal), ing urban areas by using native plant species and temporary road closures and dimming or reconfigur- increasing vegetation complexity (Ikin et al. 2015; ing street lights (Gaston et al. 2012). Threlfall et al. 2016), adding green infrastructure (4) Facilitate natural ecological processes. The disruptive ef- (Williams et al. 2014) or incorporating critical re- fects of urbanization on natural cycles, ecological sources and habitat analogues, such as habitat walls processes and disturbance regimes (Grimm et al. (Figure 1C; Lundholm & Richardson 2010). Residen- 2008) can be mitigated by providing adequate re- tial gardens can be significant habitat, so resident- sources for target species, protecting and enhancing led wildlife gardening programs can make a valuable pollinator habitat, and planning to safely enable nat- contribution to biodiversity (Goddard et al. 2010). ural disturbance events such as fire and flooding.

Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 3 Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al.

(5) Improve potential for positive human–nature interactions. (2) Expert elicitation – where insufficient or lacking, infor- Cities are human environments and public engage- mation can be elicited from experts (Burgman et al. ment is key to successful conservation (Cooper et al. 2011), as demonstrated in Case Study 1; and 2007). Urban design can help facilitate local stew- (3) Population viability analysis (PVA) – PVAs provide ardship of biodiversity by providing “cues to care” the most transparent framework for exploring (Nassauer 1995), creating opportunities for positive how species persistence is linked to urban design, interactions with nature, and addressing conflicts be- but require detailed data and can be troubled by tween biodiversity and safety objectives (Ikin et al. uncertainty in estimates of the absolute risk of 2015) or potential ecosystem disservices. decline. Nevertheless, they are reliable tools for assessing relative risk (McCarthy et al. 2003), and A key challenge for BSUD is providing a framework can be legitimately used to compare alternative that is flexible enough to achieve biodiversity and urban BSUD actions, as demonstrated in Case Study 2 (see development objectives, which are often competing. In Wintle et al. [2005] for another example of PVA to this section, we provide some guidance for the implemen- assess scenarios). tation of BSUD, drawing on objectives-based decision- making processes (Keeney 1994; Figure 2). Using this approach, the user first documents existing Although challenging, this step enables users to choose ecological values, and identifies biodiversity objectives for the action or actions that best meet biodiversity and other their site, considering both site and landscape contexts. objectives in the final step of the framework. Trade- Examples of biodiversity objectives include increasing the offs may be necessary; for example, if there are con- likelihood that threatened species will persist onsite or flicts between biodiversity and other environmental or reintroducing viable populations of native species that are development objectives, if biodiversity leads to disservices locally extinct. At this stage, development objectives for (Lyytimaki¨ & Sipila¨ 2009) or if an action benefits one the site should also be identified, including dwelling tar- species, but is detrimental to another. Tools are available gets, infrastructure requirements, and other environmen- to assist with trade-offs (Joseph et al. 2009; Bekessy et al. tal objectives (e.g., energy consumption or water quality 2012), however, transparent trade-offs are only possible standards). Next, potential BSUD actions are identified, where the biodiversity benefits of individual BSUD ac- based on the five principles discussed above, and assessed tions can be compared using a common metric. for their capacity to meet all specified objectives. Because it is driven by objectives, and not existing approaches, Case Study 1. BSUD to protect native this process encourages creativity in the identification grasslands in greenfield development of potential actions (Keeney 1994), thereby facilitating innovation. Furthermore, because individual BSUD ac- We consider the hypothetical (but realistic) development tions are evaluated for their potential to meet ecological of a 35 ha site in an urban fringe setting typical of those and other objectives, this process provides a mechanism in northern and western Melbourne, Australia. The site, for users, including developers and planners, to resolve historically grazed by horses, is bounded on two sides by trade-offs between competing objectives. residential and industrial land uses, and by undeveloped To assess the capacity for BSUD to meet biodiversity ob- agricultural land interspersed with native grassland rem- jectives, those objectives must be measurable. Numerous nants on its remaining boundaries. metrics have been used to assess the impact of urban form on biodiversity, including vegetation cover and propor- Biodiversity values tions of native and non-native species (Lenth et al. 2006). These measures are simple to obtain, but are proxies for A 5 ha remnant patch of critically endangered grassland the amount of “nature” in an area and don’t directly mea- exists within the site along one boundary. It is of sig- sure biodiversity outcomes. We propose viability, or the nificant ecological value and legislation will require that probability that target species and ecosystems can per- it is retained and protected. Because the remnant par- sist onsite once development occurs, as a more direct and tially adjoins other remnant grasslands in adjacent prop- meaningful measure. This can be assessed using multiple erties, it additionally makes a contribution to landscape methods, including, in increasing order of complexity: connectivity.

(1) Literature review – existing information may be suffi- Biodiversity objectives cient to develop conceptual models capable of pre- dicting whether an individual action will improve or The primary ecological objective is to improve the via- worsen persistence probability (see Mata et al. 2016); bility of the native grassland remnant. The metric used

4 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. G. E. Garrard et al. Biodiversity sensitive urban design

Table 1 Potential BSUD actions to enhance native grassland viability in low-density greenfield development

to measure viability is the probability that the grassland While there was variation between experts, all experts persists in the same or better condition for 25 years. agreed that, if the grassland was in good condition, BSUD would contribute to a 0.31 increase in the probability of the grassland persisting without deteriorating when com- Development objectives pared to a non-BSUD development (Figure 3). The ma- The site is to be developed as a typical low-density res- jority of this increase was attributable to BSUD actions idential greenfield development, and will be subject to undertaken to protect and manage the grassland dur- minimum housing densities and green space provisions ing the construction phase of development. This effect specified by local planning policy. was likely to be smaller for a grassland initially in poor condition. (Note that urban development contributed to a marg- BSUD Actions inal increase in the persistence of the native grassland, even without BSUD. This reflects expert pessimism about Potential BSUD actions were identified in the design, con- the capacity for grassland condition to be maintained in struction and inhabitation phases of development, and the absence of any weed or biomass management.) primarily address key threats to native grassland viabil- ity associated with disruption to fire disturbance regimes, introduction of invasive weeds and changes to abiotic conditions (Table 1). Decide All BSUD actions were considered to contribute to an im- provement in the viability of the grassland remnant, so Assessing BSUD the final decision about which actions to take requires a Estimates of the overall contribution of BSUD and partial trade-off between the biodiversity benefits provided and contribution of individual BSUD actions to the grassland the costs of implementation (which may include finan- persistence were elicited in a workshop with five grassla- cial costs and conflicts with other social and environmen- nd experts, using a modified Delphi technique (Burgman tal objectives). It is impossible to compensate for losses et al. 2011). The elicitation process and expanded results associated during construction via any other means, so are detailed in the supplementary material. protection and management during this stage should be

Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5 Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al.

Figure 3 Expert elicitation results, showing the contribution of BSUD to the probability of persistence of a remnant native grassland in low-density greenfield urban development. Results are presented for grasslands initially considered to be in “good” and “poor” condition.

prioritized to ensure an improvement in the long-term vi- Biodiversity values ability of the grassland. Planning for appropriate buffers The striped legless lizard is a grassland endemic, listed and adjacent land uses, and seeking to promote active as nationally vulnerable due to historical and current stewardship through thoughtful design are also recom- habitat clearance. Limited dispersal ability and habitat re- mended to achieve biodiversity objectives in this case. quirements mean this species is sensitive to urban devel- opment. This species is present at low densities (6 indi- viduals/ha) at three of the four sites, but the long-term Case Study 2. BSUD for a threatened survival of the meta-population is thought to be threat- reptile in an established urban ened by poor dispersal and ongoing threats from the environment urban matrix, including predation by cats and decline in habitat quality. Additional values include the native We consider here a hypothetical situation in which man- grassland remnants, which are nationally endangered agers are considering options for retrospectively applying and provide important refuge for other native grassland BSUD principles to an existing urban environment to im- species. prove the viability of the striped legless lizard, Delma im- par. In this simulated example, a lizard meta-population exists across four small grassland patches of 0.5, 1, 1.5, Biodiversity objectives and 3 ha, embedded in a suburban matrix and separated by distances of 200 to 450 m. The size and distribution The primary biodiversity objective is to improve the of patches reflects those of grassland remnants within the viability of the striped legless lizard. This will be as- western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. sessed over a 25-year time horizon using three metrics:

6 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. G. E. Garrard et al. Biodiversity sensitive urban design

Figure 4 PVA results for the striped legless lizard, Delma impar, after 25 years. (A) Probability of meta-population persistence; (B) meta-population abundance; (C) meta-population occupancy (number of filled squares indicates the number of filled populations). probability of persistence, population size, and probabil- Landscape (2003 v 1.0). BSUD actions were simulated ity of occupancy. by: (1) allowing dispersal between patches, which oc- curs with decreasing probability as the distance between patches increases up to a maximum of 400 m; (2) increas- Development objectives ing the carrying capacity of individual patches; and (3) Potential BSUD actions should reflect the established na- reducing the proportion of individuals lost to predation ture of the surrounding suburban environment and com- from 0.50 to 0.25. The modelling process and results are munity. provided in detail in the supplementary material.

BSUD actions Decide Three potential BSUD actions were identified in discus- sion with two species experts: (1) creation of habitat cor- When considering BSUD actions in isolation, decreasing ridors to facilitate dispersal; (2) improving habitat quality predation through cat containment delivered the biggest in existing patches; and (3) restricting domestic cats to benefit to the legless lizard, regardless of which eval- indoors or confined outdoor runs. uation metric was used (Figure 4). This action alone increased the probability of persistence from 0.06 to 0.88 (Figure 4A). The largest benefits were gained when Assessing BSUD all three BSUD actions were applied, although habi- A formal PVA was used to assess the contribution of tat improvement and the creation of habitat corridors BSUD to lizard viability, and implemented in RAMAS contributed to substantial increases in meta-population

Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 7 Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al. abundance and occupancy, respectively, when consid- ships and a trusted body of science. Incorporating BSUD ered separately in combination with cat containment into holistic performance tools, such as the Green Build- (Figure 4B, C). ing Council of Australia’s Green Star Communities and The creation of corridors is likely to pose signifi- US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and cant challenges in an established suburban environment Environmental Design, is a further opportunity. where private land ownership is the dominant tenure. Many questions remain. For example, what are appro- These results suggest that cat containment combined priate targets for BSUD, and with whom will the respon- with habitat improvement in remnant patches can de- sibility for implementation lie? We believe it is reasonable liver remarkably good outcomes when evaluated using to expect the proponent or developer to accept procedu- probability of persistence and abundance, however this ral and financial responsibility for implementing BSUD, comes at the expense of patch occupancy. as is the case for similar urban design schemes. Propo- nents could demonstrate adherence to biodiversity targets as part of the development approval process, with assess- Discussion ments undertaken independently by ecological consul- tants, either separately or as part of environmental impact We have presented a framework for incorporating eco- assessments that are now standard precursors to devel- logical knowledge into the planning, design and devel- opment in many countries. PVAs are not beyond the ca- opment of urban environments. This framework makes pabilities of many ecological consultants; however, met- three important advances in the field of urban conserva- rics such as abundance or probability of occupancy may tion planning. First, it seeks to achieve onsite biodiversity suffice where data availability or technical expertise pre- gains, which will be necessary for reversing biodiversity cludes viability assessment. decline, and further, is important for reconnecting urban Science can provide information about the biodiver- residents with nature and exposing them to the bene- sity benefits of BSUD, but decisions about performance fits it provides (Soga & Gaston 2016). Second, by seek- targets, including which species and ecosystems to tar- ing to achieve biodiversity benefits in any development, get and what minimum standards apply, are subjective BSUD rises above the dominant land sparing/sharing de- and must be made by a regulatory authority on behalf bate relating urban development patterns to biodiversity of society. These targets would likely be guided by so- outcomes (Lin & Fuller 2013), which is scale-dependent cioecological criteria, and BSUD offers a flexible frame- and can be difficult to apply in practice because devel- work in which biodiversity benefits can be transparently opment patterns typically lie somewhere between spar- traded-off against other environmental, social and eco- ing and sharing. Third, because it explicitly links urban nomic goals. Regardless of the target, BSUD has the po- design to measurable biodiversity outcomes, BSUD pro- tential to shape a new conception of urban landscapes, vides a flexible framework for developers and planners where species can thrive and residents reap the remark- to make transparent trade-offs between biodiversity and able range of benefits that biodiversity can deliver. other socioeconomic objectives. However, BSUD alone is insufficient to conserve bio- diversity in cities while they continue to densify and Acknowledgments expand. Land sparing is important for protecting rem- nant habitat and maintaining some ecosystem services This research was supported by The Myer Foundation. (Stott et al. 2015). Furthermore, many species will re- S.A.B is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow quire large, well-connected habitat patches to survive and is supported by the Australian Research Council (Beninde et al. 2015). To maximize urban biodiversity Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions. G.E.G conservation outcomes, BSUD should be implemented and S.A.B. are supported by the National Environmen- alongside strategic land planning (e.g., Bekessy et al. tal Science Programme (NESP) Threatened Species Re- 2012), including specification for housing densities that covery Hub. N.S.G.W. and L.M. are supported by the minimize the urban footprint. Research investigating the NESP Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub. We would effectiveness of BSUD at different scales and housing like to thank five native temperate grassland experts densities will make a valuable contribution to current and two striped legless lizard experts for their time and understanding. willingness to participate in workshops and discussions Critical next steps for BSUD include establishing reg- about the links between BSUD and on-ground out- ulation for minimum standards, and identifying respon- comes. We are also grateful to four anonymous review- sible authorities, appropriate bridging organizations and ers who provided valuable feedback on early drafts of project champions to help build cross-sectoral relation- this manuscript. Ethics approval for the grassland expert

8 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. G. E. Garrard et al. Biodiversity sensitive urban design elicitation workshop was granted by RMIT University’s Ives, C.D., Lentini, P.E., Threlfall, C.G., et al. (2016). Cities are Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number hotspots for threatened species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 25, CHEAN A 0000018851-07/14). 117-126. Joseph, L.N., Maloney, R.F. & Possingham, H.P. (2009). Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: Supporting Information a Project Prioritization Protocol. Conserv. Biol., 23, 328- Additional Supporting Information may be found in the 338. online version of this article at the publisher’s web site: Keeney, R. (1994). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Manage. Rev., 35, 33–41. Table S1. Key Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design ele- Lenth, B.A., Knight, R.L. & Gilgert, W.C. (2006). ments in different phases of urban development Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Biodiversity sensitive urban design for native grass- Conserv. Biol., 20, 1445-1456. lands using expert elicitation Lin, B.B. & Fuller, R.A. (2013). FORUM: sharing or sparing? Biodiversity sensitive urban design for the striped leg- How should we grow the world’s cities? J. Appl. Ecol., 50, less lizard using population viability analysis 1161-1168. Lundholm, J.T. & Richardson, P.J. (2010). MINI-REVIEW: habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban References and industrial environments. J. Appl. Ecol., 47, 966- Bekessy, S.A., White, M., Gordon, A., Moilanen, A., 975. McCarthy, M.A. & Wintle, B.A. (2012). Transparent Lyytimaki,¨ J. & Sipila,¨ M. (2009). Hopping on planning for biodiversity and development in the urban one leg–the challenge of ecosystem disservices for fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan., 108, 140-149. urban green management. Urban Forest. Urban Green., 8, Bekessy, S.A., Wintle, B.A., Lindenmayer, D.B. et al. (2010). 309-315. The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conserv. Mata, L., Garrard, G.E. & Kutt, A.S., et al. (2016). Eliciting and Lett., 3, 151-158. integrating expert knowledge to assess the viability of the Beninde, J., Veith, M. & Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in critically endangered golden sun-moth Synemon plana. cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining Austral Ecol., 42, 297-308. intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol. Lett., 18, 581-592. McCarthy, M.A., Andelman, S.J. & Possingham, H.P. (2003). Burgman,M.A.,McBride,M.,Ashton,R.,et al. (2011). Expert Reliability of relative predictions in population viability status and performance. PLoS One, 6, e22998. analysis. Conserv. Biol., 17, 982-989. Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T. & Bonney, R. (2007). McKinney, M.L. (2006). Urbanization as a major Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv., 127, ecosystems. Ecol. Soc., 12, 11. 247-260. Driscoll, D.A., Banks, S.C., Barton, P.S., Lindenmayer, D.B. & Nassauer, J.I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Smith, A.L. (2013). Conceptual domain of the matrix in Landsc. J., 14, 161-170. fragmented landscapes. Trend Ecol. Evol., 28, 605-613. Pett, T.J., Shwartz, A., Irvine, K.N., Dallimer, M. & Davies, Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H. & Z.G. (2016). Unpacking the people–biodiversity Gaston, K.J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace Paradox: a conceptual framework. BioScience, 66, 576- increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett., 3, 390-394. 583. Gaston, K.J., Davies, T.W., Bennie, J. & Hopkins, J. (2012). Radford, K.G. & James, P. (2013). Changes in the value of REVIEW: Reducing the ecological consequences of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient: a case night-time light pollution: options and developments. J. study of Greater Manchester, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan., 109, Appl. Ecol., 49, 1256-1266. 117-127. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J. & Benton, T.G. (2010). Scaling Shanahan, D.F., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Lin, B.B. & Gaston, up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban K.J. (2015). The health benefits of urban nature: how environments. Trend Ecol. Evol., 25, 90-98. much do we need? BioScience, 65, 476-485. Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., et al. (2008). Soga, M. & Gaston, K.J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319, loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ., 14, 756-760. 94-101. Hostetler, M.E. (2012). The green leap: a primer for conserving Stanley, M.C., Beggs, J.R., Bassett, I.E., et al. (2015). Emerging biodiversity in subdivision development. University of threats in urban ecosystems: a horizon scanning exercise. California Press, USA. Front. Ecol. Environ., 13, 553-560. Ikin, K., Le Roux, D.S., Rayner, L., et al. (2015). Key lessons Stott, I., Soga, M., Inger, R. & Gaston, K.J. (2015). Land for achieving biodiversity-sensitive cities and towns. Ecol. sparing is crucial for urban ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Manage. Restor., 16, 206-214. Environ., 13, 387-393.

Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 9 Biodiversity sensitive urban design G. E. Garrard et al.

Taylor, B.D. & Goldingay, R.L. (2012). Facilitated movement Williams, N.S.G., Lundholm, J. & Scott MacIvor, J. (2014). over major roads is required to minimise extinction risk in FORUM: do green roofs help urban biodiversity an urban metapopulation of a gliding mammal. Wildlife conservation? J. Appl. Ecol., 51, 1643-1649. Res., 39, 685-695. Wintle, B.A., Bekessy, S.A., Venier, L.A., Pearce, J.L. & Threlfall, C.G., Williams, N.S.G., Hahs, A.K. & Livesley, S.J. Chisholm, R.A. (2005). Utility of dynamic-landscape (2016) Approaches to urban vegetation management and metapopulation models for sustainable forest management. the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landsc. Conserv. Biol., 19, 1930-1943. Urban Plan., 153, 28-39.

10 Conservation Letters, September 2017, 00(0), 1–9 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design Creating urban environments that are good for people and good for nature

Artist’s Impression: Biodiverse Midrise for Fishermans Bend Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design What is it? Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design (BSUD) is a protocol for urban design that aims to create suburbs that are a net benefit to native species and ecosystems through the provision of essential habitat and food resources. It represents a new approach to urban biodiversity conservation by seeking to achieve biodiversity benefits on site, in contrast to the standard offsetting approach, which reduces the opportunity for urban residents to engage with nature and, at the same time, delivers questionable ecological outcomes. What are the benefits? BSUD aims to protect native species and ecosystems in the places where people live and work. Urban greening associated with BSUD also provides a range of proven benefits to individuals, communities and cities, including: • Cooling of urban areas • Air and water purification • A range of human health and wellbeing benefits in areas such as mental health, cardiovascular health, social cohesion and cognitive ability. • Increased worksplace productivity How can I implement BSUD? BSUD can be implemented at a range of scales, and by a range of people, from individual home owners wanting to reduce their impact on nature, through to local and regional authorities responsible for the planning and development of major towns and cities. BSUD proceeds in 6 steps, including an optional step allowing quantitative assessment of the contribution of the built environment to biodiversity.

Artist’s Impression: Biodiverse Midrise for Fishermans Bend 1. Identify and map ecological values • Determine which native species and ecosystems are present in or utilise the area, paying particular attention to any that are threatened. • Document the landscape context of the area, including geology, hydrology and any natural features of the landscape. Consider the role of the area for overall connectivity in the landscape. • Where the landscape is heavily modified, seek information from historical records about species and ecosystems that once existed there. This will Legend provide information about which species may High biodiversity value exist there again. High development value

Spatial planning tools can be used to identify areas of value for biodiversity (blue) and development (red), shown here for Wyndham in Melbourne’s west. (Adapted from Bekessy et al. 2012)

2. Define ecological objectives, such as: • Maintain viability of threatened species and ecosystems • Protect and restore habitat quality • Opportunities for rewilding

Striped Legless Lizard Photo by Peter Robinson Peter by Photo Maintaining or improving the viability of threatened species, such as the striped legless lizard, is a key environmental objective for BSUD.

3. Identify development objectives, including: • Population and dwelling targets • Housing type and diversity • Liveability targets Other Features • Commercial and educational requirements 0.5 Minutes Walk Parks • Infrastructure requirements 1 Minutes Walk Green Open Space 2 Minutes Walk

3 Minutes Walk

>3 Minutes Walk

Access to open space is important for creating liveable neighbourhoods. Residents of buildings shaded in green are less than 2 minutes walk from open space. 4. Identify actions required to achieve objectives, considering the five principles of BSUD: 1. Maintain or create habitat for target species (feeding, nesting and protection; minimum patch sizes; landscape connectivity) 2. Facilitate dispersal of species 3. Minimise disturbance 4. Facilitate natural processes, considering the management requirements of target species and ecosystems (burning, weed control, mowing, etc.) 5. Facilitate positive human-nature interactions and engage the local community (creating “Cues-to-Care”; promoting active stewardship)

Green roofs and habitat walls provide Different types of habitats (eg. a mix of habitat for native birds and insects. tall trees, shrubs and small plants) cater for a range of native species.

A reduced building footprint allows for more vegetated space, providing habitat and lessening barriers to animal movement. Image by Patricia Galan. Patricia by Image

Thoughtful creation of habitats offers many benefits. For example, creating habitat for the blue-banded bee will Domestic cats are a major threat to native animals not only benefit native Dianella species, which depend like the striped legless lizard and should be on them for pollination, it will also help you by pollinating contained at all times. your tomato plants.

Thoughtful design that engages the local community promotes active stewardship of nature in public places.

Artist’s Impression: Biodiverse Midrise for Fishermans Bend 5. Quantitative assessment of contribution to biodiversity

This step will help to answer questions such as: “If I Hab corridors, improve hab, excl. cats do this, this and this, how much will it benefit native species and ecosystems?” To arrive at an answer, you will need to assess the probability that the species or ecosystem can persist in the landscape. This can be measured using multiple methods, including, in increasing order of technical complexity: • Literature review

• Expert elicitation size Population • Formal population viability analysis.

Step 5 is optional, but has the added benefit of enabling the actions or suite of actions that provide Duration (years) most cost-effective biodiversity benefit (the most bang Population viability analysis is a useful tool for for your buck) in Step 6. estimating the positive contribution of BSUD to native species and ecosystems.

6. Identify the BSUD actions that best meet ecological objectives (Step 2), while also accommodating development objectives (Step 3) for the area.

BSUD Action - Native Grasslands Design

Appropriate adjacent land use 0.02

Image by Patricia Galan. Patricia by Image Effective buffers 0.03

Dispersal corridors, connecting habitat

Fire-retardant design <0.01

Sensitive landscaping - public <0.01

Sensitive landscaping - private <0.01

Enhance habitat Thoughtful design that engages the local community promotes active stewardship of nature in public places. Construction Early protection 0.08

Clean construction 0.02

Appropriate transitional management 0.08 BSUD Case Study 1: Native Grasslands in Melbourne’s Urban Fringe The native temperate grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plain are amongst the most endangered ecosystems in Australia. More than 99% of the original extent has been cleared or converted to agriculture, and less than 0.1% remains in good condition. Much of the remaining grassland exists in areas designated as growth corridors for Melbourne, and thus, these grasslands and the species that inhabit them are threatened by urban development.

In this case study, our ecological objective was to maximise the likelihood of grasslands and a protected striped legless lizard persisting in new suburbs after development had occurred. We aimed to show how BSUD could improve the likelihood that native grasslands and the striped legless lizard, (Delma impar) would persist in new suburbs. We assessed the extent to which BSUD could contribute to persistence using expert opinion Conflict between grassland conservation and urban growth in (native grasslands) and population viability analysis Melbourne. Areas in green represent modelled native grassland (striped legless lizard). We did not have specific occurrence. Darker green = native grasslands more likely to development targets. occur. Designated urban growth areas are those between the urban growth boundary (red line) and established urban areas (grey shaded areas). The BSUD actions examined were those that addressed major threats posed to native grasslands (loss and fragmentation of habitat, loss of species diversity caused by lack of burning and invasion by weeds, and poor public perception) and striped legless lizards (predation by cats, loss of habitat quality and quantity, and barriers to dispersal) in urban environments. Outcomes We identified aspects of BSUD that could improve prospects for native grasslands and striped legless lizards in all phases of development.

BSUD was estimated to more than double the probability of persistence of native grasslands in urban landscapes and the legless lizard was thought to stand little chance of persisting without it. BSUD during construction was thought to confer the greatest potential to improve persistence of native grasslands in urban environments, while design elements aimed at reducing predation by cats during the inhabitation phase were most effective for the striped legless lizard.

Native Striped Legless BSUD Action Grasslands Lizard Design

Appropriate adjacent land use 0.02

Effective buffers 0.03

Dispersal corridors, connecting habitat <0.01

Fire-retardant design <0.01

Sensitive landscaping - public <0.01

Sensitive landscaping - private <0.01

Enhance habitat 0.05

Construction

Early protection 0.08

Clean construction 0.02

Appropriate transitional management 0.08

Inhabitation

Cues to care 0.02

Community education 0.02

Active stewardship 0.03

No cats outside 0.93

Total contribution to persistance 0.31 0.94 BSUD Case Study 2: Biodiverse Mid-rise for Fishermans Bend

Fishermans Bend is a heavily modified location, benefits (eg. Bats and frogs are insectivorous with little in the way of existing ecological values. and therefore help control pests like mosquitos, Of exceptional ecological value is Westgate Park on and butterflies provide residents with restorative the western edge of the site, which provides habitat psychological benefits), and feasibility of their for a significant number of native plant, bird, ecological requirements (eg. Spotted pardalote are insect and amphibian species. Fishermans Bend already resident in nearby Westgate Park, and the is notable for its potential to provide improved Dainty swallowtail has a preference for domestic ecological connectivity in the landscape. The site nature such as citrus trees as well as native could become an important corridor for connecting vegetation). We identified the habitat and resource existing biodiversity values, including the Yarra requirements for these species, and incorporated and Maribyrnong Rivers, Moonee Ponds and Stony them into the built environment through habitat Creeks, Westgate Park and a patch of remnant walls, semi-private and public open space. mangroves at the mouth of the Stony Creek.

Because of the heavily modified nature of the site, ecological objectives focus on rewilding; creating the habitat and resource availability to attract native biodiversity to the area. We focused on five native species including birds (brolga & spotted pardalote), a butterfly (dainty swallowtail), a frog (growling grass frog) and a micro-bat (striped free-tailed bat). These species were chosen for Spotted Pardalote their charismatic characteristics (eg. Brolgas are Australia of BirdLife courtesy Photo large, spectacular water birds), potential co- MOONEE PONDS CREEK

MARIBYRNONG MOONEE PONDS RIVER CREEK

LORIMER YARRA RIVER

STONY CREEK

SANDRIDGE MONTAGUE

WESTGATE PARK WIRRAWAY

RIVERSIDE The Fishermans Bend site offers a unique PARK HOBSONS BAY opportunity to connect existing biodiversity values. Development objectives reflected ambitions Outcomes to create a more liveable and resilient urban Our biodiverse mid-rise model achieves housing environment than that provided by proposed densities that are comparable to those identified for development for the area, which features the brownfield development sites in Plan Melbourne. podium-tower style construction of similar However, when compared to the proposed high-rise developments such as Southbank and Docklands. development for Fishermans Bend, the sustainable mid-rise model will provide better urban design Development objectives included: and human health and well-being outcomes, • Height limits of 4-7 storeys to improve including better access to open space and improved accessibility and connectedness to nature and streetscapes, a reduction in the urban heat island streets. effect, a reduction in household energy use, and • Active streetscapes to improve safety and improved workplace productivity and childhood strengthen community. cognitive development. In addition, the wetlands • Diversity of building typologies to ensure required by some species provide additional water dwellings for a range of urban residents. purification and flood mitigation services in a flood- • Incorporating Melbourne’s unique city block prone landscape like Fishermans Bend. and laneway features. • High quality living spaces, with average apartment size of 100 m2.

MOONEE PONDS CREEK

MARIBYRNONG RIVER

LORIMER YARRA RIVER

STONY CREEK

SANDRIDGE MONTAGUE

WESTGATE PARK WIRRAWAY

RIVERSIDE PARK HOBSONS BAY Artist’s Impression: Biodiverse Midrise for Fishermans Bend November 2015

This research was supported by The Myer Foundation, as part of the project “Reimagining the Suburb”.

For further information, please contact Georgia Garrard or Sarah Bekessy at RMIT University’s Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (www.icsrg.info).

Georgia [email protected] +61 3 9925 9986 Sarah [email protected] +61 3 9925 1858

Acknowledgements Urban design and and video fly-through for Fishermans Bend were completed by Simon van Wijnen. Graphic representations of individual scenes in Fishermans Bend were produced in consultation with Mauro Baracco, Catherine Horwill and Jonathan Ware (RMIT School of Architecture and Design). NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION: Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133

PARTIES: APPLICANT Telstra Corporation Limited

RESPONDENT Hornsby Shire Council

CASE NUMBER: 11097 of 2005

CATCH WORDS: Appeal

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 4(1), s 5(a)(vii), s 5C, s 79C(1), s 79C(1)(d), s 79C(1)(e), s 82A, s 97(1) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 17, s 39(2), s 39(3), s 39(4) Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) s 6(2), s 6(2)(a), s 6 (2)(b), s 6(2)(c), s 6(2)(d) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) Sch 3, Pt 1, Div 3 cl 6(1)(b), Sch 3, Pt 1, Div 3 cl 6(3)

CORAM: Preston CJBrown C

DATES OF HEARING: 06/03/2006, 07/03/2006

DECISION DATE: 24/03/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT M S Henry (barrister) SOLICITORS Mallesons Stephen Jaques RESPONDENT A E Galasso (barrister) SOLICITORS Storey & Gough

JUDGMENT:

103 This precautionary approach has been adopted by Telstra in its proposal. The nature and design of the antennas, their tilt and pan, the nature and quality of the radio equipment comprising the proposed base station and the efficient use of the equipment including the use of adaptive power control, all operate to minimise RF EME exposure: see also Connell Wagner Pty Ltd v City of Port Phillip [1998] VCAT 606 (15 January 1999) at p. 13 and Vertical Telecoms Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 172 (10 August 2000) at [7].

104 No evidence was put forward to suggest that any RF EME exposure from the proposed base station was unnecessary or incidental to the achievement of service objectives or process requirements for the proposed base station. Dr Black stated there were no other precautionary measures that could be taken to further minimise RF EME exposure from the proposed base station and certainly none that could be readily achieved at reasonable expense.

105 Accordingly, the proposed base station meets the precautionary approach recommended by the Australian Standard RPS3.

106 Indeed, as was concluded in Vertical Telecoms Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 172 (10 August 2000) at [70], “the safeguards generally adopted, and applied to this proposal, are for more stringent than any research has shown to be necessary”.

Ecologically sustainable development

107 The issue of the effect of RF EME emitted from the proposed base station raises the question of the ecological sustainability of the development, and in particular the applicability of the precautionary principle to the development. I will first outline the basic concept of ecologically sustainable development and then its applicability to the determination of development applications under the EPA Act. I will next focus on the precautionary principle and its applicability to the proposed development in this case.

108 Ecologically sustainable development, in its most basic formulation, is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”: World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987 at p. 44 (also known as the Brundtland Report after the Chairperson of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland). More particularly, ecologically sustainable development involves a cluster of elements or principles. Six are worth highlighting.

109 First, from the very name itself comes the principle of sustainable use - the aim of exploiting natural resources in a manner which is “sustainable” or “prudent” or “rational” or “wise” or “appropriate”: P Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2003 at p. 253. The concept of sustainability applies not merely to development but to the environment. The Australian National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development makes this explicit in defining ecologically sustainable development as “development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends”: National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992 at p. 8.

110 Secondly, ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in the decision-making process: see the chapeau to the definition of ecologically sustainable development in s 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) adopted by s 4(1) of the EPA Act and Principle 4 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. This is the principle of integration it was the philosophical underpinning of the report Our Common Future. That report recognised that the ecologically harmful cycle caused by economic development without regard to and at the cost of the environment could only be broken by integrating environmental concerns with economic goals.

111 The principle of integration ensures mutual respect and reciprocity between economic and environmental considerations. The principle recognises the need to ensure not only that environmental considerations are integrated into economic and other development plans, programmes and projects but also that development needs are taken into account in applying environmental objectives: see P Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2003 at p. 253.

112 The principle has been refined in recent times to add social development to economic development and environmental protection. The Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, 2002, notes that efforts need to be taken to:

“promote the integration of the three components of sustainable development – economic development, social development and environmental protection – as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars. Poverty eradication, changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for, sustainable development”: at paragraph 2.

113 Thirdly, there is the precautionary principle. There are numerous formulations of the precautionary principle but the most widely employed formulation adopted in Australia is that stated in s 6(2)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW). This provides:

“…If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and

(ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequence of various options”.

See also s 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992.

114 Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is expressed in similar terms.

115 This is the particular principle of ecologically sustainable development invoked by the Council and the residents in this case in aid of their opposition to the proposed base station. I will return to it shortly.

116 Fourthly, there are principles of equity. There is a need for inter-generational equity - the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations: see s 6(2)(b) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991; s 3.5.2 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment; and Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

117 There is also a need for intra-generational equity. This involves considerations of equity within the present generation, such as use of natural resources by one nation-state (or sector or class within a nation-state) needing to take account of the needs of other nation-states (or sectors or classes within a nation-state): P Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2003 at p. 253 and E Brown Weiss, “Intergenerational Equity: a legal framework for global environmental change” in E Brown Weiss (ed), Environmental Change and International Law: New Challenges and Dimensions, UN University Press, 1992, p. 385 at pp. 397-398. It involves people within the present generation having equal rights to benefit from the exploitation of resources and from the enjoyment of a clean and healthy environment: B Boer, “Institutionalising Ecologically Sustainable Development: The Role of National, State and Local Governments in Translating Grand Strategy into Action” (1995) 31 Willamette Law Review 307 at 320.

118 Fifthly, there is the principle that conservation of biological diversity and ecologically integrity should be a fundamental consideration: s 6(2)(c) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991; s 3.5.3 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment; and Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34 (6 February 2006) at [58]-[63].

119 Sixthly, ecologically sustainable development involves the internalisation of environmental costs into decision-making for economic and other development plans, programmes and projects likely to affect the environment. This is the principle of the internalisation of environmental costs. The principle requires accounting for both the short-term and the long-term external environmental costs. This can be undertaken in a number of ways including:

(a) environmental factors being included in the valuation of assets and services;

(b) adopting the polluter pays (or user pays) principle, that is to say, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the costs of containment, avoidance or abatement;

(c) the users of goods and services paying prices based on the full life cycle of the costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste; and

(d) environmental goals, having been established, being pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems: see s 6(2)(d) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 and s 3.5.4 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.

120 These principles do not exhaustively describe the full ambit of the concept of ecologically sustainable development, but they do afford guidance in most situations. These principles, if adequately implemented, may ultimately realise a paradigm shift from a world in which the development of the environment takes place without regard to environmental consequences, to one where a culture of sustainability extends to institutions, private development interests, communities and individuals: B Boer, “The Globalisation of Environmental Law” (1995) 20 Melbourne University Law Review 101 at 111.

121 The principles of ecologically sustainable development are to be applied when decisions are being made under any legislative enactment or instrument which adopts the principles: Murrumbidgee Ground-Water Preservation Association v Minister for Natural Resources [2004] NSWLEC 122 (7 April 2004) at [178]; and Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34 (6 February 2006) at [57].

122 The EPA Act is one such legislative enactment. It expressly states that one of the objects of the EPA Act is to encourage ecologically sustainable development: s 5(a)(vii). The Act defines ecologically sustainable development as having the same meaning as it has in s 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

123 Section 79C(1) of the EPA Act, which sets out the relevant matters which a consent authority must take into consideration, does not expressly refer to ecologically sustainable development. Nevertheless, it does require a consent authority to take into account “the public interest” in s 79C(1)(e). The consideration of the public interest is ample enough, having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act, to embrace ecologically sustainable development.

124 Accordingly, by requiring a consent authority (or on a merits review appeal the Court) to have regard to the public interest, s 79C(1)(e) of the EPA Act obliges the consent authority to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in cases where issues relevant to those principles arise: Carstens v Pittwater Council (1999) 111 LGERA 1 at 25; BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) 138 LGERA 237 at 262 [113]; and Port Stephens Pearls Pty Ltd v Minister for Infrastructure and Planning [2005] NSWLEC 426 (15 August 2005) at [54].

The precautionary principle

The precautionary principle explored

125 I have set out in the preceding section on ecologically sustainable development, the formulation of the precautionary principle in s 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 which is adopted by s 4(1) of the EPA Act: see paragraph 112 above.

126 A number of decisions in this Court have established that the precautionary principle is to be considered in making determinations of development applications under the EPA Act: Carstens v Pittwater Council (1999) 111 LGERA 1 at 25; Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 104 (26 March 2004), [26]; BGP Properties Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) 138 LGERA 237 at 262 [113]-[114]; B T Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 210 (1 July 2005) at [73]; Port Stephens Pearls Pty Ltd v Minister for Infrastructure and Planning [2005] NSWLEC 426 (15 August 2005) at [54]; Providence Projects Pty Ltd v Gosford City Council [2006] NSWLEC 52 (17 February 2006) at [68], [76] and [108]; and Gales Holdings Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 85 (27 February 2006) at [56]-[61].

127 However, there has not yet been, in the decisions of this Court, a detailed explanation of the precautionary principle or the procedure for application of it. Hence, it is necessary to refer to other sources of information on the precautionary principle, including judicial decisions of other jurisdictions and the academic literature on the precautionary principle. Drawing on these sources, the following guidance can be offered on the concept of the precautionary principle and its application.

Conditions precedent or thresholds to application of the precautionary principle

128 The application of the precautionary principle and the concomitant need to take precautionary measures is triggered by the satisfaction of two conditions precedent or thresholds: a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage. These conditions or thresholds are cumulative. Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate: N de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, 2005 at p. 155.

Threat of serious or irreversible damage

129 Two points need to be noted about the first condition precedent that there be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. First, it is not necessary that serious or irreversible environmental damage has actually occurred – it is the threat of such damage that is required. Secondly, the environmental damage threatened must attain the threshold of being serious or irreversible.

130 Threats to the environment that should be addressed include direct and indirect threats, secondary and long-term threats and the incremental or cumulative impacts of multiple or repeated actions or decisions. Where threats may interact or be interrelated (for example where action against one threat may exacerbate another threat) they should not be addressed in isolation: see “Guidelines for applying the precautionary principle to biodiversity conservation and natural resource management”, R Cooney and B Dickson (eds) Biodiversity and The vision for Melbourne A global city of opportunity and choice

Our vision is that Melbourne will continue to be a global city of opportunity and choice. Plan Melbourne’s vision for the city is guided by nine principles.

Principle 1 Principle 4 A distinctive Melbourne Environmental resilience and sustainability

Melbourne has an enviable natural environment, important Protecting Melbourne’s biodiversity and natural assets Aboriginal cultural heritage values, a rich inheritance of open is essential for remaining a productive and healthy space, and landmark buildings and streets created during city. There is an urgent need for Melbourne to adapt the population booms of the Gold Rush and post-War period. to climate change and make the transition to a low- To ensure Melbourne remains distinctive, its strengths will be carbon city. protected and heritage preserved while the next generation of growth is planned to complement existing communities and create attractive new neighbourhoods.

Principle 2 Principle 5 A globally connected and competitive city Living locally—20-minute neighbourhoods

Melbourne will develop and deliver infrastructure to Creating accessible, safe and attractive local areas support its competitive advantages in sectors such as where people can access most of their everyday needs business services, health, education, manufacturing within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport and tourism. Employment, research, retail, cultural and trip, will make Melbourne healthier and more inclusive. sporting precincts will also be supported to ensure Due to the specialised and diverse nature of work, many Melbourne remains attractive and liveable. people will still need to travel outside of this 20-minute neighbourhood for their jobs.

Principle 3 Principle 6 A city of centres linked to regional Victoria Social and economic participation

The central city will remain the focus for global business Social mobility is essential for social cohesion. Victoria’s and knowledge-intensive industries linked to an challenge is to make it easier for every citizen— extensive network of clusters, centres, precincts and regardless of their race, gender, age, sexuality or gateways. These physical, social and economic links ability—to attain the skills they need to fully participate will be strengthened, turning Melbourne into a city of in the life and economy of the city and state. centres linked to regional Victoria—creating social and economic opportunities across the state.

10 Principle 7 Strong and healthy communities

To remain a city of diverse, healthy and inclusive communities, Melbourne needs to ensure its neighbourhoods and suburbs are safe and walkable. Strong communities need affordable, accessible housing; local health, education and community services; access to recreation spaces; and healthy food.

Principle 8 Infrastructure investment that supports balanced city growth

Smart infrastructure investment and better utilisation of existing infrastructure is the key to creating new jobs and driving population growth in the right places. It is also vital for the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the city. That’s why there needs to be a pipeline of projects and initiatives that make Melbourne more sustainable, accessible and prosperous.

Principle 9 Leadership and partnership

Melbourne’s growth relies on effective governance, strong leadership and collaborative partnerships. Maintaining strong working relationships between all spheres of government, the public and private sectors and the wider community will ensure that all Melburnians share the benefits and the responsibilities of putting plans into practice.

11 Melbourne’s 2050 plan

Plan Melbourne’s vision for the city is guided by nine principles. To support those principles seven outcomes have been set, together with the policy directions that will be taken to reach those outcomes.

The vision for Melbourne A global city of opportunity and choice

OUTCOMES 123

Melbourne is a productive Melbourne provides Melbourne has an city that attracts housing choice in locations integrated transport investment, supports close to jobs and services system that connects innovation and creates jobs people to jobs and services and goods to market

DIRECTIONS 1.1 2.1 3.1 Create a city structure that Manage the supply Transform Melbourne’s strengthens Melbourne’s of new housing in the transport system to competitiveness for right locations to meet support a productive city jobs and investment population growth and 3.2 1.2 create a sustainable city Improve transport in 2.2 Improve access to jobs Melbourne’s outer suburbs across Melbourne and Deliver more housing closer 3.3 closer to where people live to jobs and public transport Improve local travel options 1.3 2.3 to support 20-minute Create development Increase the supply neighbourhoods opportunities at urban of social and 3.4 renewal precincts affordable housing Improve freight efficiency across Melbourne 2.4 and increase capacity of 1.4 Facilitate decision-making gateways while protecting Support the productive use processes for housing urban amenity of land and resources in in the right locations Melbourne’s non-urban areas 2.5 Provide greater choice and diversity of housing

12 4567

Melbourne is a distinctive Melbourne is a city of Melbourne is a sustainable Regional Victoria is and liveable city with inclusive, vibrant and and resilient city productive, sustainable quality design and amenity healthy neighbourhoods and supports jobs and economic growth

4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 Create more great public Create a city of 20-minute Transition to a low-carbon Invest in regional Victoria places across Melbourne neighbourhoods city to enable Victoria to support housing and 4.2 5.2 to achieve its target of economic growth net zero greenhouse 7.2 Build on Melbourne’s Create neighbourhoods gas emissions by 2050 cultural leadership that support safe Improve connections 6.2 and sporting legacy communities and between cities and regions 4.3 healthy lifestyles Reduce the likelihood and 5.3 consequences of natural Achieve and promote hazard events and adapt design excellence Deliver social to climate change infrastructure to support 4.4 6.3 strong communities Respect Melbourne’s 5.4 Integrate urban heritage as we build development and water for the future Deliver local parks and cycle management 4.5 green neighbourhoods to support a resilient in collaboration with and liveable city Plan for Melbourne’s communities green wedges and 6.4 peri-urban areas Make Melbourne 4.6 cooler and greener Strengthen community 6.5 participation in the Protect and restore planning of our city natural habitats 6.6 Improve air quality and reduce the impact of excessive noise 6.7 Reduce waste and improve waste management and resource recovery

13 Lockerbie

Epping 1 Broadmeadows 3 La Trobe Toolern NEIC 2 Sunshine NEIC Sunshine Parkville NEIC

Footscray Ringwood Box Hill

Werribee NEIC Fishermans Monash Bend NEIC NEIC

Dandenong 4 Dandenong NEIC Fountain Gate-Narre Warren

Port Phillip Bay

Frankston

Geelong 5

Western Port

Bass Strait

Map 2

Melbourne 2050 Plan

Source: Central city Potential transport infrastructure project Department of 1 Outer Metropolitan Ring / E6 reservation National employment and innovation cluster Environment, Land, (NEIC) 12 North East Link (alignment subject to investigation) Water and Planning 13 Airport Rail Link Metropolitan activity centre 14 Avalon Rail Link State-significant industrial precinct 15 Western Port highway upgrade / Rail Link to Hastings State-significant road corridor Interstate freight terminal (indicative) Rail network Transport gateway – possible airport (indicative) Rail improvements Sunbury to Cranbourne / Transport gateway – possible seaport (indicative) Pakenham (including Metro Tunnel) Water’s edge parklands Western Distributor Green wedge land Transport gateway – major airport Urban growth boundary Transport gateway – airport Urban area 0 Transport gateway – seaport Waterway 020N Waterbody Metropolitan Melbourne region kilometres Note: Potential infrastructure projects and gateways are subject to Infrastructure Victoria advice and Victorian NOTE: POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND GATEWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO INFRASTRUCTURE VICTORIA ADVICE AND VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. THIS FRAMEWORK WILL BE UPDATED AT THE END OF 2017, FOLLOWING THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO INFRASTRUCTURE VICTORIA’S 30 YEAR PLAN. 16 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

Infrastructure Victoria was established in The Victorian Government has 12 months to 2015. It provides independent expert advice respond and deliver its own five-year plan. This plan to government on infrastructure plans and will inform decision-making on smart infrastructure investment decisions, ensuring that projects projects and new services for delivery over the short, are properly vetted and informed by rigorous, medium and long term—and influence the five-year evidence-based advice. review of Plan Melbourne. It is in the interests of all In late 2016, Infrastructure Victoria released its Victorians to ensure future infrastructure projects 30-year strategy to the Victorian Government. are chosen on merit.

ALIGNMENT WITH SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT

The Minister for Suburban Development This will ensure that five-year plans complement will contribute to the ongoing development and include the key strategies contained in of Melbourne as one of the world’s most Plan Melbourne, and that the newly established liveable cities. Suburban Development will Metropolitan Partnerships are engaged in develop five-year plans for jobs, services and the medium- and long-term planning to keep infrastructure and establish new governance Melbourne liveable. arrangements for metropolitan regions through Metropolitan Partnerships.

17 12.03-1S River corridors, waterways, lakes and wetlands 31/07/2018 VC148 Objective To protect and enhance river corridors, waterways, lakes and wetlands.

Strategies Protect the environmental, cultural and landscape values of all water bodies and wetlands. Ensure development responds to and respects the significant environmental, conservation, cultural, aesthetic, open space, recreation and tourism assets of water bodies and wetlands. Ensure development is sensitively designed and sited to maintain and enhance environmental assets, significant views and landscapes along river corridors and waterways and adjacent tolakes and wetlands. Ensure development does not compromise bank stability, increase erosion or impact on a water body or wetland’s natural capacity to manage flood flow. Protect the Yarra, Maribyrnong and Murray River corridors as significant economic, environmental and cultural assets. Facilitate growth in established settlements where water and wastewater can be managed.

Policy documents Consider as relevant: Maribyrnong River – Vision for Recreational and Tourism Development (Melbourne Parks and Waterways, 1996) Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guideli nes (Department of Planning and Community Development, 2010) Melbourne Water’s Guidelines for Approval of Jetties (Melbourne Water, 2011) Healthy Waterways Strategy (Melbourne Water, 2013)

Page 1 of 1

16.16. Yarra CatchmentCatchment

16.1. CatcCatchmenthment Overview PopuPopulationlation modellingmodelling showsshows thatthat thethe Yarra catchmentcatchment willwill The Yarra catchment covers an area of 4046 squaresquare increase from some 1.8 million ppeopleeople to over 2.4 million in kilometres. About 55 pperer cent of the area retains its natural tthehe next 20 yyears,ears, resuresultinglting in an aadditionaldditional 14,000 ddwellingswellings vegetation, 30 per cent is usedused for agricuagriculturelture anandd 15 per cent pperer year. The north growth corridor from Wallan to is uurban.rban. Broadmeadows, Mernda and Epping is the main growth area in thethe Yarra catccatchment.hment. TThehe Yarra catccatchmenthment aalsolso PeoplePeople of the Woi wurrungwurrung language grougroupp were the original eencompassesncompasses ppartart of the Fisherman’s Bend urban renewal occupants of this land and their descendants place enormous area, whichwhich is plannedplanned to bbecomeecome homehome to approximateapproximatelyly culturalcultural anandd spirituaspirituall significance on tthehe region’s llandand 80,000 residents and provideprovide employmentemployment for upup to andand waters. 80,000 people by 2050.

The catchment includes the Yarra ((Birrarung)Birrarung) River, Poor qualityquality stormwater ininputs,puts, drainage and clearing of which is the largest river in the Port PhillipPhillip and WesternportWesternport vegetation havehave alreadyalready impactedimpacted many wetwetlandslands of thethe region.region. The river rises in the Great DividingDividing RangeRange to the Yarra catchment. AdditionallAdditionallyy the construction of levees and east of Warburton and flows 245 kilometres until enterinenteringg hharvestingarvesting of water means tthathat river-feriver-fedd wetwetlands,lands, includingincluding Port Phillip at Newport. The Lerderderg River and Yarra River, billabongs, are less frefrequentlyquently inundated and less able to act betweenbetween WarburtonWarburton andand WarranWarrandyte,dyte, hhaveave bbeeneen iidentifieddentified as nursernurseryy and breedinbreedingg areas. asas a Victorian HeritaHeritagege River, meaninmeaningg that it has sisignificantgnificant recreation, nature conservation, scenic and cultural heritageheritage IIncreasedncreased dischargesdischarges of stormwater, toxicants and litter can attributes.attributes. tthreatenhreaten tthehe use of waterwwaterwaaysys anandd bbeacheseaches forfor swimmingswimming and boating activities. InaInappropriateppropriate developmentdevelopment along the ThereThere are over 21,000 wetlandswetlands in thethe Yarra catccatchment,hment, waterways can limit public access, overshadow the waterways, including approximatelyapproximately 16,000 constructed wetlands ddestroyestroy floodplainfloodplain habitathabitat andand changechange thethe charactercharacter andand nearly 5100 natural wetlands that support significant ooff waterwawaterwaysys for the worse foreverforever.. environmentalenvironmental aandnd ssocialocial vvalues.alues. MMoreore ththanan oonene thirthirdd ooff Victoria’s native plant and animal species can be found in thethe Yarra catccatchment.hment.

110 RIVERS - Plenty Gorge Park, Plenty River SUB-CATCHMENTS

Plenty Gorge Park, with its 1 Brushy Creek 14 Plenty River Upper significant natural and heritage 2 Darebin Creek 15 Steels and Pauls features, offers a wide range 3 Diamond Creek (Rural) Creek (Rural) of environmental, cultural and 4 Diamond Creek (Source) 16 Steels and Pauls social experiences. 5 Gardiners Creek Creek (Source) 6 Koonung Creek 17 Stringybark Creek 7 Little Yarra River 18 Watsons Creek and Hoddles Creek 19 Watts River (Rural) WETLANDS - Bolin Bolin Billabong, Yarra River 8 Merri Creek 20 Watts River (Source) (Rural and Forested) 21 Woori Yallock Creek Bolin Bolin, “place of many lagoons” 9 Merri Creek (Urban) 22 Yarra River Lower is a highly significant site to the 10 Mullum Mullum Creek 23 Yarra River Middle Wurundjeri and is an integral part 11 Olinda Creek 24 Yarra River Upper (Rural) of the much larger cultural 12 Plenty River (Source) 25 Yarra River Upper (Source) landscape. 13 Plenty River Lower

12 2 14 Wallan

8 Kalkallo 4 Whittlesea 3 1 16 Cambarville 19 3 15 4 7 Hurstbridge 20 2 13 8 Healesville 18 18 9 Eltham 20 Reefton 25 11 23 24 17 6 Woori Yallock 13 12 10 17 19 Warburton 10 1 16 14 6 Melbourne 5 7 22 Ringwood 15 1 11 9 5 Powelltown 21 Sub-catchment Oakleigh boundaries Gembrook Wetlands

WETLANDS Rivers and Creeks 1 Donnybrook Road Lake 8 Domain Chandon 15 Westgate Park Wetlands Parks and reserves 2 Hearnes Swamp Billabongs 16 Willsmere Billabong 3 Kalkallo Creek Wetland 9 Cockatoo Swamp 17 Anderson Creek East 4 Growling Grass 10 Annulus Billabong, retarding basin Frog reserve wetlands Yarra Flats 18 Spadonis Billabong 5 Ringwood Lake 11 Banyule Flats Billabong 19 Yarra Bridge Stream 6 Lillydale Lake 12 Bolin Bolin Billabong Side Reserve ESTUARIES 7 Stormwater wetlands 13 Burke Road Billabong 20 Yering Backswamp, 14 Hays Paddock Billabong Yarra River 1 Yarra River Estuary

Figure 35 Sub-catchments and waterway assets including a sub-set of wetlands in the Yarra catchment Healthy Waterways Strategy 111 16.2. VISION

The Healthy Waterways Strategy vision for the Yarra Catchment builds on the Yarra River 50 year Community Vision developed for the Yarra Strategic Plan in early 2018:

Yarra River 50-year Community Vision Our Yarra River, Birrarung and its diverse surrounding landscapes provide a place of refuge, recreation, Our Yarra River, Birrarung, is recognised around the learning and livelihood. It brings communities together world as an iconic example of a nurturing relationship and supports sustainable local economies. between a river and its community. Its clean waters and connected network of thriving Flowing from source to sea, it is the resilient lifeblood green spaces nurture biodiversity, and deepen the of past, present and future generations of Victorians. relationship between people and nature. It connects and enriches our flourishing city, suburbs, regions and beyond. Our Yarra River, Birrarung is respected as a sacred natural living entity and everyone takes responsibility Our Yarra River, Birrarung, its essential role in our lives for its care. Its health and integrity are paramount and and its rich history, are respected, understood and uncompromised. protected. It has cared for us for thousands of years and will for thousands to come. What is good for the Yarra is good for all. The vital and continued role of Traditional Owners as custodians of the River, and its role in their culture, is recognised and celebrated.

This Community Vision will be given effect through both this Strategy and a separate document called the Yarra Strategic Plan. The Plan focuses on a more specific geographical area to the Healthy Waterways Strategy, concentrating on the Yarra River Corridor (rather than the whole of the Yarra catchment) and will consider public open space along the river, statutory planning, and the management of public land and infrastructure. Achieving the Community Vision for the Yarra River relies on a healthy catchment. This Healthy Waterways Strategy has interpreted the Yarra River 50-year Community Vision to mean: Our Yarra catchment waterways are increasingly protected, respected and collaboratively cared for by Traditional Owners, government and community as living and highly valued entities. They are a linked network of thriving corridor and instream spaces which nurture biodiversity, deepen the relationship between people and nature, build resilience as our population grows and the climate changes, and contribute to wellbeing and liveability. Their ecological health and value to the community continuously improves through rehabilitated waterways and balanced uses.

112 16.316.3 GOALSGOALS

1. TheThe environmentalenvironmental valuesvalues andand significant ecologicalecological processes of allall of thethe Yarra CatcCatchmenthment waterways are protecteprotectedd anandd improveimproved.d. 2.2. RiparianRiparian and instreaminstream habitats pproviderovide landscalandscapepe connectivity, allowing the movement of native sspeciespecies and ppromotingromoting resilient native flora and fauna ppopulations.opulations. 3.3. CulturalCultural and heritage values are recognised, protected,protected, maintained and enhanced. 4. CommunitiesCommunities andand individualsindividuals connect withwith andand appreciate thethe valuesvalues of waterways. Waterway corricorridorsdors are useusedd appropriateappropriatelyly for pplaceslaces of sosolitude,litude, enjoyment of nature, andand active andand passive recreation thatthat support mentalmental and pphysicalhysical wellbeingwellbeing.. 5. An engagedengaged and knowledgeable community in the Yarra catchment acts to pprotectrotect and ppromoteromote sustained waterway values. Our waterways are a place of continuous learninglearning.. 6.6. TheThe waterways of the Yarra Catchment supportsupport natural system maintenance, ppotableotable and agricultural water susupply,pply, commerce and tourism in a balanced and environmentallenvironmentallyy sustainable manner. 7. TThehe Yarra waterways are managemanagedd in a transparent anandd cocollaborativellaborative governance frameworframeworkk tthathat aallowsllows for strategic, innovative andand integratedintegrated ways to protect waterways across pupublicblic anandd private lland.and. 88.. TThehe cultural, historical, amenity values and landscape settings of all modified waterways are protected and improved.

Healthy Waterways Strategy 113 16.4. Waterway Values Environmental Social Bird species listed as nationally-threatened in the catchment Social value scores for rivers are currently high. The social include the swift parrot, Australasian bittern and helmeted value score for the estuary is very high. Social value scores honeyeater. There are 16 native fish species, including the are based on the surveyed level of community satisfaction nationally-listed dwarf galaxis, Macquarie perch (introduced), and are threatened by inappropriate urban development, Australian mudfish and Australian grayling. Frog species poor environmental condition, poor access to waterways include threatened species such as the growling grass frog and pollution. and the brown toadlet. Two threatened species of frog, Cultural Bibron’s toadlet (endangered in Victoria) and southern toadlet (vulnerable in Victoria) have seemingly disappeared from The land and waters of the region hold deep spiritual and several areas in the catchment since the Millennium Drought. cultural significance for Aboriginal peoples. The people of the Woi wurrung language group were the original occupants Vegetation score is highly variable – the upper headwaters of this land, as evidenced by the thousands of cultural sites contain areas of very high value intact native vegetation and places recorded, most of these occurring within 200 protected within the Yarra Ranges National Park. Vegetation metres of a watercourse. Two significant sites include Bolin and macroinvertebrate scores decrease further from the Bolin Billabong and Corranderk Aboriginal Station. headwaters as a result of agricultural activities and increasing Economic areas of urbanisation. Major drinking water storages for Melbourne are located in Resilient and vulnerable populations of platypus have been the catchment. There are numerous diversions for domestic, observed across the catchment. A locally threatened stock and agricultural uses. Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges population of platypus has been observed in the Plenty River tourism is a significant economic driver, worth $559 million in South Morang. to the region’s economy in 2015-2016.

114 16.5. Targets and Performance Objectives This section provides summaries of the long-term targets and performance objectives to be delivered through the implementation of the Strategy, in the 25 sub-catchments, sub-set of 20 wetlands and the Yarra River Estuary in the Yarra catchment. The full suite of targets and performance objectives are available in the Co-Designed Catchment Program for the Yarra catchment.

16.5.1. Rivers – Key values and waterway conditions (Yarra) The following target summaries represent an average across the Yarra catchment for rivers.

Key values

Rivers Birds Fish Frogs Macro- Platypus Vegetation Amenity Community Recreation invertebrates connection

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Waterway conditions

Rivers Stormwater Water for the Vegetation Vegetation Water quality Instream Physical Access Water quality Litter Participation condition environment extent quality -environment connectivity form - recreational absence

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Current state Current trajectory Target Sub-catchment of Waterways Values The likely outcome if current The targets developed averaged by stream length (km) policies and effort continue through collaborative actions

Key value/condition Current key value/condition Key value/condition score is predicted to improve score is predicted to be is predicted to decrease from current score maintained from current

Figure 36 Key values and waterway conditions – target summaries for rivers in the Yarra catchment Healthy Waterways Strategy 115 16.5.2. Rivers – Summary of performance objectives (Yarra) The following presents a summary of the 10-year performance objectives for rivers in the Co-Designed Catchment Program for the Yarra catchment.

• Progressively implement stormwater harvesting, focusing • Maintain 735 kilometres of high and very high quality on rural townships along the Middle and Upper Yarra River, vegetation (vegetation quality levels 4 and 5) through Woori Yallock, Olinda Creek catchments and new urban areas effective monitoring and management of threats. in the Merri Upper and Darebin Creek sub-catchments. Once • Investigate and mitigate threats to physical form (eg erosion) this catchment has reached its anticipated long-term urban and other high values in the Darebin Creek, Diamond Creek footprint based on the urban growth boundary, this will require (Rural), Merri Creek Upper, Mullum Mullum Creek, Plenty around 37.8 GL/year of stormwater harvested and 10.7 GL/year River Lower, Plenty River Upper, Steels and Pauls Creek (Rural) infiltrated. Ensure DCI levels in the above priority catchments and Woori Yallock Creek sub-catchments. do not increase beyond current levels and headwater streams are retained as features in the landscape for environmental • Increase access to and along waterways by 41 kilometres and social benefits. by improving connections with existing path networks and extending paths into new urban areas. Establish new boat • Investigate options to increase the environmental water launch facilities at key locations along the Yarra River to reserve by 10 GL/year by 2028 to meet ecological watering improve access for on-water activities. objectives and cover projected shortfalls from climate change. This will benefit the middle Yarra River. Any water • Reduce nutrient and sediment runoff from rural land through recovery for the environment will be considered through improved management of 1800 hectares of land including Victorian SWSs, markets and use of alternative water. works to protect and increase vegetation along headwater streams. • Identify opportunities to maintain or improve the flow regime in refuge reaches to support instream values, • Provide connectivity for fish along major tributaries of the including platypus. Yarra River through the removal of seven barriers by 2028. This will improve fish passage in several areas, including • Reduce the key threat of flow stress by addressing the threats Darebin Creek and the Upper Yarra tributaries. and other activities that impact waterways such as domestic, stock and agricultural uses, climate change, diversions or • Conserve all currently listed water dependent species and urbanisation. communities (16 fauna species, 150 flora species and 39 EVCs) through habitat protection, research and monitoring. • Establish 376 kilometres and maintain 1793 kilometres of continuous vegetated buffers (using EVC benchmarks and to at least a level 3 vegetation quality) along at least 80 per cent of priority reaches. In addition, increase vegetation cover in existing and planned urban areas by 2 kilometres to support social values.

116 16.5.3. Rivers – Summary of long-term key value outcomes (Yarra) The following target summaries represent an average across the Yarra catchment.

Birds score is currently moderate overall, with 252 bird species being recorded in the catchment including 153 species of riparian birds. Nationally threatened species include swift parrot, Australasian bittern and helmeted honeyeater. Without further action bird scores are considered unlikely to improve. The target is to maintain at moderate.

Fish scores are currently low overall, however the main stem of the Yarra is very important for native fish – with 14 indigenous freshwater species, including the nationally significant Australian grayling, Australian mudfish, and several estuarine species such as black bream, yellow eye mullet and mulloway. The fish score is considered likely to improve over time. The target is to improve the overall score from low to high.

Frogs score is currently low overall. Fifteen species of frog are expected to occur in the Yarra catchment. The nationally listed growling grass frog still occurs in some sub-catchments, mostly along north-western tributaries such as the Merri and Darebin Creeks. Frogs score is considered likely to decline unless the performance objectives in this strategy are achieved. The target is to improve to moderate.

Locations where a decline or very low score is expected: Darebin Creek, Plenty River Lower

Macroinvertebrates score is currently high overall. Diversity is higher along the main stem and in the middle and upper catchments. The target is to improve to very high.

Locations where a decline or very low score is expected for macroinvertebrates: Gardiners Creek, Merri Creek Lower, Koonung Creek, Mullum Mullum Creek

Platypus score is currently high overall for the catchment. Platypus are mostly found in tributaries of the middle and upper catchment and the main stem of the Yarra. Platypus are at risk, particularly in the lower and middle tributaries of the Yarra River, unless the performance objectives in this Strategy are achieved. The target is to maintain current populations at a high level.

Locations where a decline or very low score is expected: Brushy Creek, Gardiners Creek, Merri Creek Lower, Koonung Creek, Mullum Mullum Creek, Steels and Pauls Creek (Source), Watsons Creek, Darebin Creek

Vegetation score is currently moderate. The largest and most intact areas of vegetation are the forested headwaters in the Yarra Ranges National Park which support many rare and threatened plant species such as the Jungle Bristle Fern, Tall Astelia, Tree Geebung and old growth Mountain Ash. The Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is also an area rich in biodiversity. Yering Back Swamp is a unique wetland area adjacent to the Yarra River downstream of Yarra Glen. It supports a diverse mix of species including plants such the giant rush (Juncus ingens) and Australian basket-grass (Oplismenus hirtellus) not generally found in the Yarra catchment. The Bolin Bolin Billabong is very important culturally for the Wurundjeri people and it also supports some remnant red gums estimated to pre-date European arrival in Australia. Without further action vegetation score is considered likely to decline. The target is to maintain vegetation scores as moderate.

Amenity score is currently high based on community satisfaction, but is likely to decline in response to population growth and urbanisation. The target is to improve to very high.

Healthy Waterways Strategy 117 16.5.3. Rivers – Summary of long-term key value outcomes (Yarra) continued

Connection score is currently high based on community satisfaction, but is likely to decline in response to population growth and urbanisation. The target is to maintain at high.

Recreation score is currently high based on community satisfaction, but is likely to decline in response to population growth and urbanisation. The target is to improve to very high.

118 16.5.4. Wetlands – Key values and waterway conditions (Yarra) 16.5.5. Wetlands – Summary of performance The following target summaries represent an average across the objectives (Yarra) Yarra catchment for wetlands. The following presents a summary of the 10-year performance objectives for wetlands in the Co-Designed Catchment Program for the Yarra catchment.

Key values Wetlands

Wetlands Birds Fish Frogs Vegetation • Reduce the threat of invasive plant species.species. • Deliver environmental water to kekeyy billabonbillabongsgs onon the Yarra floodplain.floodplain. • InvestigateInvestigate opportunities to re-engage naturanaturall Very high floodplainfloodplain wetlands in key locations to meet ecologicalecological watering objectives, improveimprove High ecosystemecosystem services, cultural and social valuesvalues.. • ReduceReduce thethe threatthreat ooff invinvasiveasive aanimalsnimals ssuchuch Moderate as dogs,dogs, cats andand foxes to protect kkeyey wetwetlandland bird habitats. Low • DevelopDevelop understandingunderstanding of tthehe amenity, communitycommunity connection and recreation values Very Low ofof wetlandswetlands andand ddevelopevelop performance oobjectivesbjectives toto eenhancenhance ththeseese vvalues.alues.

Waterway conditions

Wetlands Water Wetland WetlandWetland buffer Vegetation Wetland regime habitat form buffercondition condition water quality condition

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Current state Current trajectory Target of Waterways Values The likely outcome if current The targets developed policies and effort continue through collaborative actions

Key value/condition Current key value/condition Key value/condition score is predicted to improve score is predicted to be is predicted to decrease from current score maintained from current

Figure 37 Key values and waterway conditions – target summaries for wetlands in the Yarra catchment Healthy Waterways Strategy 119

16.5.6. Wetlands – Summary of long-term key value outcomes (Yarra) The following target summaries represent an average across the Yarra catchment for wetlands.

Wetland bird score in the Yarra catchment is on average currently very low. However, some wetlands such as Cockatoo Swamp have high bird values. Environmental watering of key billabongs in the Yarra catchment is predicted to improve the bird value of many billabong wetlands. The target is to improve from very low to low.

Locations where a decline or very low score is expected: Donnybrook Road Lake, Hearnes Swamp, Kalkallo Commons Grassland and Kalkallo Creek Wetlands, Growling Grass Frog Reserve Wetlands, Ringwood Lake, Lillydale Lake, Stormwater Wetlands, Anderson Creek East Retarding Basin

Fish score is currently low overall. However, environmental watering of key billabongs and re-engagement of floodplain wetlands in the long term is predicted to significantly improve the fish score up to high.

Frogs score is high. Actions to reduce the threats of changed water regimes, altered wetland form, lack of wetland buffers and poor wetland vegetation condition will maintain the score at high, particularly in the Yarra billabongs. Many Yarra wetlands provide habitat for significant frog species such as growling grass frog. It is predicted that these habitats will continue to support these species.

Vegetation score is currently low. Actions to reduce the threats of changed water regimes, improve vegetation condition and wetland habitat form will improve the wetland vegetation score to a potential trajectory of moderate.

120 16.5.7. Estuaries – Key values and waterway conditions (Yarra) 16.5.8. Estuaries – Summary of The following target summaries represent an average across the Yarra performance objectives (Yarra) catchment for estuaries. The following presents a summary of the 10-year performance objectives for estuaries in the Co-Designed Catchment Program for the Yarra catchment.

Key values 10-year performance objectives

Estuaries Birds Fish Vegetation Amenity Community Recreation connection • Enhance estuarine emergent vegetation condition that provides instream habitat. • Reduce threat of invasive plant Very high species to significant estuarine vegetation communities. High • Investigate opportunities to improve access for on-water activities and Moderate improve connections with existing path networks. Low • Maintain recreational water quality within the Yarra estuary so that it is suitable for secondary contact Very Low (boating and fishing). • Maintain existing high value Waterway conditions opportunities for recreation (walking/ cycling, boating, fishing, etc.). Estuaries Tidal Longitudinal Water Estuarine Estuarine Flow regime exchange extent quality vegetation wetland • Maintain existing high value facilities connectivity that support passive enjoyment and recreation.

Very high

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Current state Current trajectory Target of Waterways Values The likely outcome if current The targets developed policies and effort continue through collaborative actions

Key value/condition Current key value/condition Key value/condition score is predicted to improve score is predicted to be is predicted to decrease from current score maintained from current

Figure 38 Key values and waterway conditions – target summaries for estuaries in the Yarra catchment

Healthy Waterways Strategy 121 16.5.9. Estuaries – Summary of long-term key value outcomes (Yarra) The following is a summary of the long-term key value outcomes for the Yarra River estuary.

Estuary birds score is currently very low due to the historical loss of habitat, industrial and urban development. The target is to avoid further decline.

Fish score is currently very high, with significant species such as the Australian Grayling using the estuary as part of its migration path between the sea and fresh waters. A good diversity of estuarine dependent fish species also inhabit the estuary. The target is to maintain at very high.

Vegetation score is currently very low due to the historical loss of habitat, and industrial and urban development. The target is to avoid further decline.

Amenity score is currently very high and is expected to remain very high with continued improvements to parks, facilities and vegetation.

Community connection score is currently very high. The Yarra River estuary is an iconic location loved by visitors and locals to Melbourne.

Recreation score is currently very high and will remain high. The estuary is a hub of activity including boating, cycling and walking.

122 Whittlesea

Hurstbridge Healesville

Warburton

Ringwood

PORT PHILLIP BAY

Whittlesea

Hurstbridge Healesville

Warburton

Ringwood

PORT PHILLIP BAY

Urban growth boundary Sub-catchment boundaries Township

Stormwater priority areas Rivers, creeks and drains Fish barrier to remove (over next 10 years) Wetlands Vegetation buffers to establish or maintain Fish barrier to remove Parks and reserves (over next 50 years) High quality vegetation to maintain

Figure 39 Summary of priorities in the Yarra catchment Note: This map does not show headwater streams, some minor tributaries, waterbodies on private land and some wetlands less than one hectare. Due to the size of the catchment the features have been displayed over two maps. Healthy Waterways Strategy 123 12.01-1S Protection of biodiversity 31/07/2018 VC148 Objective To assist the protection and conservation of Victoria’s biodiversity.

Strategies Use biodiversity information to identify important areas of biodiversity, including key habitat for rare or threatened species and communities, and strategically valuable biodiversity sites. Strategically plan for the protection and conservation of Victoria’s important areas of biodiversity. Ensure that decision making takes into account the impacts of land use and development on Victoria’s biodiversity, including consideration of: Cumulative impacts. Fragmentation of habitat. The spread of pest plants, animals and pathogens into natural ecosystems. Avoid impacts of land use and development on important areas of biodiversity. Consider impacts of any change in land use or development that may affect the biodiversity value of national parks and conservation reserves or nationally and internationally significant sites; including wetlands and wetland wildlife habitat designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention) and sites utilised by species listed under the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA), or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA). Assist in the identification, protection and management of important areas of biodiversity. Assist in the establishment, protection and re-establishment of links between important areas of biodiversity, including through a network of green spaces and large-scale native vegetation corridor projects.

Policy guidelines Consider as relevant: State biodiversity information maintained by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Policy documents Consider as relevant: Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017) Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017) Any applicable biodiversity strategies, including the relevant Regional Catchment Strategy (prepared under Part 4 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994)

Page 1 of 1 Urban Biodiversity Strategy 2013-2023 Map 1: Boroondara’s biodiversity corridors, biogeographical zones and biologically significant sites

3 Koonung Creek Corridor 4 BALWYN 2 6 5 8 NORTH 18 Yarra River 18 7 Eastern Freeway Corridor Glass Creek 9 35 Corridor 10 58 36 1 Bulleen Road aster Road Doncast 40 Hyde Park KEW 11 39 Corridor 34 Balwyn North Corridor EAST 33 Studley 41 32 Park 57 Kew 12 Corridor 37 38 31 Belmore Road Studley Pa dley Park Road High Street KEW Princess Street BALWYN Cotham Road 42 54 HAWTHORNA Whitehorse Road 13 43 56 Balwyn Road 53 EAST 44 ch Barkers Road 55

14 ma Church Street CANTERBURYRY 48 Denmark Street 15 46 47 45 52 CanterburySURRE Corridor Y Burwood Road HILLS d Warrigal Road HAWTHORNWT 51 Canterbury Road 16 ada Burke Road Riversdale Road CAMBERWELLCAMBERAMMB 27 Camberwell Road Riversdale Road 17 31 Outer Circle Corridor

enferrie Roa

Gle 28 Back Creek 49 Corridor 50

LEGEND Willison Wattle Park Corridor 19 Corridor Major Corridors 20 29 Gardiners Creek Corridor ToorakT Road END Creek Corridors Major Corridors GLEN IRIS Linear Corridors 21 Creek Corridors(small creeks, disused rail lines, walkways) 30 Linear Corridors Ashburton Creek (small creeks,Stepping disused Stone rail Corridors Corridor (links between parks and reserves) lines, walkways) 22 High Street SteppingBiodiversity Stone Corridors Encouragement areas (links between(where parksyou can and help reserves) by planting) 23 ASHBURTON 30 BiodiversityRoads Encouragement areas Significant sites* (where you can help by planting) Freeway National significance Roads 26 State significance FreewayBiogeographic zones 25 Regional significance 24 Yarra Floodplain Biogeographic zones Local significance Gardiners Creek Floodplain Sites with significant trees Grassy Undulations

Yarra Bend Park * As identified in the Inventory and Assessment of indigenous Flora Upper Valleys and Fauna of Boroondara (2006)

14 The Yarra River Corridor Pardalotes nest in riverbank burrows. Several species of raptors have been recorded here too and their ongoing The Yarra River and Yarra Bend Park are of national biological presence suggests a stable abundance of food. significance. There are a further nine sites along the river that Bluetongue Lizards, Gippsland Water Dragons and various are biologically significant for Victoria. snakes and skinks live amongst the reeds and vegetation River fauna along the river and are regularly spotted in gardens close by. The Yarra River and its remaining billabongs support a rich diversity of fish including the nationally vulnerable Australian Vegetation Grayling and the nationally endangered Macquarie Perch. There is an almost unbroken corridor of vegetation extending Nine native fish species including the Australian Grayling along the Yarra River from Yarra Bend Park to Freeway Golf migrate between the Yarra River and the sea as a necessary Course and beyond. This vegetation includes many rare part of their lifecycle. and endangered plant species and eight of 12 threatened habitat types or Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) found Platypus are occasionally sighted in the lower reaches of the in Boroondara. river. More common and sometimes mistaken for Platypus is Rakali − a golden bellied native water rat. This small mammal has a long white-tipped tail and looks something like an otter Key sites of significance along with its webbed feet and waterproof coat. the Yarra River Corridor Microbats use the river corridor by night to catch insects on Yarra Bend Park is Boroondara’s premier site for nature the wing. They nest during the day in tree hollows. Thousands conservation (Lorimer 2006). Its large area (143 hectares) of Grey-headed Flying Foxes live in trees at Bellbird Picnic is managed by Parks Victoria and supports a rich array of Area in Kew. At dusk they noisily leave their camp and use the vegetation types. It is home to threatened habitats, seventy reflected moonlight to follow the river before setting off across species of plants considered rare or threatened in Melbourne the suburbs in search of fruit and flowers. The Grey-headed (and Victoria) including a critically endangered species of Flying Fox is listed nationally as vulnerable to extinction. eucalypt Eucalyptus studleyensis. In addition to all the native The Flying Fox is an important seed disperser and pollinator animals that live in and around the river, the woodlands and of both native and exotic trees. grasslands on surrounding slopes provide habitat for insects The river and its riparian habitat provide nesting sites and food and birds such as honeyeaters and hollow-dependent for various ducks and other waterbirds. Azure Kingfishers parrots. Grassy woodlands are an overlooked ecosystem in and Nankeen Night Herons are relatively common along the the state and country and even smaller remnants (such as river and feed on small fish, insects and crustaceans. Small those in Boroondara) make an important contribution to larger terrestrial birds nest in foliage and locally endangered Spotted biodiversity goals beyond the City.

Key to significant sites T Gardiners Creek Corridor h Kew Residential Services Redevelopment U Burke Road South Reserve, Glen Iris i Willsmere Estate, Kew B Winfield Road Reserve, Balwyn North V Nettleton Park Reserve, Glen Iris j River Red Gum at 83 Walpole St, Kew C Koonung Creek Reserve, Balwyn North W Eric Raven Reserve, Glen Iris k River Red Gum at 10-12 Gellibrand St, Kew D Koonung Creek East of Bulleen Rd, Balwyn North X Dorothy Laver Reserve, Glen Iris l Xavier College, Kew E Freeway Golf Course, Balwyn North & Bulleen Y Ryburne Avenue Reserve & Neighbouring Tree m Kellett Reserve, Kew F Yarra Flats, Balwyn North Z Clifford Close Reserve, Ashburton n Hilda Crescent, Hawthorn G Burke Road Billabong, Kew East 8 Markham Reserve, Ashburton o Grace Park’s Yellow Gums, Hawthorn H Kew Golf Club 9 South Surrey Park, Surrey Hills p Lennox St Rail Reserve, Hawthorn I Greenacres Golf Course, Kew East : Back Creek – Riversdale Rd to Cornell St q St James Park, Hawthorn J Willsmere Park, Kew East ; Back Creek – Toorak Rd to Denman Av, Camberwell r John Gardiner Reserve, Hawthorn East K Chandler Park, Kew < Rail Reserve – Burwood Station to Alamein Station s Cato Park, Hawthorn East L Yarra Bend Park, Kew = Outer Circle Railway Corridor t Canterbury Gardens’ River Red Gum, Canterbury M River Retreat Reserve, Kew a Outer Circle Linear Park at Asquith Street, Kew u John August Reserve, Balwyn N Victoria Bridge Escarpment, Kew & Hawthorn b Stradbroke Park, Kew East v Beckett Park, Balwyn O Pridmore Park Riverbank, Hawthorn c Kew High School Woodland w Maranoa Gardens, Balwyn P Yarra Bank Reserve, Hawthorn d Hays Paddock, Kew East x Belmont Park, Canterbury Q Riverbank, Fairview Park Area, Hawthorn e Kilby Park Stud, Kew East y Deepdene Park’s River Red Gums, Balwyn R Scotch College, Hawthorn f Victoria Park, Kew (72 River Red Gums some centuries old) z Bundy Tree on Belmore Rd, Balwyn North S Yarra River, Hawthorn and Kew g Boroondara General Cemetery, Kew 4 Leigh Park, Balwyn North (no sig rating)

City of Boroondara ][ Urban Biodiversity Strategy 2013-2023 15