ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002
PLANNING STUDY
Volume 1: Planning Framework
BLUE MOUNTAINS
CITY COUNCIL
2002
Blue Mountains City Council
Environmental Management Plan 2002
Planning Study Volume 1: Planning Framework
Supporting Draft Local Environmental Plan 2002
Prepared by Sustainable Environmental & City Planning City Sustainability Group
Endorsed by Blue Mountains City Council at its meeting of 10 September 2002 for the purpose of public exhibition
Printed by Blue Mountains City Council
DISCLAIMER
Any representation, statement, opinion and advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the basis that Blue Mountains City Council, its agents and employees are not liable to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement, or advice referred to above.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME 1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF EMP 2002 2 1.3 STRUCTURE OF EMP 2002 2 1.4 THE EVOLUTION OF THE EMP PROCESS 5 2 THE EMP 2002 REVIEW PROCESS 8 2.1 OVERVIEW 8 2.2 COMMISSIONER CARLETON’S RECOMMENDATIONS 10 2.3 OTHER INFLUENCES 11 2.3.1 World Heritage 11 2.3.2 Drinking water 12 2.3.3 PlanFirst 12 2.3.4 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20: Hawkesbury–Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997)(SREP 20) 13 2.4 EXTERNAL CONSULTATION 14 2.5 PLANNING STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS BUILDING ON EMP2 15 2.5.1 Environmental constraints mapping and analysis 15 2.5.2 Riparian corridor buffer model 15 2.5.3 Vegetation mapping 16 2.5.4 Core village areas 18 2.5.5 Heritage review 21 2.5.6 Residential Character Study 23 2.5.7 Residential Subdivision Study 24 2.5.8 Retail Study 25 2.5.9 Land-use needs of business and industry 26 2.5.10 Demand for diverse housing study 27 2.5.11 Other contributing studies 27 2.6 EMP 2002 SUPPORTING STRATEGIES 28 2.6.1 Residential Development Strategy 28 2.6.2 Accessible Housing Strategy 29 3 PLANNING DIRECTIONS FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 30 3.1 THE AIM OF DRAFT LEP 2002 30 3.2 KEY PLANNING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND DRAFT LEP 2002 RESPONSE 31 3.2.1 Limiting urban expansion 31 3.2.2 Managing the environment 33 3.2.3 Meeting housing and social needs 35 3.2.4 Protecting town and residential character 37 3.2.5 Promoting local employment 40 3.2.6 Providing sustainable transport and access 41 3.3 STRUCTURE OF DRAFT LEP 2002 43 3.3.1 Written instrument 43 3.3.2 Statutory mapping 47 4 LOCALITY MANAGEMENT 48 4.1 INTRODUCTION 48 4.2 ZONES 49 4.2.1 Village – Town Centre 51 4.2.2 Village – Neighbourhood Centre 51 4.2.3 Village – Tourist 52 4.2.4 Village – Housing 52
i ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4.2.5 Living – General 53 4.2.6 Living – Conservation 54 4.2.7 Living – Bushland Conservation 55 4.2.8 Employment – General 57 4.2.9 Employment – Enterprise 57 4.2.10 Regional Transport Corridor 58 4.2.11 Recreation – Private 58 4.2.12 Recreation – Open Space 59 4.2.13 Environmental Protection – General 59 4.2.14 Environmental Protection – Open Space 60 4.3 RESIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION LANDS 61 4.3.1 Ridgewell Road, Blackheath 61 4.3.2 Riches Road/Park Road/Valley Road, Hazelbrook and Woodford area 61 4.3.3 Chapman Avenue/Martin Place, Linden 62 4.3.4 St Columba’s, Hawkesbury Road, Springwood/Winmalee 63 4.3.5 David Road, Springwood 70 4.3.6 Farm Road, Springwood 72 4.4 LOCALITY PROVISIONS 73 4.4.1 Precincts within major town centres 74 4.4.2 Village – Housing precincts 74 4.4.3 Recreation – private precincts 75 4.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 75 4.5.1 Accessible Housing Areas 76 4.5.2 Consolidation and No Subdivision requirements 76 4.5.3 Proposed Road Closures 77 4.5.4 Additional Land Uses 78 4.5.5 Special use 78 5 ASSESSING THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT 79 5.1 ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS 79 5.1.1 Site analysis 79 5.1.2 Protecting the natural environment 79 5.1.3 Character and landscape assessment 82 5.1.4 Heritage conservation 85 5.1.5 Hazard and risk assessment 88 5.2 PROTECTED AREAS 89 5.2.1 Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area 89 5.2.2 Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area 90 5.2.3 Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area 90 5.2.4 Protected Area – Water Supply Catchment 91 5.2.5 Protected Area – Escarpment Area 91 5.2.6 Protected Area – Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor 92 5.2.7 Protected Area – Period Housing Area 92 6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT 93 6.1 SUBDIVISION 93 6.2 EQUITY OF ACCESS AND HOUSING CHOICE 96 6.3 ACCESSIBLE HOUSING 96 6.4 PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES 97 6.4.1 Bed-and-breakfast establishments 97 6.4.2 Dual occupancies 97 6.4.3 Granny flats 98 6.4.4 Home employment 98 6.4.5 Proprietary food outlets 98 6.4.6 Sex establishments 99 6.5 ACQUISITION OF LAND 103
ii ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
7 OUTCOMES OF DRAFT LEP 2002 107 7.1 LIMITING URBAN EXPANSION 107 7.2 MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT 107 7.3 MEETING HOUSING AND SOCIAL NEEDS 108 7.3.1 Land supply 108 7.3.2 Alternative housing supply 109 7.3.3 Impacts on projected population 110 7.4 PROTECTING TOWN AND RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER 111 7.5 PROMOTING LOCAL EMPLOYMENT 112 7.6 PROVIDING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT AND ACCESS 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY 116
APPENDICES 121
iii ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AHA Accessible Housing Area
AHS Accessible Housing Strategy
ALU Additional Land Use
BMCC Blue Mountains City Council
DCP Development Control Plan
DH Act Disorderly Houses Act 1943 (NSW)
DHA Act Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995 (NSW)
DSC Designated Service Centre
DTM Digital Terrain Modelling
DUAP Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
EMP1 Environmental Management Plan (Stage One)
EMP2 Environmental Management Plan (Stage Two)
EMP 2002 Environmental Management Plan 2002
EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
EPA Environment Protection Authority
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth)
ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development
GIS Geographic Information System
GWH Great Western Highway
HACC Home and Community Care
HBB Home-Based Business
HCA Heritage Conservation Area
IGAE Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment
IT Information Technology
LEP Local Environmental Plan
LGA Local Government Area
iv ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
NESB Non-English-Speaking Background
NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service
RDS Residential Development Strategy 2002
RTA Roads and Traffic Authority
SDT Sustainable Development Threshold
SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy
SLA Statistical Local Area
SPS Sewage Pumping Station
SRA State Rail Authority
SREP Sydney Regional Environmental Plan
SSD Sydney Statistical Division
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)
TAFE Technical and Further Education
VMO Vegetation Management Order
WAHS Wentworth Area Health Service
WSAAS Western Sydney Area Assistance Scheme
ZCG Zoning Control Group
v ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In October 1997, Blue Mountains City Council placed Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997 (Draft LEP 1997) on public exhibition. This was a comprehensive planning scheme designed to replace the existing planning scheme, Local Environmental Plan No. 4 (LEP 4), for the urban areas of the Blue Mountains. It was intended that Draft LEP 1997 would complement Local Environmental Plan 1991 (LEP 1991), which applies to the non-urban areas of the city. The formal environmental study underpinning Draft LEP 1997 was Environmental Management Plan 2 (EMP2).
After public exhibition, Draft LEP 1997 was subject to a public hearing under section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) during June and July 1998. Commissioner Dr Mark Carleton, of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning, conducted the hearing. Commissioner Carleton’s report on the public hearing was received by Council and placed on public display in January 1999.
At the broad level, Commissioner Carleton found that the strategic direction and principles established in EMP2 were fundamentally sound. However, he identified substantial additional information that needed to be gathered, interpreted and applied to a review of Draft LEP 1997 to ensure that the intentions of EMP2 were being applied at a site-specific level. This additional information included details of environmental constraints. The commissioner also identified a wide range of specific matters within Draft LEP 1997 that required detailed review.
In March and May 1999, Council adopted a program for the comprehensive review of Draft LEP 1997, in light of the issues raised in public submissions and Commissioner Carleton’s report. The review program adopted by Council has, by necessity, been extended to take into account and address emerging planning initiatives and legislative change at both state and federal government levels. It has also resulted in the development of more sophisticated and comprehensive planning tools for use within a revised Draft LEP and the rebuilding of Draft LEP 1997 into a more contemporary planning instrument.
Both EMP2 and the review program adopted by Council have fundamentally focused on the principles of ecological sustainability, consultation and collaboration with the local community. However, the review process has been further influenced by a number of more recent factors:
• the listing of the Blue Mountains as a World Heritage National Park in November 2000; • the legislative and other Government responses to the 1998 Sydney drinking water quality incidents, which have resulted in more stringent planning and environmental management regimes for contributing catchments; • the adoption by Council of its current Management Plan, the principal focus of which is ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future’; • the Government’s review of Part 3 of the EP&A Act (PlanFirst) which is more strongly underpinned by the principles of ecological sustainability, locality-based planning and collaboration with local communities (PlanFirst will also have implications for the scope and arrangement of local plans in the near future); and • the extensive community consultation that has occurred in Stages 1 and 2 of the development of a strategy for the City of Blue Mountains for the next 25 years. This consultation has identified that the local community’s top priorities for the future are the protection and restoration of the natural environment, and the attainment of a more sustainable community lifestyle. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The review process has resulted in the development of Draft Local Environmental Plan 2002 (Draft LEP 2002) to replace Draft LEP 1997. Draft LEP 2002 is a highly contemporary and comprehensive planning instrument that will initially apply to the urban areas of the city and will form the framework for a citywide planning instrument following the review of LEP 1991 over the next few years.
Environmental Management Plan 2002 (EMP 2002) presents the results of the review process that has shaped Draft LEP 2002.
1.2 PURPOSE OF EMP 2002
It is important to note that EMP 2002 is not a formal environmental study under section 57 of the EP&A Act. EMP2, which supported Draft LEP 1997, continues to serve as the formal environmental study for the purpose of the LEP process. The status of EMP2 and its relationship with EMP 2002 was established in correspondence from the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) on 27 March 2000:
…a new LES (environmental study) need not be prepared for the revised DLEP but the information on which the draft LEP 1997 was based should be updated/amended to include new base mapping of constraints and the outcomes from the topic specific discussion papers, and to provide information on contemporary approaches used in the preparation of the Draft LEP and explain the changes required by Commissioner Carleton. (DUAP, 2000c)
Both in response to DUAP’s requirements and, more broadly, as a result of the extensive review of Draft LEP 1997, EMP 2002 serves to:
• describe the detailed review and consultation process that has been undertaken in response to Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations; • revise and build on EMP2 to provide a sound basis for Draft LEP 2002, and clear justification for the provisions of Draft LEP 2002; • identify the planning aim, principles, objectives and strategies that have emerged from the review process, and which form the basis for Draft LEP 2002; • explain the application of land-use zones, protected areas, precincts, heritage, and other provisions within Draft LEP 2002; • outline the potential outcomes of Draft LEP 2002; and • provide the planning context of the Blue Mountains with an overview of its community profile, the natural environment, the built environment and the local economy.
1.3 STRUCTURE OF EMP 2002
EMP 2002 comprises:
• this Planning Study document, in two volumes: − Volume 1 – Planning Framework; and − Volume 2 – Planning Context; • a series of supporting maps; • the supporting document Response to Commissioner Carleton’s Recommendations (BMCC 2002d); • the supporting document Accessible Housing Strategy (BMCC 2002a); and • the supporting document Residential Development Strategy 2002 (BMCC 2002c). 2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
EMP 2002 is also supported by a range of separate topic-specific studies, planning investigations and updated information gathered for the purpose of the review of EMP2 and Draft LEP 1997. This material is described in later parts of this document.
The structure and coverage of each volume of the planning study is summarised below.
Volume 1: Planning framework
Volume 1 of the planning study (i.e. this document) describes the EMP 2002 review process, and the detailed planning framework for Draft LEP 2002 that has been developed from that process. It sets out the key planning directions underpinning the plan (aims, planning principles and objectives) and provides an overview of how Draft LEP 2002 responds to the key planning directions. This Volume also explains the reasoning behind the provisions in Draft LEP 2002, including how zones, locality precincts and protected areas have been applied. Volume 1 comprises the following parts:
Part 1 The Introduction to EMP 2002 explains the background, purpose and structure of EMP 2002. It also describes how EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002 fit into the overall EMP process that commenced in the early 1980s and how they will contribute to the finalisation of a citywide planning instrument for the Blue Mountains over the next few years.
Part 2 The review process explains the process used to review EMP2 and Draft LEP 1997. It identifies the key recommendations of Commissioner Carleton and other contemporary issues and how the review process has responded to them. Part 2 also describes the planning studies, external consultation and other investigations that have built on EMP2 to produce Draft LEP 2002. It also summarises the background and purpose of the two separate Residential Development and Accessible Housing Strategies that support EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002 and form the case to government for exemption of the Blue Mountains from State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) 53 and 5 respectively.
Part 3 Planning directions for Draft LEP 2002 describes the aim, planning principles and objectives that are derived from the review process and underpin Draft LEP 2002. These key planning directions give rise to the land use and planning strategy adopted for Draft LEP 2002. Part 3 also describes the contemporary structure adopted for Draft LEP 2002.
Part 4 Locality management is the first section dealing with the detailed content and reasoning behind Draft LEP 2002. It explains the ‘place-based’ way in which zoning controls and precincts have been applied across the LGA including those for the various Residential Investigation Areas.
Part 5 Assessing the site and environmental context provides the background to new LEP provisions that require an assessment of the site, natural environment, character, and heritage constraints for proposed development. It also explains the rationale for the protected areas and heritage controls within the plan.
Part 6 Considerations for development explains the application of particular map based provisions including those related to accessible housing areas, land acquisition, ‘consolidation’ and ‘no subdivision’ requirements, proposed road closures, and additional land uses. It also explains the specific provisions for certain land uses, such as dual occupancies and sex establishments.
3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Part 7 Outcomes of the planning framework outlines the way in which Draft LEP 2002 addresses the key planning principles established in Part 3 and discusses the implications of the land use strategy underpinning Draft LEP 2002.
Volume 2: Planning context
Volume 2 of the planning study describes and explores the characteristics of the social, natural, built and economic environments of the Blue Mountains and sets the context in which the planning framework for Draft LEP 2002 was developed. It builds on the planning context of EMP2 through the planning studies, investigations and contemporary data prepared as part of the review process described in Volume 1. Volume 2 comprises the following parts:
Part 8 Introduction to the planning context outlines the scope and purpose of Volume 2 as it relates to the consideration of the community, the natural and built environment and the local economy, and its relationship to Volume 1.
Part 9 Community profile presents an updated community profile of the Blue Mountains. A range of demographic and social indicators are reported and analysed to provide an understanding of the social issues that influence Draft LEP 2002. Part 9 also describes the level of services and facilities provided in the Blue Mountains.
Part 10 Protecting the natural environment outlines the various aspects of the Blue Mountains’ natural environment and the issues for the ongoing management of that environment. The aspects covered include topography, geology, climate, hydrology, groundwater, flora and fauna, bushfire, waste and public land management. The focus of this part is to define boundaries and imperatives for the protection of the natural environment through Draft LEP 2002.
Part 11 The built environment sets the context of the built environment to provide an understanding of current and future land requirements, and ways to protect valued elements of the towns and villages through Draft LEP 2002. It traces the history of settlement, describes features of the ten main towns and villages in the Blue Mountains and discusses key issues of housing, transport, access and infrastructure.
Part 12 The local economy describes the local economy in its current form. The range of commercial and industrial land uses in the LGA and the stock of land currently available for these uses are identified, and future opportunities for expansion are discussed. Part 12 also examines the growing trend towards non-centre-based employment. It provides a background to the ways in which Draft LEP 2002 can build on the existing economy and encourage continuing local employment growth.
EMP 2002 mapping
A fundamental element of the review process has been the development of a sophisticated and comprehensive geographic information system (GIS). This improves the capability for generating accurate mapping and analysis of environmental constraints and providing other information. This has enabled an integrated map series to be produced to support both EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002. The map series comprises 12 ‘panels’ (Map Panels A to L), with each panel presenting a discrete topic or topics of information.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 map series
The first three map panels will form the statutory maps that will be gazetted as part of the new LEP:
• Map Panel A – Zones, Precincts and Provisions; • Map Panel B – Protected Areas; and • Map Panel C – Heritage Conservation and Special Use.
EMP 2002 map series
Map Panels D to L form part of EMP 2002 and cover the following topics:
• Map Panel D – Infrared Aerial Photography • Map Panel E – Significant Vegetation Communities / Ecological Buffer Areas • Map Panel F – Slope • Map Panel G – Existing Heritage (LEP 1991) • Map Panel H – LEP 4 / LEP 1991 Compilation • Map Panel I – Character • Map Panel J – Sewerage • Map Panel K - Draft LEP 1997 • Map Panel L – Public Land
The formal EMP 2002 map series is also supported by a wide range of geographic and environmental mapping available on Council’s corporate GIS.
1.4 THE EVOLUTION OF THE EMP PROCESS
Draft LEP 2002 has evolved from a lengthy planning process for the Blue Mountains. It has its origins in Council’s decision to prepare a new citywide planning scheme in the early 1980s through the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) project. The history of that planning process is complex, and can be summarised as follows:
• Blue Mountains LEP 4 was gazetted as a citywide planning scheme in 1982. LEP 4 was one of the earliest comprehensive LEPs in NSW under the new EP&A Act; however, it lacked clearly defined environmental management objectives and strategies, and gave no clear directions for the future. • In 1983, Council resolved to prepare the Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to assess the interaction between the natural and built environment, consider the suitability of land for development and provide guidelines for future growth. • Work progressed on the EMP between 1985 and 1988, based initially on ten separate planning studies corresponding to individual study areas. However, the sensitive fringe areas of the city were coming under increasing development pressure at that time. Environmental strategies for the fringe areas were needed as soon as possible, and it was recognised that the EMP process needed to be rationalised. Consequently, the EMP process was divided into two stages. • EMP Stage 1 (EMP1) focused on the critical environmentally sensitive outlying areas of the city, including Megalong Valley, the Mounts and Berambing, plus all existing non- urban areas, urban fringe areas, land zoned Rural, and environmentally sensitive areas
5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
within the towns. As a result of the EMP1 investigations, LEP 1991 was gazetted in December 1991, covering the above areas. • Between 1994 and 1995, work on EMP Stage 2 (EMP2) was undertaken; this covered the urban and residential investigation areas of the city. This work was based on five study areas and resulted in the development of a series of Planning Reports (local environmental studies for the purposes of the EP&A Act), management issues studies (covering heritage, recreation, community services and facilities, population and tourism), and a Planning Strategy, which provided a strategic framework for the future of the city. • Between 1995 and 1997, Draft LEP 1997 was prepared. This was based on the planning studies and planning strategy developed during the EMP2 process. Draft LEP 1997 was supported by a series of Development Control Plans (DCPs) dealing with residential development, subdivision, the tourist zone and development in the main villages. • In late 1997 and early 1998, Draft LEP 1997 and the supporting DCPs were placed on public exhibition. The exhibition attracted significant public interest, with 937 submissions received. Consequently, Council conducted an extensive public hearing into Draft LEP 1997 in June and July 1998, chaired by Dr Mark Carleton of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning. Some 311 submissions were made to the public hearing. • Commissioner Carleton delivered his report on the public hearing in January 1999, which made a large number of recommendations relating to Draft LEP 1997. The nature and extent of Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations required a program of review spanning a number of years, and significant resources needed to be allocated to the task. As with the split of the earlier EMP process, it was recognised that the review would need to take place in stages. • Stage 1 of the review focused on the development of important environmental management tools that are required across the entire LEP area. Stage 2 focused on the core commercial and immediate surrounding areas of the ten main towns and villages (core village areas). This allowed intensive, collaborative planning work to be undertaken with local communities to develop distinct ’place-based‘ outcomes for each core village area. • However, efficiencies in process and the allocation of additional resources made it possible to merge the two stages and present one comprehensive plan to replace LEP 4. This has resulted in the development of Draft LEP 2002, which is the subject of this planning study.
Once gazetted, Draft LEP 2002 will provide a new planning scheme for the urban areas of the city in the short term, and will provide the framework for the development of a comprehensive citywide planning scheme. The next stages of the EMP process will involve the following:
• There will be a detailed review of LEP 1991. That review will produce more accurate mapping, analysis and application of environmental constraint information for the LEP 1991 areas, to a level consistent with that of Draft LEP 2002. The environmental planning tools and provisions developed for Draft LEP 2002 will also be applied to the LEP 1991 areas, and there will be a review of items of environmental and cultural heritage in those areas. • The revised LEP 1991, together with the gazetted Draft LEP 2002, will be consolidated into a single plan for the city.
The overall evolution of the EMP process is illustrated in Figure 1.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
EMP
EMP1 EMP2 (Non-urban areas) (Urban areas)
Draft LEP Supporting
Draft LEP 1991 1997 DCPs (Exhibited April to June (Exhibited end 1989) 1997 to early 1998)
Public hearing Public hearing (June & July 1998) (November/December 1989)
EMP 2002 LEP Review process 1991 (Gazetted 19 December 1991) Draft LEP 2002 (Stages 1 & 2)
Public exhibition Amendment 25 (Gazetted 23 March 2001)
LEP 2002 (Gazetted)
Review of LEP 1991 environmental info, zone application and Fine-tuning planning provisions (Stage 3) of LEP 2002 if required
Consolidated citywide planning instrument (Stage 3) (St 3)
Figure 1: Evolution of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) process
7 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
2 THE EMP 2002 REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 OVERVIEW
The review of Draft LEP 1997 to produce Draft LEP 2002 has been an enormous undertaking. The process has involved extensive information-gathering, research and analysis, background studies, the development of new technology and innovative approaches to identify and protect key values in the City of Blue Mountains, consultation, policy development and on- the-ground validation. The key elements of the review process were:
• a detailed review of Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations, to establish a program of additional studies, consultation, information-gathering and analysis; • identification and analysis of emerging planning imperatives, techniques, legislative change and broader national, local community and environmental issues; and, where these had the potential to influence the nature of the review, analysis of the work needed to develop appropriate responses; • a diverse and comprehensive program of external consultation and collaboration with government and non-government agencies, key stakeholder groups, local industry, interest and technical reference groups, and local communities across the city; • collection and analysis of the necessary environmental and other background information at the appropriate level of accuracy; and • a wide range of topic-specific planning studies, in response both to Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations and to other current and emerging issues.
The interactions between the major elements of the review process are illustrated in Figure 2.
8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
EMP 2 DLEP 1997
Public exhibition/hearing
Commissioner Carleton’s review/recommendations
External Constraint Additional Core Village consultation mapping and planning Area GIS analysis studies workshops
Emerging planning issues/legislation
EMP 2002 Draft LEP 2002
Figure 2: EMP 2002 review process
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
2.2 COMMISSIONER CARLETON’S RECOMMENDATIONS
The public hearing into Draft LEP 1997 was the largest of its kind in NSW, spanning some four weeks during June and July 1998. This reflected the extensive coverage of Draft LEP 1997 and the level of public interest that it attracted, with some 311 submissions being made to the hearing.
Commissioner Carleton released his report on the public hearing in December 1998. Within his report, the Commissioner made the following statements in relation to the Draft LEP:
The plan is generally comprehensive and founded on sound principles … overall the Commission largely concurs with Council’s strategies and intentions. (Carleton 1998, p. vii)
At the broadest level ... (the) DLEP provides an appropriate balance between development and growth. However, the Commission is concerned over the lack of information presented at the individual or precinct level to justify certain proposed zonings. (Carleton 1998, p. vii).
While commending the environmental study (EMP2), Commissioner Carleton recommended that substantial additional information detailing environmental constraints be collected and applied to a review of the plan to ensure that the intentions of Draft LEP 1997 were being achieved at a site-specific level.
Commissioner Carleton made many individual recommendations in relation to both broad and site-specific issues. A summary of his key findings and recommendations is provided below:
• The application of the Environmental Protection zones should be reviewed and the cost of acquiring this land should be clearly identified, to allow an appropriate balance between financial planning and environmental protection to be achieved. In addition, environmentally sensitive land within recreation zones should be zoned Open Space – Environmental Protection in recognition of this sensitivity. • The commissioner supported the proposed zoning of the land in North Katoomba and North Leura (Yosemite) for Environmental Protection and the ongoing acquisition of this land. • The environmental capacity of land should be considered in the assessment of areas that are appropriate for alternative housing zones (such as the Village - Housing zone). Although Commissioner Carleton supported the location of these zones in areas adjoining service centres and public transport nodes, he highlighted the need to reconsider the proposed multi-unit housing zones in Leura, Glenbrook and Lawson, and consider additional potential for this form of housing surrounding Katoomba. • Three additional Protected Areas should be identified within the Draft LEP: for watercourses, steep slopes and high to extreme bushfire threat areas. In addition, Council should clarify the legal status of protected areas and ensure that the underlying zoning is sufficient to prevent undesirable land uses. • A hierarchy of watercourse buffers should be developed in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and introduced into a revised draft LEP for the urban areas. Buffers to significant vegetation should be 60 metres in width. • A schedule of locally significant flora and fauna habitats should be incorporated within the Draft LEP. • A population threshold limit for the Blue Mountains should be determined on the basis of the environmental capacity of land to support development.
10 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Provisions relating to erosion and sediment control, stormwater management and on- site effluent disposal should be incorporated into the Draft LEP. • Zone application should be based on the objectives of the zones and be applied consistently across the city. In particular, the application of the Living - Conservation zone should be reviewed and justified. • The removal of the Special Use zones within the Draft LEP should be reviewed, and opportunities to allow places of worship in certain villages across the Blue Mountains (such as Medlow Bath) should be considered. • The permissibility and zoning of sex establishments should reflect community input. The commissioner raised specific concerns about how sex establishments would operate and where they would be located in relation to sensitive land uses such as schools. • The application of the Employment zone should be reviewed, particularly in environmentally sensitive locations. This could result in the application of Environmental Protection zones and/or Protected Areas within or in place of the Employment zone. • Stringent requirements should be imposed on developments in unsewered areas to ensure that environmental degradation does not occur. Clauses from LEP 1991 should be incorporated into the Draft LEP in relation to the provision of services and consideration of environmental impact. • The ability of the Draft LEP to adequately conserve heritage should be reviewed, particularly in relation to site/area-specific issues and the application of Heritage Conservation Areas. • The general intentions of the subdivision provisions were supported. However, additional investigations were required to support the introduction of more stringent minimum lot sizes in the Living - Conservation zone. Additionally, the possibility of prohibiting development on constrained land for land subdivided under the provisions of the Draft LEP should be investigated. • Building height provisions within the Draft LEP should be reviewed and clarified. • Site-specific recommendations were made in relation to the Residential Investigation Areas, particularly the St Columba’s site at Winmalee. • Concerns were raised regarding the application of the Environmental Protection and Recreation – Environmental Protection zones. These concerns were particularly related to the accuracy of the information on which these zones were based, and the consistency with which they were applied.
Throughout the review process the preparation of Draft LEP 2002 has been guided by the recommendations of Commissioner Carleton. A summary of the manner in which Draft LEP 2002 responds to Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations is presented in a separate supporting document, Response to Commissioner Carleton’s Recommendations (BMCC 2002d).
2.3 OTHER INFLUENCES
The focus, structure and content of Draft LEP 2002 have been influenced in their development by a range of planning trends and legislative changes. Some of the key planning issues are described below.
2.3.1 World Heritage
On 29 November 2000 the one million hectare Greater Blue Mountains area was announced as Australia's 14th World Heritage Area. The area was nominated for its outstanding universal natural values, including the globally outstanding biodiversity of its plant and animal 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 communities, its vegetation dominated by Australia’s unique eucalypts, and the superlative beauty of its natural landscapes.
World Heritage listing of the Greater Blue Mountains area:
• grants international recognition of Australia’s eucalypt forests and other sclerophyll (‘hard-leaved’) vegetation; • includes the largest protected, most intact, sclerophyll forest wilderness remaining within a broad range of temperate climates; and • provides an exceptional living example of evolution of the modern Australian flora to its present distinctive character, in the classic Australian circumstances of low-fertility soils, a drying climate and geographic isolation.
The listed property consists of seven outstanding national parks, as well as the Jenolan Caves Karst Conservation Reserve. These include Blue Mountains, Wollemi, Yengo, Nattai, Kanangra- Boyd, Gardens of Stone and Thirlmere Lakes National Parks.
The listing does not apply to lands managed by the Blue Mountains City Council and does not directly impose any statutory requirements on local government for the lands within the World Heritage Area.
The listing does, however, impose obligations in relation to development control and land management. Council has a responsibility to develop strong, clear, integrated policies and action plans to contain and manage growth, protect biodiversity and identify and mitigate adverse impacts on the World Heritage Area, which derive from the settled areas of the city. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) identifies activities impacting on World Heritage Areas as being of national environmental significance.
The listing has reinforced the existing emphasis of Draft LEP 2002 on ecological sustainability, which is the fundamental basis for its principles, objectives, zone application and provisions.
2.3.2 Drinking water
The pollution of Sydney’s drinking water in mid-1998 precipitated an inquiry into the cause of the pollution incidents. The inquiry revealed a large number of land uses within the Sydney catchment area that have the potential to pollute the water supply. In response to the inquiry’s findings, the NSW Government enacted legislation to establish a Sydney Catchment Authority and a regional environmental plan (REP) to ensure the supply of clean water. In the interim, State Environmental Planning Policy No 58 – Protecting Sydney’s Water Supply (SEPP 58) ensures more stringent assessment and management of proposed development within catchments contributing to Sydney’s water supply.
Throughout the development of Draft LEP 2002, there has been close liaison with the Sydney Catchment Authority, both through consultations required under section 62 of the EP&A Act and through Council’s participation on the Regional Advisory Committee for the preparation of the new REP. The approach to the application of zones and protected areas, as well as the development of provisions related to catchment management within Draft LEP 2002, reflect this cooperation. Provisions within Draft LEP 2002 also reflect the current requirements of SEPP 58 and the Draft REP.
2.3.3 PlanFirst
In 1998 the Government embarked on a reform of Part 3 of the EP&A Act, which relates to plan-making in NSW. Following a lengthy process of review and consultation, DUAP has developed and refined proposals for legislative change. This reform package is known as
12 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
PlanFirst (DUAP 2001a). The purpose of PlanFirst is to simplify the plan-making system by reducing the number and layers of plans applying to land and making those plans easy to find and understand. It is also strengthening the approach to regional planning as the important link between planning for the state and for local areas.
PlanFirst has its fundamental basis in principles of ecological sustainability. It promotes integrated ‘place-based’ or ‘locality-based’ planning (as discussed in subsection 4.1) as a framework for planning at all levels.
PlanFirst proposes three tiers of plans for NSW: local plans, regional strategies and state policies. A local plan will be a single plan for a local (council) area that coordinates actions and contains all land-use controls for a site. It will incorporate a vision, policies, an action plan and regulatory provisions, and will therefore remove the distinction between the controls currently covered separately by LEPs and DCPs.
At the broad level, Plan First seeks to formalise, within the EP&A Act, the more integrated, place-based approaches to planning that have been pursued and advocated by Blue Mountains City Council for several years.
Draft LEP 2002 has been specifically developed in line with the directions advocated under Plan First, in consultation with the Policy Reform Unit of DUAP. It has also been designed to integrate readily with other plans and strategies as envisaged for Local Plans under Plan First.
2.3.4 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20: Hawkesbury–Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997)(SREP 20)
In 1997, the state government revised its SREP 20 to improve the regional planning framework for the Hawkesbury–Nepean River Catchment. The new SREP 20 strengthens integrated environmental planning and catchment management through a comprehensive set of policies, strategies and controls which influence all planning and development in the catchment.
SREP 20 identifies a number of ‘conservation area sub-catchments’ that contribute to, and are important to the health of, the Hawkesbury–Nepean River Catchment. A number of these sub-catchments cover significant parts of the City of Blue Mountains, and in particular the area covered by Draft LEP 2002. Among other things, SREP 20 places restrictions on clearing, rezoning, and subdivision and development of land within the conservation area sub- catchments. SREP 20 also introduces specific controls to protect and enhance the scenic quality of the riverine corridor of the Hawkesbury–Nepean.
In June 1999, Blue Mountains City Council made representations to state government to include the Middle Nepean sub-catchment as a conservation area sub-catchment for the purposes of the application of SREP 20. In response, DUAP advised that this matter needed to be considered in the context of a detailed future review of SREP 20. However, DUAP’s further advice to Council was:
Council could identify the Middle-Nepean sub-catchment as a conservation sub- catchment and apply the controls in SREP 20 in the relevant Local Environmental Plan. (DUAP 2000d)
The SREP 20 criteria relating to the rezoning of land within the conservation area sub- catchments have been adopted in the application of zones for Draft LEP 2002, including land within the Middle Nepean sub-catchment. All other provisions of SREP 20 that are relevant to the Blue Mountains have been incorporated into Draft LEP 2002.
13 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
2.4 EXTERNAL CONSULTATION
The preparation of Draft LEP 2002 has involved extensive consultation with external parties on a wide range of issues. This has included, but is not limited to the following:
• DUAP provided advice on requirements for the planning process, exemption from SEPP 5, and the structure and content of Draft LEP 2002, including its ability to be translated into a local Plan as envisaged by Plan First. • The Blue Mountains Heritage Advisory Committee, including representatives from all active local heritage groups, has provided invaluable input. The Advisory Committee has aided the development of the Heritage Study and Heritage Register by providing extensive and detailed historical and heritage information to Council and its consultants, scrutinising the final products, and advising on proposed inclusions to, and deletions from, the register. • The Blue Mountains Access Committee worked extensively with Council officers in identifying access issues that needed to be addressed in the provisions of Draft LEP 2002, and in ground testing potential sites for village housing. The committee also provided input to the consideration of housing for older people and people with a disability. • A series of technical reference group workshops took place, involving government authorities, industry and conservation group representatives and other technical experts. These workshops were used to discuss and test the concepts developed for Draft LEP 2002. The following parties were represented: − Department of Urban Affairs and Planning – Sydney West Regional Office; − Department of Housing; − Blue Mountains Conservation Society; − National Parks and Wildlife Service; − Hawkesbury – Nepean Catchment Management Trust; − Environmental Protection Authority; − Royal Australian Institute of Architects; − Building Designers Association; − Master Builders Association; − GROW Regional Employment Council; and − Blue Mountains Chamber of Commerce. • Formal consultation took place with 48 government authorities and adjoining councils in accordance with section 62 of the EP&A Act. Appendix 1: Consultation in accordance with Section 62 of EP&A Act provides a list of the authorities consulted. • Some 3750 local residents and stakeholder group representatives took part in design- based planning workshops for the core village areas of nine out of the ten main towns and villages of the city. This work included the Katoomba Charrette, which underpinned Council’s adopted Katoomba Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy. Similar design-based planning workshops will be undertaken for the core village area of Lawson. This will form part of the broader Lawson Town Centre Redevelopment Project, which responds to the state government’s upgrading of the Great Western Highway through Lawson.
14 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
2.5 PLANNING STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS BUILDING ON EMP2
2.5.1 Environmental constraints mapping and analysis
In the light of the review of both Commissioner Carleton’s findings and Draft LEP 1997, Council launched an extensive program to capture and analyse the necessary background information at the appropriate level of accuracy to supplement and enhance EMP2. This included, but was not limited to, base environmental information and mapping for:
• slopes; • soils and erosion capability; • escarpments; • bushfire hazard; • catchment analysis; • watercourses; • riparian zones; • significant vegetation communities; and • detailed servicing and infrastructure information and mapping for water, sewerage, roads and other infrastructure.
A sophisticated geographic information system (GIS) was developed to capture, manage, analyse and apply this information in combination with other mapped information derived from specialist studies.
Aerial laser scanning technology, imported to Australia and developed by Council in conjunction with BHP, greatly enhanced this process. Airborne laser scanning is developed especially for capturing elevation data over large areas. Digital terrain modelling (DTM) was used to analyse the information from the aerial laser scanning. The DTM provided core information on height, slope and aspect.
An analysis of the core information has provided information on hydrological catchments, escarpments, vegetation, heights, extent and density of vegetation and terrain volume calculations. The DTM was integrated with ortho rectified infrared photography and extensive field study and validation.
The resulting data layers have made possible accurate mapping of various zones, protected areas and map-based provisions within Draft LEP 2002.
2.5.2 Riparian corridor buffer model
The riparian zone consists of the bank and edge of watercourses and lakes, while the term ‘riparian corridor’ usually refers to the vegetation growing within the riparian zone. The riparian vegetation plays a critical role in stabilising stream banks, providing habitat to flora and fauna, and moderating the chemical and physical properties of the water itself.
The benefits that buffers provide to riparian (streamside) corridors are well documented and generally accepted. Buffers to riparian corridors moderate the impact from development- related disturbance such as sedimentation and erosion, alterations to surface water runoff, weed encroachment and habitat destruction. The maintenance of riparian corridor buffers contributes to improving water quality, maintaining essential biological and ecological
15 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 processes of riparian systems and protecting sensitive habitat for terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
The appropriate width of a buffer to protect each watercourse depends on various factors. These include catchment management and water quality objectives, and catchment characteristics including catchment and watercourse sensitivity, land use, development impact potential, vegetation cover, slope, soil type, erodibility and climate. Arbitrary buffer widths are often prescribed in planning instruments and legislation, and these do not account for the variables and characteristics of individual watercourses or their catchments.
A mathematical model, the Blue Mountains Riparian Corridor Buffer Model (the Buffer Model) has been developed to determine appropriate buffer widths for watercourses in the Blue Mountains. The model provides a means of identifying and mapping a variable buffer that best reflects the individual requirements of each watercourse.
The Buffer Model was developed and refined though a joint project involving a range of stakeholders in a steering committee. The primary objectives of the Buffer Model project were to:
• identify the location of watercourses on all land included in the Draft LEP 2002 area, through analysis of the DTM and interpretation of digital ortho-rectified infrared aerial photographs; • identify a hierarchy of watercourse buffer requirements in the Blue Mountains, utilising a GIS; • develop a model utilising methodology and information that was readily available, cost effective and able to be adapted for use by other local government authorities and land managers; and • identify and map a variable buffer to watercourse corridors for inclusion as a Protected Area – Ecological Buffer in Draft LEP 2002.
A detailed description of the Buffer Model is provided in Appendix 2: Riparian Corridor Buffer.
2.5.3 Vegetation mapping
The native vegetation of the city was mapped by consultants Douglas and Bell, using infrared aerial photography that was flown as part of the Bioindicators Study (NPWS 1999). Part of this photography was ortho-rectified using ER Mapper until grey-scale photography became available for this purpose.
Vegetation mapping commenced in early 1999 and consisted of aerial photo interpretation supplemented by field validation and quadrat data. Where possible, the consultants built upon and incorporated botanical work previously undertaken in the Blue Mountains.
This citywide mapping represents a significant improvement on what was previously available. Previous mapping was confined mainly to the urban areas, and used conventional true colour photography at scales of 1:15 000 and 1:25 000. This placed significant limitations on the ability to detect some vegetation communities and accurately define community boundaries. The new data has considerably improved the accuracy of both the mapping and photo-interpretation of vegetation communities. Vegetation across the city has now been mapped to a minimum resolution of 1:6000.
This new vegetation mapping became available late in the process of developing Draft LEP 2002, and has not yet been fully field inspected and validated; it is anticipated that this will be completed across the city over the next 18 months.
16 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Ground inspection and validation of the new mapping has been completed at all locations where the vegetation community was identified under the TSC Act. Additionally, the location and identity of many vegetation communities was validated where previous mapping for EMP2 was confirmed by the new vegetation mapping.
One of the uses to which the new mapping has been directed is to provide a citywide context for assessing which communities are of conservation significance. While this comprehensive level of detail is now available for the urban areas of the city, no equivalent data is available for the national park or the Sydney Basin Bioregion. This makes it difficult to provide a regional context in which to assess significance. However, one of the planning principles on which Draft LEP 2002 is based, the precautionary principle, states that where there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage ‘the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation’. Thus communities have been recognised as significant on the basis of available information in EMP2 and the new mapping. Over time, as more regional information becomes available, the relative significance of these communities may change. It is likely, for example, that many communities listed as locally significant within the LGA will prove to be of regional significance.
Vegetation communities have been scheduled as significant within the City of Blue Mountains if they satisfy one or more of the following criteria:
• national significance − listed, or proposed for listing, under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth); • state significance − listed, or proposed for listing, on Schedule 1 or 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW); and/or • local significance − listed on Schedule 3 of LEP 1991; − rare and/or restricted distribution within the City of Blue Mountains or the Sydney Basin Bioregion; − poorly represented or not represented within the Blue Mountains National Park; − required to protect hydrological functions; − provide habitat for rare, threatened or ultra-endemic fauna or flora species; and − threatened or degraded over most of its geographic range.
Knowledge of the sensitive vegetation communities of the Blue Mountains is derived from a number of sources. The 1988 survey of significant vegetation communities (Smith and Smith 1988, in BMCC 1989) for EMP1 provided the basis for the original Schedule 3 of LEP 1991. The survey recognised seven significant vegetation communities across the city. An eighth was added in September 1997 (Amendment 23). Each of these community listings was accompanied by a very general description.
Further vegetation mapping was undertaken as part of EMP2 for Draft LEP 1997 (Smith and Smith 1995a–e). This survey applied only to the urban areas, and while 19 significant communities were identified and ten of these were mapped, the authors acknowledged that there were more communities of significance in the LEP 1991 areas that they did not map. Further detail and definition of the 19 communities was provided in 1998 (Smith and Smith 1998), and this was used as the starting point for the revised Schedule of Significant Vegetation Communities.
17 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The vegetation communities which have been recognised as significant based on the new citywide mapping include:
• communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act; • communities already scheduled under LEP1991; • communities which have been recognised as significant in earlier vegetation surveys (e.g. Smith and Smith 1988, 1995a–e); and • new communities not previously identified as significant.
These communities, and further botanical definitions, were added to Smith and Smith’s work to form the revised Schedule for Draft LEP 2002, encompassing the 24 significant vegetation communities identified in Table 1.
Table 1: Significant communities within Blue Mountains LGA Community name Significance Ceratopetalum apetalum – Doryphora sassafras rainforest Local Backhousia myrtifolia – Ceratopetalum apetalum rainforest Local Moist basalt cap forest (Eucalyptus viminalis – E. blaxlandii – E. radiata) Local Blue Mountains shale cap forest (Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera – E. state cypellocarpa) Shale sandstone transition forest (Syncarpia glomulifera – E. crebra – E. punctata) state Sydney turpentine-ironbark forest (Syncarpia glomulifera – E. crebra – E. notabilis) national Eucalyptus deanei – E. piperita tall open forest/open forest local Eucalyptus cypellocarpa – E. piperita tall open forest/open forest local Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest/open forest local Eucalyptus dalrympleana – E. piperita tall open forest local Eucalyptus amplifolia tall open forest state Montane gully forest (E. fastigata – E. cypellocarpa – E. dalrympleana) local Casuarina cunninghamiana ‘river oak’ forest local Eucalyptus radiata – E. piperita open forest local Blue gum riverflat forest (E. deanei) local Melaleuca linariifolia low open forest local Eucalyptus gullickii alluvial woodland local Eucalyptus sclerophylla bench woodland local Blue Mountains heath and scrub local Blue Mountains swamps local Pagoda rock complex local Lagoon vegetation local Riparian complex local Blue Mountains escarpment complex local A description of the conservation significance, values and threats of each of the scheduled vegetation communities is provided in Appendix 3: Significant Vegetation Communities. Full descriptions of the communities are provided within Schedule 5 of Draft LEP 2002.
2.5.4 Core village areas
The submissions to both the public exhibition and the public hearing into Draft LEP 1997 raised a broad range of issues relating to the commercial centres and the immediate areas surrounding the main villages of the city. One of the criticisms of Draft LEP 1997 related to a perception that it did not represent an appropriate means of managing change and development within the village areas. The Blue Mountains have long been regarded as
18 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
‘special’. The various villages and townships of the Blue Mountains, each with its own unique character, are an important representation of that special character.
It was recognised that there is both a social and economic imperative to retain the sense of character and individuality of the villages. However, it was also recognised that this must take account of changing social, environmental and other economic considerations such as:
• the increasing role of tourism; • the changing retail patterns; • the need to create employment opportunities; • the demand for diverse housing options; • the proximity of villages to the highway and rail corridor; and • the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).
In order to implement Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations effectively, and in recognition of the superior outcomes being delivered through more collaborative ‘place- based’ planning in NSW, Council resolved to undertake the review of Draft LEP 1997 in stages. Stage 1 focused on planning for the urban areas of the city, apart from areas covered by Stage 2. Stage 2 addressed the ‘core areas’ of the following main villages of the city:
• Mount Victoria; • Blackheath; • Katoomba; • Leura; • Wentworth Falls; • Lawson; • Hazelbrook; • Springwood; • Blaxland; and • Glenbrook.
Plans showing the boundaries of the core village areas are included in Appendix 4: Core Village Areas.
Council subsequently engaged consultants to assist in the undertaking of a ‘place-based’ planning process for each of the identified village areas. This involved:
• a detailed character analysis of the villages; • a review of economic and retail dynamics, trends and projected demand for floor space in each village (this is discussed in further detail in subsection 2.5.9); • environmental analysis of the centres and their surrounding areas; and • local design-based community planning workshops to determine the local community’s own aspirations and values for each of the village areas.
The scale and relative importance of Katoomba as the principal tourist and district commercial centre warranted further analysis and community input. Accordingly, a separate, intensive series of planning workshops (or ‘charrette’) was undertaken for Katoomba. This work engaged over 2000 local residents, business owners and operators and other key stakeholders, and resulted in the adoption by Council of the Katoomba Town Centre Charrette Outcome Report and Revitalisation Strategy in June 1999. That report is
19 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 supported and supplemented by a range of contemporary planning studies and other inputs for Katoomba including:
• the draft ‘village’ DCP that supported Draft LEP 1997; • Commissioner Carleton’s review of Draft LEP 1997; • a character analysis by urban design consultants; • the Katoomba Retail Assessment undertaken by Hill PDA; and • the Katoomba Heritage Façade Improvement Study.
In combination, these processes have enabled significant community and professional input into both broader planning strategies and the development of draft planning provisions for inclusion in Draft LEP 2002 for Katoomba.
The ‘place-based’ planning process engaged some 3750 people as part of both the Katoomba Charrette and local community workshops in the other Stage 2 villages. This enabled a set of planning controls to be produced for each village, focusing on the unique qualities and characteristics of the various village areas. The planning controls include the application of appropriate zones to control land use and the identification of individual precincts that display consistent function and/or design characteristics.
The core village area of Lawson is the only village centre in Stage 2 for which specific design- based workshops have yet to be undertaken for the purpose of Draft LEP 2002. The commercial centre of Lawson is the subject of a significant redevelopment project, as part of the state government’s commitment to upgrade the Great Western Highway to four lanes from Penrith to Katoomba. Extensive planning studies and community consultation have been undertaken over a number of years in relation to the nature and extent of the highway widening and the future form of the town centre; however, the preferred option adopted by the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) for Lawson has only recently been announced.
Substantial planning and design work, the preparation of appropriate environmental studies by the RTA and statutory processes for both the Highway and the Lawson Town Centre will be undertaken over the first half of 2002.
Most of this work needs to be complete, or well advanced, before precinct controls for Lawson can be developed. Precinct controls for Lawson will therefore need to be incorporated as an early amendment to the gazetted Draft LEP 2002.
Nevertheless, Council recognised that deferring the zoning of land in the Lawson core village area until the precinct controls can be developed would leave Lawson as the only part of the city subject to the current outdated zoning and general provisions under LEP 4. Bringing Lawson under the proposed Draft LEP 2002 zones as an interim measure would afford it the same general protection as the other towns in the city. This approach was therefore adopted by Council on 18 September 2002.
Appropriate interim zones have been selected for Lawson, according to the zone criteria applied across Stages 1 and 2 of Draft LEP 2002. Selection of zones was also influenced by:
• the Lawson Township Study (BBC Consulting Planners 1998) and the significant community input received on that study; • the subsequent ‘preferred option’ for the Lawson Redevelopment Project, developed in response to community input on the Lawson Township Study and the Lawson Town Centre Retail Impact Assessment (Hill PDA 1999), and endorsed by Council and the RTA; • other supporting studies undertaken for both Lawson and Draft LEP 2002; and
20 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations in relation to the public hearing for Draft LEP 1997.
Any fine-tuning of zones or zone boundaries will occur as part of the LEP amendment required to introduce the specific precinct controls for Lawson, once these are developed in conjunction with the local community.
2.5.5 Heritage review
The review of Draft LEP 1997 included a review of the existing Blue Mountains Heritage Register and the heritage planning provisions of Draft LEP 1997. The existing Heritage Register is based on an early heritage study (Croft and Associates with Meredith Walker 1983) and the Heritage Study Review (Tropman and Tropman, left incomplete in 1992). Previously, the assessed items were introduced into Council’s planning provisions through Schedule 2 of LEP 1991.
Council initiated a review of the Heritage Register for the area covered by Draft LEP 2002, with the following aims:
• to review the status of listings and potential listings; • to provide supporting data for each listing as a matter of best heritage practice; and • to facilitate the implementation of the planning provisions with respect to the schedule of items and conservation areas.
The review applied contemporary professional practice and a new format for heritage inventory data sheets, to improve the nature and coverage of the data used to support recommended listings. The new data sheets include a statement of heritage significance, descriptive information supporting the listing and guidance as to the management of each heritage item.
The review took place in stages, identical to those adopted for the review of Draft LEP 1997, to allow more efficient and effective use of specialist consultants. Stage 1 of the review reassessed the heritage of the city’s urban areas, from Lapstone to Mount Victoria. It excluded the core village areas of the ten main towns and villages identified in subsection 2.5.4.
The total number of properties assessed for Stage 1 of the review was 457. These included:
• 300 items already listed in Schedule 2 of LEP 1991; • 62 other properties in the same urban areas that had been suggested for investigation and possible listing in a future LEP, including items suggested by the local community; • five heritage conservation areas in Wentworth Falls (WF 044 and WF 073), Leura (LA 029) and Lawson (LN 025 and LN 030); and • 23 additional properties in proposed group listings in Blackheath, Medlow Bath, Mount Victoria, Wentworth Falls and Winmalee.
Stage 2 focused on the review of the heritage register for the core village areas. This was a significantly more complex and extensive task, due to the concentration of intact heritage fabric within the core village areas. Stage 2 was therefore broken into the following components, to allow a number of heritage teams to undertake the work and to achieve appropriate economies of scale:
• Glenbrook (22 items assessed, 17 recommended listings); • Katoomba, Leura and the Katoomba to Echo Point tourist precincts along Katoomba and Lurline Streets (179 items assessed, 134 recommended listings); 21 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Mount Victoria, Blackheath and Wentworth Falls (350 properties surveyed, 118 recommended listings); • Hazelbrook, Springwood and Blaxland (yet to be assessed); and • Lawson (yet to be assessed).
The revised listings of heritage items resulting from the review of the Heritage Register for the core village areas of Glenbrook, Katoomba, Leura, Mount Victoria, Blackheath and Wentworth Falls have been incorporated within the Schedule of Draft LEP 2002.
A team of consultants from the University of Sydney, led by Principal Consultant, Associate Professor R. Ian Jack, undertook Stage 1 of the review and the Stage 2 assessments of Leura and Katoomba. The assessments for Mount Victoria, Blackheath and Wentworth Falls (Stage 2) were undertaken by a team headed by Rod Howard, Principal of Rod Howard Heritage Conservation Architects. These teams brought the expertise of historians, conservation architects, archaeologists and conservation landscape architects, as well as extensive computer resources, to the projects.
The consultants’ work has been undertaken within the context of the Burra Charter (the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) as revised in 1999, which provides:
...guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australia ICOMOS members.
Conservation is an integral part of the management of places of cultural significance and is an ongoing responsibility. (Australia ICOMOS Inc. 2000, p. 1)
Heritage items, conservation areas and groupings in the core village areas of Hazelbrook, Springwood and Blaxland will not be reviewed completely before the gazettal of Draft LEP 2002. The current listings in Schedule 2 of LEP 1991 for these core village areas have been temporarily incorporated into Schedule 7 of Draft LEP 2002, and will benefit from protection under its more contemporary heritage provisions. However, the review of these heritage listings is nearing completion. When the review is complete, it is expected that changes to heritage listings for these core village areas will be incorporated into Schedule 7 as an early amendment to the gazetted Draft LEP 2002.
The review of the Heritage Register for the core village area of Lawson is part of a broader heritage study and impact assessment associated with the upgrading of the Great Western Highway and the redevelopment of the Lawson Town Centre, as discussed in subsection 2.5.4. When that work is complete, a revised listing of heritage items, conservation areas and groupings for the core village area of Lawson will be incorporated into Schedule 7. This will form part of the early amendment to the gazetted Draft LEP 2002 introducing specific precinct controls for Lawson. As with Hazelbrook, Springwood and Blaxland, the heritage items, conservation areas and groupings currently listed in Schedule 2 of LEP 1991 for Lawson have been incorporated into Schedule 7 of Draft LEP 2002.
The review process has also resulted in the development of a comprehensive and contemporary suite of heritage provisions that have been incorporated into Draft LEP 2002. These have been adapted directly from the Model Heritage Provisions developed by the NSW Heritage Office and endorsed by Parliamentary Counsel and the Department for application across NSW. These provisions are considerably stronger and more targeted than heritage provisions in current use and those proposed for Draft LEP 1997. They also offer greater coverage of protection, including provisions related to the heritage of the Aboriginal people, known and potential archaeological sites, the need for appropriate assessment of heritage significance, and the conservation and management of the heritage resource.
22 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Outcomes
Stages 1 and 2 of the review of the urban areas (currently zoned under LEP 4) make recommendations with respect to:
• the listing of properties on the schedule of Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas (Schedule 7, Parts A and B); • the deletion of properties from Council’s existing heritage schedule where appropriate; • the potential listing of additional heritage items for inclusion in Draft LEP 2002; • the preparation of detailed heritage inventory sheets, including a statement of heritage significance for each listing in Schedule 7; • the mapping and identification of heritage items and heritage conservation areas listed in Schedule 7; and • the preparation of reports discussing the historical context and pattern of settlement and growth.
2.5.6 Residential Character Study
Draft LEP 1997 relied predominantly on two approaches to the retention of character in the urban areas of the city:
• application of the Living – Conservation zone to residential areas that exhibit significant character, in both built and contextual forms; and • use of a supporting Development Control Plan for the main towns and villages in the Blue Mountains.
However, Commissioner Carleton considered that the application of the Living – Conservation zone for maintaining residential character was too broad, in that it attempted, in the one planning tool, to protect:
• areas characterised predominantly by a bushland setting; • areas characterised predominantly by established European-style gardens and streetscape; • intact groupings of pre-1946 buildings that reflect the traditional character of the Blue Mountains over the early periods of its European settlement; and • areas with limited service capacity.
Commissioner Carleton further identified that the application of the Living - Conservation zone under Draft LEP 1997 was not sufficiently rigorous.
These views were confirmed in Council’s subsequent review of Draft LEP 1997. It was also recognised that the provisions related to the Living - Conservation zone were insufficient to be effective in achieving each of the desired outcomes.
Draft LEP 1997 contained limited provisions relating to the protection of character in the commercial centres of the main towns and villages. Rather, it relied on the supporting Village DCP to control all major aspects of character in these centres. Given the intrinsic social and economic importance of character both in the village centres and in the surrounding residential areas, this represented a significant imbalance in the coverage and strength of the Draft LEP in the maintenance of character across the urban areas.
Consequently, a full review of Draft LEP 1997 was carried out to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the many elements that contribute to urban character in 23 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 the Blue Mountains, and to develop appropriate planning tools to protect and enhance that character. This occurred in two distinct stages:
• a detailed character study of the residential areas of the city; and • a comprehensive review of the planning for the commercial centres of the ten main towns and villages.
This subsection deals with the character study of the residential areas. The review of the commercial centres involved extensive collaborative work with the local communities, key stakeholder groups and specialist consultants for each of the ten villages and has been dealt with separately in subsection 2.5.4.
The aim of the Residential Character Study (BMCC 2002b) was to establish what types of character are important and where they are found. The findings of this study have been used to justify the application of residential zones and to develop of provisions for the protection of residential character in Draft LEP 2002.
The character study was undertaken in several stages, leading to the establishment of definitive character types:
• a review of previous planning reports and studies to establish Council’s previous approaches to the identification of character; and a review of heritage studies to provide information on the historical context and evolution of character types within the Blue Mountains; • an extensive character study involving site inspections and analyses of all residential areas within the Draft LEP 2002 area. A broad array of character types, including many variations on themes, was identified and mapped for these areas. The study was site- specific and presented character types within local street contexts. The character patterns arising from this study were presented at stakeholder workshops for Draft LEP 2002 in May 2000; • a secondary examination of the study area, to consolidate the character types and identify areas that reflected these character types in a unified way. This consolidation made it possible to incorporate the findings of the character study into land-use provisions within Draft LEP 2002; and • incorporation of land-use zones, protected areas and management provisions into Draft LEP 2002.
The character review process resulted in the identification of the following general character types:
• Bushland setting • Visually prominent areas • Garden setting • Dominant landscape setting • Visually significant streetscapes • Period housing areas • Retention of Blue Mountains identity along the transport corridors
2.5.7 Residential Subdivision Study
As part of his key recommendations for the Draft LEP 1997, Commissioner Carleton indicated that Council should undertake further investigations to support the introduction of a more stringent minimum lot size for subdivision in the Living Conservation zone (Carleton, 1998, p. ix). 24 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Furthermore, Commissioner Carleton indicated a need to study lot sizes in specific areas, with consideration given to the relationship of lot size to the environmental capacity to sustain development (1998, p. 75).
On this basis, a Residential Subdivision Study has been prepared which addresses a range of issues associated with the existing and future supply of land parcels within the core residential zones. The Living - General and the Living - Conservation and Living - Bushland Conservation zones were investigated for the purposes of this study, both at the city-wide level and in particular localities. These zones equate for the former “Living” and “Living Conservation” zones under Draft LEP 1997.
The study provides the basis for the subdivision provisions within Draft LEP 2002 by focusing on three areas of investigation:
• the principles and issues guiding residential subdivision in the urban areas of the Blue Mountains, including an overview environmental impacts; • assessment of existing subdivision patterns and lot sizes across the residential zones of Draft LEP 2002, considering particularly the proportion of lots that could still be subdivided under the existing planning scheme; • analysis of potential subdivision and lot production under various minimum lot size scenarios and location of future subdivision activity in relation to proximity to town centres and the urban/bushland interface.
By assessing matters at the site and locality level, together with the broader strategic implications of managing the production of land supply and the location of future development in the Blue Mountains, the study aims to provide a sound and transparent basis for the approach to residential subdivision within Draft LEP 2002.
2.5.8 Retail Study
In January 2001, Council commissioned Hill PDA to conduct a retail study as a component of the planning studies for the core village areas of:
• Blackheath; • Blaxland; • Hazelbrook; • Leura; • Mount Victoria; and • Wentworth Falls.
This study complemented recent retail studies for the villages of Katoomba, Springwood and Lawson. The purpose of the study was to provide important background information for each centre on:
• retail trends and the hierarchy of commercial centres in the Mountains; • demographics and retail catchment projections; • supply and projected demand for retail floor space; • householder expenditure and spending patterns; • retail impact of tourism and tourist expenditure patterns; and • demand for car parking within the centres.
25 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The findings of the study assisted in identifying the need or otherwise for expansion of existing floor space within the centres and other retail dynamics. This information complemented the collaborative design-based planning workshops with the local communities of each of the core village areas, and underpinned the application of appropriate zones and the development of precincts and precinct controls for those centres.
2.5.9 Land-use needs of business and industry
One of the fundamental elements of a sustainable urban form for the Blue Mountains is to provide opportunities for generating local employment. The issues of stimulating economic growth and diversification and generating local employment are wide, complex issues and cannot be addressed through a LEP alone. However, there are some broad land-use strategies that can be initiated in Draft LEP 2002 to complement more comprehensive and integrated strategies to generate employment.
Spatially, employment can be generated in a range of locations within the city:
• within the commercial centres of the towns and villages; • in specific tourist areas associated with, or along routes to, major tourist attractors; • places of accommodation in various zones, such as bed and breakfast establishments and tourist accommodation; • in institutions such as schools, Council and other government and non-government facilities in various locations; • in an increasingly diverse range of dispersed locations, particularly home-based businesses in the residential areas of the city; and • within the various industrial areas of the city.
Issues relating to employment generation from the first five of the locations above are dealt with either within EMP2 or by other components of the EMP 2002 review process. However, the opportunity was taken during the review to reassess the adequacy of the existing light industrial areas of the city to cater for future demands. This included examining likely future land-use needs for industry, business and associated infrastructure, and the impact of emerging technology and other trends on the demand for land for generating employment.
This work was assisted by Outcomes Consultancy, and drew upon a range of research used in the development of Council’s Economic Development Strategy. The work involved:
• a comprehensive survey of a diverse cross-section of the local business and industry sectors; • workshops and face-to-face interviews with key business and industry stakeholders and consumers; • detailed reviews of literature, research and strategies on contemporary business, industry and employment trends; • detailed land-use assessments of current industrial areas and other sites in the city; and • technical reference group workshops to test the concepts developed for Draft LEP 2002 with industry, business and developer sectors and general community stakeholder groups.
In summary, the assessment:
• confirmed that the existing industrial areas, particularly Lawson and Blackheath, are currently underdeveloped, with only 54 hectares, or 36 per cent, of available industrial land being used. The existing areas contain adequate capacity to cater for future land-
26 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
use needs for light industry. However, these areas need to be upgraded and better presented to promote the establishment or relocation of new technology-based industry; • confirmed that home-based business is a major component of the local economy (currently accounting for approximately 24 per cent of all local businesses) and is likely to grow. This needs to be further encouraged as a sustainable and relevant form of employment within the Blue Mountains; • identified the need for appropriate land and zone provisions to cater for the transition of some home-based business (particularly technology-based and culturally based) to commercial or industrial centres.
The results of the review have led to the establishment of the Employment Enterprise zone and the development of provisions and definitions to encourage the establishment, growth and operation of appropriate home-based businesses.
2.5.10 Demand for diverse housing study
Over 90 per cent of existing homes in the Blue Mountains consist of low-density, detached housing. The remaining 10 per cent is fairly diverse and includes housing forms such as dual occupancies, villas, town houses (including SEPP 5 housing), flats and group homes. Of these, approximately 60 per cent are located in the larger townships of Katoomba and Springwood. In the remaining townships and villages, more diverse housing forms currently represent less than 5 per cent of the available housing stock.
In recent decades, the state government has promoted a greater level of housing choice and the more efficient management of population growth in the metropolitan area through the broad-scale application of urban consolidation policies.
However, given the particular demographic characteristics of the Blue Mountains, and the economic imperative of protecting local built character, questions remained about the validity of these broader strategies in the local context and the real level of current and likely future demand for diverse housing in the LGA. Therefore, to assist in the development of long- term housing strategies to support Draft LEP 2002, Council engaged the services of the ‘Urban Frontiers Program’ (UFP), a research unit associated with the University of Western Sydney, to undertake research that would provide a clearer understanding of the level of demand that may exist within the city, over a 20-year period, for diverse housing opportunities.
This research contributed to the development of both the revised Residential Development Strategy 2002 and the Accessible Housing Strategy, and influenced the application of appropriate zones, development provisions and precinct controls through Draft LEP 2002.
2.5.11 Other contributing studies
The planning studies, investigations and information-gathering identified in subsections 2.5.1 to 2.5.9 were undertaken as specific elements of the review process. However, an extensive and diverse range of material has contributed to the development of EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002, including the following:
• other Blue Mountains City Council research, strategies, plans and databases; • research, strategies, plans and databases of other councils; • Government publications, plans, mapping and other data sets; • publications from industry, environmental and other sectors; • academic research and study material; and
27 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• relevant commercial publications.
The full range of background material that has contributed to the development of EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002 is identified in the bibliography to this planning study and the supporting strategy documents.
2.6 EMP 2002 SUPPORTING STRATEGIES
The EMP 2002 planning study is supported by two separate strategy documents:
• Residential Development Strategy 2002 (BMCC 2002c); and • Accessible Housing Strategy (BMCC 2002a);
These strategies have been developed to establish clear and comprehensive foundations for elements of Draft LEP 2002 in relation to key issues of importance to the local community, and to satisfy state government requirements to achieve exemption for the Blue Mountains from the relevant SEPPs.
2.6.1 Residential Development Strategy
The Blue Mountains is an area of highly constrained and environmentally sensitive land and dispersed residential areas that lack key services. These factors make the blanket application of urban consolidation policies to the Blue Mountains inappropriate and, in many cases, inconsistent with the aims of other regional strategies relating to environmental protection.
In recognition of this, Council prepared a Residential Development Strategy in 1996 (RDS 1996) to obtain exemption from State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development (SEPP 53) for the Blue Mountains and to supplement EMP2 in the development of Draft LEP 1997. In September 1997 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning granted an exemption to SEPP 53 on the basis of RDS 1996, and on the undertaking that the strategy would be implemented through Draft LEP 1997.
One of the key concerns raised by the local community during the public exhibition and hearing into Draft LEP 1997 was that multi-unit housing had been extensively and inappropriately applied. Commissioner Carleton reinforced some of these community concerns, although he supported the principles of Draft LEP 1997 to provide housing choice and higher densities of residential development in the vicinity of the main villages and transport nodes. The commissioner recommended:
• a review of the application of zones for higher densities in some of the villages; and • basing the application of higher-density residential zones on environmental capability to sustain such development.
In response to these recommendations, the EMP 2002 review process has included:
• a review of zone applications for certain villages; • collection and analysis of more accurate environmental constraint information; • intensive studies of the core village areas in consultation with local communities; • character assessment studies; and • a more site specific approach to the zoning of higher-density residential sites.
This has a necessitated a revision of RDS 1996 to reflect changes in the nature and distribution of the higher-density residential zones suggested by the review. Council’s revised Residential Development Strategy 2002 (referred to in this document as the Residential Development
28 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Strategy 2002 or RDS 2002) has therefore been prepared to support EMP 2002 and Draft LEP 2002, and as the basis for continued exemption from SEPP 53.
2.6.2 Accessible Housing Strategy
Housing for older people and people with a disability (‘accessible housing’) remains central to land-use policy development and assessment in the Blue Mountains context. As with all local government areas throughout the state, the provision of this form of housing in the Blue Mountains is currently regulated by State Environmental Planning Policy 5 – Housing for Older People and People with a Disability (SEPP 5).
Council foreshadowed its intention to seek exemption from the application of SEPP 5 to the Blue Mountains LGA in its submission to Government on the Options for Change discussion paper (DUAP 2000b) developed in the review of SEPP 5. Such an exemption would be on the basis that Draft LEP 2002 and accompanying development controls would make sufficient and locally appropriate provision for accessible housing within the LGA.
As a component of the review of SEPP 5 in 2000, DUAP released guidelines entitled Housing for older people and people with a disability in your community: A guide for councils and applicants, to clarify changes to the application of SEPP 5. In relation to exemption from SEPP 5, these guidelines indicated:
Councils can amend their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to provide housing opportunities similar to those provided under the SEPP. The Minister is prepared to exclude council areas from the SEPP, where the LEP sufficiently provides those housing opportunities.
(DUAP 2000a, p. 5)
In seeking to provide these housing opportunities, the preparation of Draft LEP 2002 parallels the initiatives of DUAP in reviewing the operation of SEPP 5, and considers the issues arising in the guidelines. The preparation of Draft LEP 2002, as a comprehensive citywide plan that aims to achieve integrated and sustainable land-use outcomes, has provided an important opportunity to plan for the provision of accessible housing in a manner that responds to local needs and environmental characteristics. Achieving this involves identifying, quantifying and analysing:
• identified housing need; • existing and planned community support infrastructure; • access and mobility requirements of residents; • environmental capacity; and • recognised character values.
Council’s report for exemption to SEPP 5 (referred in this document as the Accessible Housing Strategy or AHS) demonstrates how Draft LEP 2002 responds to these issues in its provision of accessible housing and provides the case for the exemption for the Blue Mountains from SEPP 5.
29 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
3 PLANNING DIRECTIONS FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The updating and refinement of the planning context established by EMP2 through the EMP 2002 review process has given rise to a series of key planning directions for Draft LEP 2002. These have guided the development of the more detailed responses to the planning issues addressed in Draft LEP 2002.
The planning directions include the central aim of Draft LEP 2002 and a set of key planning principles. The key planning principles have provided the basis for the formal objectives of Draft LEP 2002 by giving expression to the planning outcomes sought by the community. The objectives provide the critical link between the aim of the plan and the detailed planning framework and provisions contained within it.
The following subsections identify the central aim, the key planning principles and the formal objectives that have been developed and applied within Draft LEP 2002, as well as a brief overview of the way in which Draft LEP 2002 responds to the key planning principles and plan objectives. More detailed coverage of these responses is contained in sections 4 and 5.
3.1 THE AIM OF DRAFT LEP 2002
The central aim of Draft LEP 2002 represents both the fundamental outcome sought by the plan and its underlying philosophy. It has been developed in response to:
• Agenda 21 initiatives arising out of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the associated Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) of 1992; • the section 5 objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which are to encourage ecologically sustainable development (ESD); • the direction advocated by state government in its review of Part 3 of the EP&A Act (Plan First); • Council’s four-year Management Plan, of which the key activity is ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future’; • the Blue Mountains’ status as a World Heritage National Park; • the consistent results of the community surveys conducted over recent years, which have identified the need to control inappropriate development and preserve the natural environment as the highest-priority issues for the city. This has been reinforced in extensive community consultation undertaken for the development of Council’s City Strategy, where the protection of the environment has emerged as the overwhelming priority for the future direction of the city; and • the outcomes of the public exhibition of Draft LEP 1997 and the associated public hearing.
The aim of Draft LEP 2002 is:
…to provide a comprehensive and explicit framework for the development of land within the city, as the ‘City within a World Heritage National Park’ in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles and practices of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).
The above aim is based on the achievement of sustainability. Although there are diverse views internationally and within Australia on what defines or constitutes ESD, Draft LEP 2002 adopts the following definition established in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth of Australia 1999):
30 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
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.
A set of guiding principles and practices consistent with the aim of Draft LEP 2002 and the adopted definition of ESD have been derived from the Commonwealth’s translation of Agenda 21 as being those most applicable to local councils. These principles and practices have been applied in the development of Draft LEP 2002 and underpin the plan itself.
They include:
• Integration – the effective integration of environmental, social and economic considerations in decision-making. • Community involvement – recognition that sustainability cannot be achieved, nor significant progress made towards it, without the support and involvement of the community. • Precautionary behaviour – where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, a recognition that 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: − careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and − an assessment of the consequences of various options. • Equity within and between generations – fairness and equal access to opportunities, both in our own lifetimes and in those of future generations. • Continual improvement – recognition of the imperative to take immediate action to ensure that development becomes more sustainable, and to make continual improvement in the management of that development. • Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity – the fundamental consideration of protection of biological diversity and the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life-support systems. • Improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources – inclusion of environmental factors in the valuation of assets and services.
3.2 KEY PLANNING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND DRAFT LEP 2002 RESPONSE
3.2.1 Limiting urban expansion
Planning principle
Identify limits to the extent of the potential urban footprint in the Blue Mountains, based on the Sustainable Development Threshold (SDT).
The distinctive geography and historical settlement pattern of the Blue Mountains has resulted in an urban footprint that is fully surrounded by the World Heritage National Park. Another defining feature of the urban footprint is its ridgeline location at the headwaters of the primary catchments flowing into and through the national park.
This feature of urban settlement in the Blue Mountains places an important responsibility on the community and all levels of government to ensure the ongoing protection of the natural values and ecological systems of the city and the national park. This responsibility is increasingly being embraced throughout the community and has been manifest in recent
31 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 legislative imperatives. These include Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 (SREP 20) – Hawkesbury–Nepean River (which, among other things, requires the control of urban development and the management of natural areas within catchments) and state policies regarding the protection of Sydney’s drinking water catchments.
A first vital step in achieving ecological sustainability is to define the outer extent of the urban footprint of the city through the identification of:
• land with important natural characteristics that contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity and environmental quality, and therefore requires protection from development; • land that is required to act as a buffer to minimise or prevent the impacts of urban development on ecological systems; and • land that can support the range of land uses required to sustain the local community, without compromising biodiversity and environmental quality.
These elements are the fundamental basis for setting limits to growth through an SDT.
Within the Blue Mountains a significant proportion of the land required to protect the natural areas falls within the area of LEP 1991 and is not subject to Draft LEP 2002. However, the Draft LEP 2002 area also contains important areas with remnant bushland, habitat and other physical constraints that require a high degree of protection from the impacts of urban development. The identification of appropriate limits to the outer extent of the urban footprint therefore becomes an underlying imperative for Draft LEP 2002.
Another factor influencing the nature and extent of urban development in the Blue Mountains is the provision of infrastructure, predominantly for water and sewerage systems. This is complicated by the dispersed nature of settlement and the sensitivity of the environment, much of it being within water supply catchments. Sydney Water must meet certain requirements in relation to overflows from sewage pumping stations; this has implications for capacity and therefore additional development potential within some areas of the Blue Mountains. Water reservoir capacity in certain villages is also constrained, and this limits the capability of these areas to absorb additional population without major upgrading.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To maintain the unique identity and values of the city as the ‘city within a World Heritage national park’. • To preserve and enhance watercourses, riparian habitats and water quality within the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment and Sydney’s drinking water catchments. • To prescribe limits to urban development, having regard to the potential impacts of development on the natural environment and the provision, capacity and management of infrastructure.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
The methodology of applying an SDT for identifying the limits to growth was developed in EMP2 and applied in Draft LEP 1997. This concept has been retained and refined for Draft LEP 2002 through the application of the more accurate and comprehensive data developed as part of the EMP review process. The SDT is based on the exclusion of certain land from residential or higher-intensity land uses.
For Residential Investigation areas (see subsection 4.3) and large undeveloped sites on the periphery of urban areas and adjacent to the natural areas in the Blue Mountains, the SDT excludes land that generally:
32 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• has contiguous slopes steeper than 20 per cent; • contains verified significant vegetation communities; • is within a watercourse corridor and associated buffer; and • is uncleared land within Conservation Area Sub-catchments for the Hawkesbury– Nepean River system as identified under SREP 20.
This land is protected through the application of the Environmental Protection zones within Draft LEP 2002.
The application of Environmental Protection and other zones within Draft LEP 2002 also reflects the current and likely future capacity of the sewerage and water systems.
3.2.2 Managing the environment
Planning principle
The form and location of any development in urban areas will be controlled to prevent or minimise impact on the natural environment.
Having undertaken the first vital step in achieving ecological sustainability, by identifying the physical limits to urban expansion, the next steps are to:
• develop a land-use structure that provides an appropriate balance and distribution of land uses and built forms; and • ensure that appropriate environmental management tools are in operation for those areas that will support urban development. Those tools will need to protect the environment of the urban areas as well as conserving the natural values of the land outside the SDT.
The main environmental management issues in the Blue Mountains include:
Existing development: Most development in the past has taken place with little regard for environmental management issues. Land close to urban areas is subject to significant pressures and is often degraded.
Land suitable for development: Such land is in very short supply. Most undeveloped land still remaining is constrained by slopes of over 20 per cent, bushland including significant vegetation communities or proximity to watercourses.
Catchment water quality: Urban development in the Blue Mountains is sited at the top of Sydney’s drinking water catchment. Protecting water quality from the impacts of point and diffuse pollution sources is critical to conserving natural and drinking water values. Increased hard surfaces within the catchment have increased flow rates and volumes and resulted in erosion and scouring.
Sewage disposal: Leaking septic tanks, ex-filtration, and overflowing sewers and pump stations have significant impact on water quality, as do partial treatment by-passes at Mount Victoria, Blackheath and Winmalee sewage treatment plants.
Biodiversity: Vegetation clearing, weed invasion, pollution and fauna predation by feral animals are exerting a major impact on biodiversity in the Blue Mountains.
Bushfire hazard: Bushfire hazard is high to extreme for most of the urban areas in the Blue Mountains.
33 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To meet the needs of residents through provision of an appropriate balance of land uses and built forms that respond to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. • To conserve and enhance, for current and future generations, the ecological integrity, environmental heritage and environmental significance of the Blue Mountains. • To ensure that a proposed development in a bushfire-prone area incorporates protective measures that minimise bushfire risk without unacceptable environmental impacts.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
The land-use structure underpinning Draft LEP 2002 follows the transit oriented development or concentric ring model that is fundamental to achieving the principles of ESD. In summary, this involves:
• concentrating higher-density urban development around key transport and service nodes to optimise accessibility to urban services, the efficient use of infrastructure and the use of public and other sustainable forms of transport; and • progressively reducing the density of urban land uses with increasing distance from transport and service nodes and diminishing infrastructure capacity.
More detailed discussion regarding the land-use structure supporting Draft LEP 2002 and factors that have influenced it is provided in subsection 3.2.6.
Draft LEP 2002 addresses the potential impacts of new urban development and redevelopment through a variety of objectives, zone applications, provisions and mapped controls.
Draft LEP 2002 recognises the need to protect certain land within established areas of the city, because the physical characteristics of such land render it incapable of sustaining urban development, or because development of the land would have adverse environmental consequences. Land with the following characteristics within established areas of the city has therefore been included within the Environmental Protection zones to restrict all inappropriate development:
• has contiguous slope that is steeper than 33 per cent; • contains verified significant vegetation communities; and/or • is within a watercourse corridor.
Land that adjoins areas of environmental significance, although not zoned to restrict all forms of development, requires additional development controls to limit adverse environmental impact. This approach involves four elements.
First, areas of land exhibiting the following environmental constraints and/or characteristics have been accurately mapped and designated as individual Protected Areas:
• slopes steeper than 20 per cent; • potentially significant vegetation communities; • ecological buffers to verified significant vegetation communities and watercourse corridors; • water supply catchment areas; • escarpment areas; and 34 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• riverine scenic quality corridors.
Secondly, specific objectives, assessment requirements and controls have been applied over the form and location of development to protect the environmental values of the relevant Protected Area.
Thirdly, provisions that require the assessment and control of development generally have been applied in relation to:
• watercourses; • significant vegetation communities and rare species of flora; • protection of flora and fauna, including the retention and management of vegetation; • weed management; • site disturbance and erosion control; • stormwater management; • modification of landform; and • bush rock removal.
Finally, specific provisions have been applied requiring the assessment of bushfire threat. These attempt to balance the need to protect development against the need to limit the environmental impact of bushfire hazard reduction measures.
3.2.3 Meeting housing and social needs
Planning principle
Provide opportunities for greater housing choice by:
• allowing for targeted redevelopment of existing residential areas surrounding local and district service centres; • promoting mixed-use village centres; and • allowing flexibility to reuse existing detached housing in the Living - General zone for a range of low-density housing.
Identifying the limits to future growth is important for the protection of the natural environment of the Blue Mountains; however, it is also important to promote within the structure of the urban areas residential strategies that will provide an appropriate array of housing options for the local community.
Demographic information for the Blue Mountains shows that the annual population growth rate between 1991 and 1996 was 0.9 per cent, which represents a considerable slowing compared to previous years. However, household structures and age structures have changed dramatically in recent years. Between 1991 and 1996 the age cohorts 45–64 and 65 and over were the only groups that showed proportional increase, increasing their share of the population by 21 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Both the 0–14 and 25–44 age cohorts are declining in their proportion of the population. There were a substantial number of single-person households in 1996, comprising approximately 23 per cent of households in the LGA (ABS 1996). Most of the people living alone (50–60 per cent depending on planning area) are over 65 years of age.
The changes to the household and age structure generate a need for the provision of greater housing choice to suit the changing needs of the community. At present, 90.9 per cent of housing stock in the LGA is detached housing, with alternative dwelling types (those
35 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 other than detached housing, such as dual occupancies and town houses) comprising only 6 per cent of the total housing stock. This is well below the Sydney average for this type of dwelling, which is 33 per cent. The proportion of alternative housing forms within the Blue Mountains has actually decreased since 1971, when it was 10 per cent. The decrease in this figure can be attributed to the development of low-density release areas on the urban/bushland fringe over the last twenty years.
Three main issues arise:
• There is an emerging disparity between this housing stock and the changing needs in the population, particularly in relation to the ageing of the population. • The strategies for limiting urban growth, and retaining village character for both its intrinsic and its economic value, will contribute to increase housing stress for lower- income residents (such as single-person and aged households). Declining affordability of housing means that broad-based, integrated strategies will need to be developed in conjunction with the state government and housing providers. Draft LEP 2002 plays a role in addressing this issue by providing opportunities for alternative housing types. • Public submissions on Draft LEP 1997, as well as individual development proposals, reflect a level of community concern regarding medium-density development or other alternative forms of housing. These concerns typically relate to issues such as density, height, character and physical constraints.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To promote the provision of accessible, diverse and affordable housing options to cater for the changing housing needs of the community.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
The revised Residential Development Strategy 2002 (RDS 2002) and the AHS, which underpin Draft LEP 2002, respond to the issues of housing needs by recommending opportunities for a range of housing types in appropriate locations. In turn, Draft LEP 2002 applies appropriate zones to land to reflect the RDS 2002 and AHS, and provides specific precinct and general provisions that control the form and appearance of development in those zones to conserve and enhance the character of villages in the Blue Mountains.
The demand for a range of housing types is addressed through the zoning of land for various densities of residential development. Draft LEP 2002 adopts a place-based approach to the zoning of land, with specific design controls where higher-density development and higher- intensity land uses are permitted. In addition, Draft LEP 2002 allows for the reconfiguration of the existing housing stock in appropriate locations (i.e. locations that are not compromised by sensitive character elements or environmental constraints) through the reintroduction of dual occupancies and ‘granny flats’ as permissible land uses. Granny flats are seen as a particularly useful method of contributing to housing choice, by providing smaller and/or more affordable housing options, and potentially increasing the supply of rental housing within the Blue Mountains. The Draft LEP also introduces ‘accessible housing’ to meet the needs of older people and people with a disability, located in close proximity to designated service centres that are capable of providing an appropriate range of supporting services and facilities.
Planning principle
Provide a range of community facilities and recreational opportunities to cater for the current and likely future needs of the local community.
The physical characteristics of the Blue Mountains constrain the ability of Council and other government and community agencies in providing services and facilities across the LGA.
36 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Council has endorsed the concept within EMP2 and the Blue Mountains Community Plan that it must target certain district centres for the provision of key services and facilities to meet the needs of the population. Primary townships have been identified within each of the planning areas for the provision of services and facilities.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To ensure that the social needs of existing and future residents are met through the provision of appropriate community facilities, open space and services.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
A wide range of detailed studies and programs has supplemented the review of EMP2 to identify current and likely future social and recreational needs within the local community for facilities and services. These include:
• Council’s citywide Community Plan, which is prepared every five years; • Council’s cyclical Community Area Planning and Recreation Needs Assessment process; and • the preliminary findings of the Blue Mountains Recreation Needs Assessment.
The needs for community facilities and services within the Blue Mountains are addressed through a diverse range of programs and funding sources provided by Council, government, private service providers and community organisations. The role of a LEP is generally limited to the identification and designation of appropriate land required for the provision of these services and facilities and catering for their permissibility and proper management.
In this regard, Draft LEP 2002:
• provides greater flexibility in the range of relevant permissible land uses within the town and neighbourhood centres; • applies appropriate zones and permissible uses to recognise existing recreation areas and facilities; • extends and reconfigures the opportunities for both public and private recreation activities on private land; and • reinforces the need for development on community land to be consistent with any adopted Plan of Management prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.
3.2.4 Protecting town and residential character
Planning principle
Character is to be protected by the identification and conservation of locally significant character and heritage elements, items and areas and by ensuring that the form of new development responds to recognised character and heritage values.
The character of the Blue Mountains, and the associated historical and heritage fabric, derives from a number of factors that are in contrast with the metropolitan area of Sydney. These include the historical pattern of European settlement and associated landscaping and garden settings, the close proximity of urban areas to bushland and natural environments, recreational opportunities, and the small-scale village lifestyle of many of the urban settlements.
37 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The protection of the diverse and distinctive character of the Blue Mountains towns and villages is important not only for its own intrinsic value to a local sense of place and community identity, but also for its significant contribution to the local economy. Although much of the appeal of the Blue Mountains to tourists relates to the spectacular natural environment, up to 35 per cent of visitors come each year because of the character, heritage and social and cultural events associated with the towns and villages. Inappropriate development has in the past led to a deterioration of the character and visual amenity of the urban areas and, if not properly addressed, threatens further deterioration. In order to sustain and expand local job opportunities and income generation, it is therefore important that the character of the Blue Mountains towns and villages is both protected and enhanced.
The heritage and archaeological features and conservation areas contribute considerably to the character of urban places in the Mountains. Council has a clear legislative responsibility to protect and conserve items and areas of heritage significance, as well as maintaining the social and cultural connections between the past and the present.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To identify and retain the diverse built and landscape elements that contribute to the character and image of the Blue Mountains. • To identify and conserve the distinct cultural heritage of the built forms and landscapes of the Blue Mountains.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
Residential areas
The review of Draft LEP 1997 and the character study undertaken as part of the EMP 2002 process identify a clear need for a more sophisticated approach to the protection and enhancement of the residential character unique to the Blue Mountains. The character study also provides the basis and justification for the specific planning tools developed and applied in the residential areas of Draft LEP 2002. These tools include:
• the Living - Bushland Conservation zone, which is applied to areas characterised predominantly by a bushland setting and areas with service capacity limitations; • the Living - Conservation zone, which is applied to areas characterised predominantly by established European garden settings and streetscape; • the Protected Area – Period Housing Area, which is applied to intact representative groupings of pre-1946 buildings that reflect the traditional character of the Blue Mountains over the early periods of its European settlement; • specific assessment requirements and character controls for development in the Living - Bushland Conservation and Living - Conservation zones and the Protected Area – Period Housing Area; • specific character controls for each individual precinct within the higher density Village - Housing and Village - Tourist zones; and • general character provisions applying to all zones.
The Living - Bushland Conservation and Living - Conservation zones, and the Protected Area – Period Housing Area, were applied in accordance with the character mapping undertaken as part of the character study.
Towns and villages
In response to the consultation and urban design analysis work undertaken for each of the nine main core village areas:
38 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• appropriate zones have been applied; • individual precincts have been identified within each of the villages (excluding Lawson); and • specific measures have been taken to protect and enhance the character of each precinct.
General character provisions that apply to all zones will also provide a basis for character assessment for proposed development in the smaller village centres.
Heritage
The review of Council’s Heritage Register has resulted in the following responses within Draft LEP 2002:
• A schedule of heritage items and conservation areas has been created for the Draft LEP 2002 area, excluding the core village areas of Lawson, Hazelbrook, Springwood and Blaxland, which are currently identified in Schedule 2 of LEP 1991. Council’s Heritage Register for these core village areas is currently under review and updated heritage items, elements and conservation areas for those core village areas will be introduced to the plan as an early amendment once they are available. • All scheduled heritage items and conservation areas are mapped as part of the series of maps to be gazetted with the plan. • New, more comprehensive heritage provisions are incorporated into Draft LEP 2002. The heritage provisions are based directly on the endorsed Draft Model Heritage Provisions prepared by the NSW Heritage Office and modified in a minor way to reflect the nature of the local heritage resource.
Regional transport corridor
Draft LEP 2002 promotes the separation of villages to maintain their individual character and identity. The bushland character of the land between towns is preserved when viewed from the transport corridor. Land uses in the areas between villages are limited, and where they do occur are required to be set back and screened from the Highway. The Draft LEP also encourages regeneration of bushland fronting the transport corridor.
Where the transport corridor passes through villages, a distinct urban character is encouraged. Presently there is a mix of land uses in these areas including low-density residential, highway service uses and a considerable number of disused sites (i.e. old service stations). It is envisaged that appropriate land uses along the Highway will present a high- quality, generally residential appearance. A range of low-density and higher-density residential uses will be permitted to encourage the redevelopment of some vacant sites. Commercial and highway service activities will be required to consolidate in the existing village areas, and ribbon development of commercial uses along the highway will be discouraged.
39 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
3.2.5 Promoting local employment
Planning principle
Promote employment-generating activities that are compatible with the sensitive natural context and lifestyle preferences of the community.
The Blue Mountains operates within an economic framework that is influenced by global, national and regional trends and policies. Its proximity to Sydney, the nation’s largest city and economic centre, profoundly influences how the local economy operates.
Economically the Blue Mountains has been seen as a largely dormitory commuter-based area, with a high proportion of workers living there (58 per cent of the workforce) commuting to places of employment within the Sydney region. There is also significant leakage of retail expenditure from the LGA. The most significant loss of local expenditure occurs in the Lower Mountains (below Springwood), where Penrith draws around 20 per cent of the total retail expenditure on food and grocery products. The loss of expenditure from the LGA on clothing/homewares and non-food products to Penrith is even greater.
In 1999 the Blue Mountains produced a total of $61 million in economic output compared to $210 million in the Penrith LGA. Businesses within the LGA can be typified as small businesses. Out of a total of 2764 businesses in the Blue Mountains, 90 per cent are small businesses with generally less than 20 employees (BMCC and CRRI 2001).
There has been a decline in the unemployment rate over the past five years. In 1996 the unemployment rate in the Blue Mountains was 6.8 per cent (ABS 1996); in 2001 this rate had fallen to 4.5 per cent (Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business 2001).
According to ABS data, health and community services and education are the largest employment industries within the Blue Mountains, followed by tourism.
The Blue Mountains has traditionally provided a scenic escape for the residents of Sydney and, as a result, tourism has been the cornerstone of the local economy. Tourism continues to be a strong economic force within the Blue Mountains, with an estimated 3 million visitors to the region each year contributing around $100 million to the regional economy. Tourism directly provides 13 per cent of all local employment.
It is expected that tourism will continue to grow within the Blue Mountains, with the listing of the region as a World Heritage Area attracting interest internationally. Tourism places a strain on service provision for Council and it is imperative that there are effective management measures to protect the LGA’s most significant resource.
Manufacturing and light industry are marginal contributors to the local economy. Industrial land is spread relatively evenly across the Blue Mountains in the major centres. The largest industrial areas are located at Blaxland, Springwood/Valley Heights, Lawson, Katoomba and Blackheath. There has been a slow take-up of these lands, particularly in Lawson and Blackheath, due to a low demand for manufacturing and light industry in the area.
Changes in technology and working arrangements across our society have implications for economies in locations such as the Blue Mountains (i.e. areas with high environmental values and lifestyle benefits within 1–2 hours of a major metropolis). Information technology appears to be increasingly important to local businesses, with over 90 per cent having at least one piece of IT equipment.
40 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
While it remains an advantage to have some connection with centres of business and commerce, telecommuting increasingly provides alternative and more flexible working arrangements whereby workers can undertake at least some of their work at home. There is a strong growth in the number of home-based businesses (HBBs) within the Blue Mountains, with an estimated 1800–2300 HBBs located within the LGA (CRRI 2001).
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To promote a strengthening of the local economic base by providing a range of sustainable employment opportunities that respond to lifestyle choices, emerging markets and changes in technology, while protecting local amenity, character and environmental values.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
The generation of local employment opportunities is fundamental to creating a sustainable community and urban form within the Blue Mountains. Although employment generation extends well beyond the scope of a LEP, an appropriate land-use framework can make an important contribution to generating a range of employment opportunities.
Draft LEP 2002 incorporates a number of strategies to provide opportunities for employment generation. These include:
• encouraging additional mixed-use commercial and retail development through the expansion of the range of permissible uses within existing local and district service centres; • confirming existing light industrial areas under the Employment – General zone to retain opportunities for future large-scale employment-generating activities; • providing the flexibility to locate small-scale business, in addition to traditional home- based business, in the Living – General and Village – Housing zones, provided there is no loss of residential amenity; • introducing an additional Employment – Enterprise zone as a transitional location for growing businesses between home-based operation and major employment centres. That zone also caters for future business park development by requiring a high level of amenity and excluding a range of inappropriate industrial uses. It is envisaged that Council will further investigate the potential for employment-generating activities in these areas, particularly encouraging sustainable business and industry; and • introducing the Village – Tourist zone to facilitate appropriate development and redevelopment of land for tourism and related purposes in selected locations.
3.2.6 Providing sustainable transport and access
Planning principle
Promote an urban form in the Blue Mountains that:
• concentrates residential development in areas that are accessible to local service and transport nodes, limiting dependence on cars; • integrates residential and non-residential land uses; • limits ribbon development and population concentrations in fringe areas; and • promotes alternative and sustainable access opportunities including public transport, walking and cycling.
41 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Broadly, effective transport planning requires a three-staged approach that focuses on land- use planning, the provision of a transport system that encourages viable, energy-efficient transport alternatives, and effective traffic management. The development of Draft LEP 2002 focuses on the first of these stages by ensuring that there is effective integration between transport systems and land-use structure. A need to focus on the allocation of land uses as it relates to transport provision was identified within EMP2, and the relevance of enhancing transport choice and integration has been reiterated in recent policies by the state government.
The transport corridor of the Great Western Highway and railway line has influenced the development and pattern of the urban form within the LGA. The traditional concentration of towns and villages around railway stations within the Blue Mountains provides a solid foundation for promoting a compact and transport-efficient urban form. As the highest- density development concentrates around transport nodes and service centres, opportunities increase for transport choices beyond the private motor vehicle, such as public transport, walking and cycling. Particular improvements can be made in the travel choices in relation to journeys to work. However, such a concentration of development needs to be balanced against the maintenance of the traditional character of the villages, a factor considered in subsection 3.2.4. The approach needed, therefore, is one that identifies the best sites for development to meet the accessibility objectives but at the same time contributes to maintaining and enhancing character within the villages by imposing appropriate limits on development.
The land-use structure should also limit opportunities for development that will increase population densities in fringe areas. The current pattern of lower-density development away from the town centres has encouraged car dependency, as evidenced by the high rates of car ownership and total vehicle kilometres travelled within the LGA. Although this trend is unlikely to be reversed, future development should focus on giving residents better access to a range of viable transport options, thus minimising distances travelled by private vehicles and limiting impacts on the safety and amenity of local road networks.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To integrate development with transport systems and promote safe and sustainable access opportunities, including public transport initiatives, walking and cycling.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
The stated approach to integrating land use and transport is achieved primarily through the application of land-use zones within Draft LEP 2002. The village zones, which include the town centres and areas that permit multi-dwelling housing, are typically located within an acceptable walking distance (within 400 metres to 1 kilometre) of service centres and railway stations. The only exceptions to this are certain established neighbourhood centres located at a distance from transport nodes. Although these centres are recognised, zoning does not permit their expansion. The village zones permit a range of residential and non-residential land uses within the larger service centres.
Similarly, in providing for accessible housing to meet the needs of older people and people with a disability, restrictions are set on the location of this form of housing to ensure that it is in close proximity to appropriate service centres and/or there is a range of transport choices available to residents.
As well as concentrating residential densities around certain designated service centres, the application of zones also restricts development in fringe areas. This has been realised in the plan through the incorporation of the Living – Bushland Conservation zone in fringe areas, located at a distance from village centres, which permits only subdivision with larger
42 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 allotment sizes and limits the range of permissible land uses. This discourages the location of additional population in areas that do not integrate well with mass transit (railway) access.
Planning principle
Improve access to housing and public buildings and facilities for all people, including those with mobility constraints.
Access is a fundamental component of good design within the built environment. All people, including those with a disability, older people and parents with children in strollers, should be able to access public buildings and use public facilities, as well as having a reasonable choice of housing that meets their access needs. The Commonwealth recognises access as a fundamental human right through the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and emphasis on access is evident at the state level, as well as being a stated policy direction of Blue Mountains City Council.
The primary focus in providing such access is the provision of continuous, accessible paths of travel. Achieving such access requires an integrated approach at both the design and construction stages, as well as ongoing monitoring and maintenance. More broadly, access to buildings and facilities needs to be considered in combination with access within town centres and villages to provide integrated access and transport systems. Systematic improvements need to be made to pathways and access to public transport, with priority given to the main service centres within the LGA.
Accessibility of housing, particularly for older people and people with a disability, is also a primary consideration within the Blue Mountains. This operates at three levels: the supply of housing, its location in relation to accessing services and facilities, and the design of buildings and sites. This issue is addressed separately in the supporting Accessible Housing Strategy.
Draft LEP 2002 objectives
• To ensure that the siting and design of new buildings, facilities and structures intended primarily for public use make reasonable provision for safe and comfortable access to those buildings for all people, including older people, people with a disability and those with limited mobility. • To promote the provision of accessible, diverse and affordable housing options to cater for the changing housing needs of the community.
Overview of Draft LEP 2002 response
Draft LEP 2002 relies on provisions requiring that public buildings and facilities, as well as certain housing, meet recognised access standards. Detailed requirements for the provision of suitable access are set out in an accompanying DCP, Design for Equity of Access, which is based on Australian Standards dealing with ‘Design for access and mobility’ and ‘Adaptable housing’. This DCP considers a range of access issues relating to particular development types and constraints imposed by the topography of the Blue Mountains.
3.3 STRUCTURE OF DRAFT LEP 2002
3.3.1 Written instrument
The role of a local environmental plan (LEP) is to translate planning principles and objectives into a land-use framework at a local level. A LEP serves as subordinate legislation under the EP&A Act and comprises a written instrument and statutory maps.
43 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
During the review process, particular attention has been given to the structure and form of the Draft LEP 2002 written instrument, because it:
• conveys and organises an extensive array of technical requirements, provisions and considerations; • should contribute to and facilitate the land-use assessment process; • has to respond to the needs of its many users, including applicants, development assessment staff and councillors, the community and the courts; • has to be legally correct and unambiguous as a statutory document; • needs to provide certainty in land-use outcomes, balanced against the need for assessment to be based on the merits of a development and whether it meets the objectives of the plan; • should provide for the efficient future incorporation of the LEP 1991 areas into the instrument, enabling the development of a single planning scheme for the city; • needs to be readily adaptable to the intended format for a future ‘Local Plan’ as envisaged under the Plan First review of plan-making legislation for NSW; and • has to be adaptable to changes in technology.
The resulting structure of the written instrument is illustrated in Figure 3. The structure of the instrument is logical and generally self-evident; a separate guide to the land-use assessment process has been prepared to take users through the written instrument. A detailed explanation of its structure and operation is not, therefore, provided here. However, some broad explanation is warranted, to set the context for the land-use framework that is the focus of the remainder of this document.
The written instrument is divided into four parts, reflecting the progressive stages of the land- use assessment process. Each part needs to be considered for all forms of development.
Part 1: Preliminary
Part 1 provides the administrative elements of the Draft LEP 2002, as well as setting out the planning principles on which the plan is based, as discussed in 3.2 above.
Part 2: Locality management
All development has two elements:
• It occurs in a particular locality or on a particular site. • It involves a particular land-use activity proposed to be carried out on that site.
Accordingly, these two fundamental aspects of locality management have been drawn together in Part 2 as the primary organising element of the written instrument.
The written instrument principally defines locality by zones and, in the case of the core village areas, by precincts that cover discrete areas within those villages. The zones and precincts are shown on the statutory maps that accompany the written instrument. As the focus on locality (or ‘place-based’) planning has not previously been applied in a planning scheme in the Blue Mountains, the instrument retains zones as the major organising tool. The reasons for this are discussed in subsection 4.2 of this document.
Whether land is within a zone, or within a zone and a precinct, the instrument uses a consistent substructure to assist with the use of the plan. This substructure provides:
44 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• a set of zone objectives for each zone and, in the case of precincts, a statement of desired future character for each precinct; • building envelope controls for each zone or precinct (these controls aim to define the size of a building relative to its allotment, and include building height, setback, site coverage and development density); and • locality or site-specific design considerations for each zone or precinct.
The provisions applying to any zone or precinct are contained within a schedule, enabling the provisions that apply to a particular locality to be readily found.
The final component of Part 2 deals with the permissibility of land uses. The written instrument uses a land-use matrix as the main tool for identifying whether a particular defined land use is permissible in a zone or, in some limited cases, in a precinct.
Consideration of Part 2 provides the first step in land-use assessment, establishing the base requirements relating to a particular locality and determining the permissibility of a proposed activity in that locality.
Part 3: Assessing the site and environmental context
Once the baseline framework for a locality and the permissibility of a land use has been established, Part 3 of the written instrument deals with the next step in land-use assessment: assessing the site and its environmental context to determine the site’s suitability for the proposed development.
Part 3 sets out requirements for site analysis and assessment of the natural environment, assessment of character and landscape context and heritage conservation, and hazard and risk assessment. In addition, it identifies issues that will require particular responses in the design of the proposed development to protect the recognised values or environmental attributes of a site. Part 3 also provides the means for assessing the adequacy of those responses.
The extent to which Part 3 applies to a site will depend on the site’s particular environmental attributes. The main environmental attributes of land are identified in the statutory mapping that accompanies the written instrument. The complexity of land-use assessment increases for more highly constrained land, requiring a careful balance to be achieved between competing objectives in some instances.
Part 4: Considerations for development
Once an evaluation of the environmental context of a site has occurred, the final element of assessment relates to the type of development that may be proposed for a site, and its specific requirements. Part 4 of the written instrument deals with a series of land-use assessment considerations that are common to most forms of development, as well as specific requirements for particular types of development. The focus of part 4 is to clearly outline Council’s requirements for development, thus providing the basis for consistent land- use assessment. In some cases, considerations within Part 4 are supported by a separate DCP.
The written instrument represents a significant change from current planning schemes and provides a sound and robust structure within which to present the land-use framework for the Blue Mountains. Further, it positions Council well for future strategic planning in the city, and for the proposed Plan First changes to the legislative framework for plan-making in NSW (as discussed in subsection 2.3.3).
45 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Part 1: Preliminary Administration Planning principles
Part 2: Locality management Locality provisions Zone objectives Permissibility of land use
Part 3: Assessing the site and environmental context Site analysis Protecting the natural environment Character and landscape assessment Heritage conservation Hazard and risk assessment
Part 4: Considerations for development Subdivision Services and infrastructure Vehicular access, parking and roads Privacy Energy efficiency Equity of access and housing choice Accessible housing Provisions for specific land uses Management of public land and public infrastructure
Schedules
Dictionary
Figure 3: Structure of the Draft LEP 2002 written instrument
46 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
3.3.2 Statutory mapping
With improvements in technology and increased emphasis on identifying environmental attributes within the Blue Mountains, the statutory maps accompanying Draft LEP 2002 are an increasingly important component in the new planning scheme.
The statutory maps provide the spatial information that is referred to in the written instrument. Compared to earlier planning schemes, the extent of information incorporated into the maps has increased markedly. Although this enhances the development assessment process and provides improved information for the community, its poses a number of technical and cartographic challenges.
As noted previously in subsection 1.3, the statutory map sheets have been divided into three panels, with each panel covering the same area of land, and displaying different attributes as follows:
• ‘Map Panel A – Zones, Precincts and Provisions’ shows the zones applying to land and the place-based precincts, as well as the map-based provisions that qualify these zones in some instances. These matters are generally referred to in Parts 1 and 2 of the written instrument. • ‘Map Panel B – Protected Areas’ shows the protected areas that identify specific environmental or character attributes and are triggered within Part 3 of the written instrument. • ‘Map Panel C – Heritage Conservation and Special Use’ shows land subject to the heritage conservation provisions and special use provisions of the plan.
The design of the map series in this manner enables the statutory information relating to a property to be shown on a single map sheet, rather than on a number of sheets applying to the same parcel of land, as has been the case with previous planning schemes and Draft LEP 1997.
Although the map sheets cannot be gazetted in an electronic format (computer folio) at this stage, they have been developed with this capacity and are able to be displayed on the Internet via an interactive mapping interface to improve access and use by the community.
47 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4 LOCALITY MANAGEMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Draft LEP 2002 moves towards a ‘place-based’ or ‘locality planning’ approach to its land-use framework. In essence, this means that it provides a planning framework that focuses on localities by establishing a set of environmental planning considerations or rules that apply to particular localities or to land with certain common characteristics.
Some place-based planning instruments have dispensed with zones, replacing them with locality provisions that provide fewer prohibited land uses, and focusing on desired outcomes or objectives for a place. Council considered a range of approaches to non-zone-based plans from NSW and elsewhere in Australia in the development of Draft LEP 2002. In most of the cases reviewed zoning had been replaced by cumbersome and repetitive ‘pseudo’- zones that were ineffective in comparison to the appropriately targeted use of traditional zoning.
Accordingly, Council has retained the use of zones while enabling the development of a place-based approach. Despite being a traditional planning tool, zoning continues to provide the most effective and efficient mechanism for the control of land-use permissibility, and provides a fundamental basis for land valuation. Zoning is also the most effective platform for the management of a broad range of planning issues (such as public acquisition of land) and the control of environmentally sensitive land (e.g. environmental protection areas and rural areas) that do not readily conform with or apply to the notion of ‘place’.
It must also be emphasised here that the actual and perceived character, functionality and uniqueness of ‘places’ is only peripherally related to the permissibility of land uses. The predominant focus of place-based planning relates to such issues as urban design, building envelope and design, public domain and streetscape, heritage and street layout, all of which can be controlled using locality statements and tailored provisions for individual places. This is most effectively achieved within a clear framework of land-use permissibility controlled by zoning.
Consequently, Draft LEP 2002 takes a modified approach, which retains zones as the foundation of the land-use framework, maintaining their role as a fundamental tool in development control. The primary function of the zones is to establish a set of management objectives or desired outcomes related to land with common characteristics, and to control land-use permissibility.
This zoning framework is elaborated through the introduction of place-based or precinct planning provisions. In consultation with the community, precincts have been developed as a tool for the management of core villages within the city and to provide appropriate guidance for the development of alternative types of residential housing. These locality provisions within Draft LEP 2002 have been developed to further refine certain zones, providing desired future character statements, the basic building envelope controls and site- specific design controls.
The combination of zones and precinct provisions provide the basis for locality planning or ‘locality management’ within Draft LEP 2002. As land-use tools, the provisions of zones and precincts identify qualities or environmental attributes that are specific to particular sites, places or localities; these attributes are to be accounted for and protected in managing development on the land to which they apply. The basis for the development and application of these zones and precincts is outlined below.
48 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4.2 ZONES
The following zones provide the land-use structure of Draft LEP 2002:
• Village – Town Centre; • Village – Neighbourhood Centre; • Village – Tourist; • Village – Housing; • Living – General; • Living – Conservation; • Living – Bushland Conservation • Employment – General; • Employment – Enterprise; • Regional Transport Corridor; • Recreation – Private; • Recreation – Open Space; • Environmental Protection – General; and • Environmental Protection – Open Space.
There are fewer zones than in the existing planning scheme (LEP 4), and they have been given descriptive names to convey their primary purpose(s):
• The ‘Village’ zones relate to town and village centres across the city, including sites for alternative housing in close proximity to these centres. • The ‘Living’ zones represent the primarily residential zones, and allow for the provision of a range of housing opportunities depending on the environmental and character attributes of land. • The ‘Employment’ zones comprise land primarily set aside for generating employment. • The ‘Regional Transport Corridor’ represents the Great Western Highway, and the railway line and associated lands. • The ‘Recreation’ zones comprise land that may be used for the private and public provision of recreation opportunities. • The ‘Environmental Protection’ zones comprise land that has significant environmental constraints and is outside the SDT.
The zone structure adopted for Draft LEP 2002 is similar to that of the other principal planning scheme in the city, LEP 1991. The compatibility in land-use structure between Draft LEP 2002 and LEP 1991 helps to provide a more consistent approach to land-use assessment across the city, and will make it possible to amalgamate the two principal instruments in the future.
Applying zones
Draft LEP 2002 applies zones to approximately 41 100 land parcels. In view of the environmental and character constraints of the city, this represents a significant technical challenge. For each zone, a set of discrete criteria was established to reflect the objectives of the zone and the range of physical and environmental characteristics associated with it. Those criteria are discussed in more detail below. Zones were initially applied to land within the LEP area using a Geographic Information System (GIS), which enabled the assessment of
49 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 the physical characteristics of land against the zone criteria and the application of the relevant zone to land where the criteria were met. Detailed field validation across the city was then undertaken to test the accuracy of the computer-based application and the criteria for zoning. The applied zones were manually reviewed and also tested against Commissioner Carleton’s site-specific recommendations, submissions to the exhibition of Draft LEP 1997 and the more detailed submissions from and consultation with state government authorities.
The resulting preliminary draft zoning plans were then reviewed by a Zoning Control Group (ZCG) within Council, over a week-long series of intensive workshops. This was followed by detailed ground checking to confirm or adjust zone boundaries in response to issues identified by the ZCG. A final detailed verification process was then applied to all zones.
Zone criteria
In developing Draft LEP 2002, it was important that the rationale for zoning land in a particular way is as transparent and easy to understand as possible. Therefore, a set of zone criteria, or generalised conditions that characterise each zone, was established as an aid in the application of zones. However, the attributes and characteristics of land are by no means uniform and, in recognition of past development of settlement within the city, these criteria had to also account for individual variations in the application of zones.
These criteria were based on, or were augmented by, the following:
• planning principles consistent with the ‘Key Directions for the City’ identified in Council’s Management Plan; • more detailed and accurate knowledge of the natural and built characteristics of the city developed from the review process, which are mapped on the EMP 2002 map series; • directions set by state planning policies and strategies; • preliminary knowledge of the requirements of key public authorities; and • relevant modifications recommended in Commissioner Carleton’s report.
The criteria were used to develop a more consistent approach to zone application. For each of the 41 100 land parcels, there is a statement of the base zone criteria applying to it, and whether the base criteria needed to be modified in response to particular site characteristics or other planning considerations. Where modifications were required, the statement also identifies the reasons for the modification.
One of the components of the zone criteria was the development of a zone priority system, which contributed to a broad scale sieve analysis. Zones were applied in the following order:
• Regional Transport Corridor • Environmental Protection – Open Space • Environmental Protection – Private • Recreation – Open Space • Recreation – Private • Employment – Enterprise • Employment – General • Village – Town Centre • Village – Neighbourhood Centre
50 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Village – Tourist • Village – Housing • Living – Bushland Conservation • Living – Conservation • Living – General
This approach provided for a consistent recognition of environmental constraints, and reinforced the broad land-use structure developed for Draft LEP 2002.
The application of each zone under Draft LEP 2002 is discussed below. A detailed discussion is also provided on the environmental assessment and the approach to zone application for the Residential Investigation lands within the Draft LEP 2002 area.
4.2.1 Village – Town Centre
The ‘Village – Town Centre’ zone caters for the requirements of the major town centres within the Blue Mountains. The zone allows for an expansive array of land uses, and promotes mixed- use development within town centres in order to promote vibrant places and efficiencies in infrastructure and service provision. The establishment of separate Village – Town Centre and Village – Neighbourhood Centre zones provides for a better differentiation of retail function, compared to the generic Village zone under Draft LEP 1997.
The towns to which the Village – Town Centre zone applies are as follows:
• Blackheath • Katoomba • Leura • Wentworth Falls • Lawson • Hazelbrook • Springwood • Blaxland
The Village – Town Centre zone has been applied where land is within a commercial centre that provides a service role extending beyond the immediate township; and where at least a small supermarket could be sustained. For the purpose of this study, these centres are termed ‘designated service centres’ and are discussed within both the RDS 2002 and AHS. Further discussion on the economic role of each of the town centres within a Village – Town Centre zone is provided in Volume 2 of this study.
4.2.2 Village – Neighbourhood Centre
The ‘Village – Neighbourhood Centre’ zone allows for the provision of small-scale convenience shopping facilities and local services close to residential areas within the Blue Mountains. The intention of this zone is to retain the existing small village commercial centres across the Blue Mountains and to consolidate the commercial land use within these centres.
Village Neighbourhood Centres are small in scale, reflect existing commercial development and are compatible with the retention of the amenity of surrounding residential areas. The application of the Village – Neighbourhood Centre zone under Draft LEP 2002 reinforces the existing LEP 4 Business Neighbourhood zone and the extent of existing non-residential land 51 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 uses in small village centres, which are characterised by a low level of development and generally provide a convenience level of service.
Further discussion on the economic role of each of the town centres within a Village – Town Centre zone is provided in Volume 2 of this study.
4.2.3 Village – Tourist
The ‘Village – Tourist’ zone acknowledges the predominance of the tourist industry within the Blue Mountains, particularly the Upper Mountains, and identifies locations that have historical associations with tourism. The Village – Tourist zone allows for a variety of land uses associated with the tourism industry, in addition to a mix of residential forms appropriate to the character attributes of each of the precincts. This zone is applied, appropriately, to more areas than it was under Draft LEP 1997. The application of the Tourist zone to parts of Katoomba was the subject of objections to Draft LEP 1997, and was considered by Commissioner Carleton (Carleton 1998, pp. 87–8).
The application of the zone is extended to specific areas in Mount Victoria, Medlow Bath, Katoomba and Leura that have identified and established roles in the tourist industry. The zone functions at different levels depending on the centre, as provided for in the precinct provisions. The approach to this zone originates from Commissioner Carleton’s observation that ‘a Tourist zoning should not be applied outside established tourist precincts or used for the creation of new tourist precincts’ (Carleton 1998, p. 88).
In Katoomba, the Tourist zone will reinforce the connection between Echo Point and Katoomba Town Centre, and will consolidate tourist-related land uses within this location. In Mount Victoria and Leura, the zone provides opportunities for further development of tourist- related activities, including accommodation. The application of the zone in Mount Victoria seeks to provide more appropriate tourist-related activities on certain land that is presently subject to zones for industrial purposes.
In Medlow Bath, the zone acknowledges the location of the Hydro Majestic Hotel and the historical associations of this area with the tourism industry. The application of this zone allows opportunities for development that is compatible with the Hydro Majestic. Council and Commissioner Carleton acknowledged (in Carleton 1998, p. 218) that land in this locality was suitable for commercial uses and that the possibility of zoning the land Village should be considered. In view of the traditional function of the area, as characterised by the Hydro Majestic, and its low-level retail role, broader zones such as Village – Town Centre or Village – Neighbourhood could not be supported. New development within this area will occur only on the condition that reticulated sewerage services are provided and site-specific controls relating to the area’s sensitivity in relation to the escarpment area have been applied.
4.2.4 Village – Housing
The ‘Village – Housing’ zone responds to the need to provide alternative housing, such as dual occupancies and town houses, in suitable locations. As identified in the RDS 2002 and AHS, the existing supply of alternative housing is insufficient to meet the needs created by changing demographics, such as the ageing population and decreasing household sizes within the Blue Mountains.
The Village – Housing zone will allow for a range of housing types, including multi-dwelling housing forms (defined as three or more dwellings on one allotment). Draft LEP 2002 has incorporated precinct provisions for the majority of Village – Housing zones, particularly where there are existing redevelopment opportunities. Each of the precinct provisions includes a site-specific statement of desired future character, stipulates a building envelope and
52 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 provides specific design controls. This has resulted from a detailed approach to village housing in the residential areas of the Blue Mountains, where optimum sites for this form of development were identified. For a detailed discussion on the Village – Housing precincts, refer to the RDS 2002 that accompanies this study.
A major planning principle of Draft LEP 2002 is built upon the sustainable provision of housing choice. It allows for targeted redevelopment of existing residential areas surrounding local and district service centres, and promotes mixed-use village centres. The Village – Housing zone has generally been applied to land that is located within and around the major village centres, thus consolidating populations in towns that have the capacity, in both services and infrastructure.
The application of the Village – Housing zones has also been based on principles of accessibility. Preliminary inputs on site selection were provided by the Blue Mountains Access Committee, in order to gauge the suitability of these sites for older people or people with a disability. Guiding principles for this outcome included ensuring that the sites were fairly level and within 400 metres of a town centre. Where gradients of pathways were generally conducive to easy access and use of motorised trolleys and the like, this distance limit was increased.
There were a number of factors that limited the potential for the application of a Village – Housing zone. Environmentally sensitive land and land with Protected Area designations were generally excluded, as was land that had significant infrastructure deficiencies. In addition, land that was identified as having significant residential character elements requiring protection through the maintenance of large lot sizes was excluded from consideration for zoning as Village – Housing.
Exceptions to the zone application criteria have been made where the benefits of providing multi-dwelling housing within a location outweighed the adherence to a particular criterion. This occurred in the following instances:
• Katoomba – Cascade and Parke Streets (VH-KA07): A slope steeper than 20 per cent was identified. It was considered that the environmental impacts of development within this already built-up area would be minimal, and that there would be considerable benefits in consolidating urban development adjacent to the district centre of the Blue Mountains. • Lawson – San Jose Avenue (VH-LA01): This site contains a heritage item: the Stratford Girls School (LN018). The zoning of the site for Village – Housing will promote the revitalisation of the site and will provide alternative housing types close to services and transport. The zoning of this site is consistent with Commissioner Carleton’s comments (Carleton 1998, p. 31), except that a Living – Bushland Conservation zone is more appropriately applied to the lower portion of the site, in view of access constraints. Strict design controls, in addition to requirements for heritage impact assessments, have been incorporated within the precinct controls to ensure that any development maintains the significance of the building and its curtilage.
4.2.5 Living – General
The ‘Living – General’ zone allows for single detached dwellings and infill development, including semi-detached or dual-occupancy housing forms. As a result, this zone retains a similar minimum allotment size to that of the Residential 2(a1) zone under LEP 4, and incorporates specific controls in relation to dual-occupancy development. These controls will ensure that the low-density residential streetscape of areas is maintained, as well as promoting quality residential redevelopment.
53 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
In addition, opportunities for home-based business are to be enhanced where these do not compromise overall amenity.
The ‘Living – General’ zone is applied to land suitable for residential purposes where it satisfies the following criteria:
• residual land, not zoned Living – Bushland Conservation, Living – Conservation, Village – Housing or Village – Tourist; • land close to Village – Town Centre or Village – Neighbourhood Centre zones; • land that is generally not affected by a Protected Area (excluding Protected Area – Period Housing) notation; • land that has reticulated sewerage services and is not constrained by servicing limitations; or • land that is not considered to contribute to maintaining a separation between towns.
4.2.6 Living – Conservation
The ‘Living – Conservation’ zone was introduced to respond to character attributes identified within the Residential Character Study (BMCC 2002b) undertaken as part of the review process. The study established that there are some important character themes within Blue Mountains towns and villages that require protection and enhancement. Many of the character themes rely on relatively large lot sizes and site attributes such as low site coverage and landscape setting. Character themes are discussed in greater detail in Volume 2 of this study.
The primary function of the Living – Conservation zone is to protect areas containing significant residential character. The three character types included for protection under this zone are:
• Garden Setting; • Visually Significant Streetscapes; and • Dominant Landscape Setting.
These character types were mapped as part of the character study, and were the direct basis for the Living – Conservation zone. The character types vary between the Upper, Lower and Mid Mountains, though there are consistent features that can be protected through the application of this zone. These features include:
• large lot sizes; • buildings which occupy a small proportion of the site (i.e., have a low ‘site coverage’); and • retention of mature or dense vegetation.
Areas zoned Living – Conservation are not particularly extensive, as they identify areas which have a number of features representing one of the character types mentioned above. In addition, areas that are vulnerable to inappropriate infill development have been identified for the protection provided by this zone.
The Living – Conservation zone has a number of controls to protect the features that add to character. A minimum allotment size is set which recognises the significance of larger blocks in contributing to residential character. The zone allows for the establishment of gardens and the retention of mature vegetation that contributes to the canopy cover, which is important in retaining residential amenity within these areas. Similarly, buildings are required to occupy a relatively small proportion of the allotment. This seeks to encourage infill development that 54 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 reflects the existing built form, which is characterised by smaller dwellings, less of the site being covered by buildings and the predominance of gardens.
The criteria for the application of the zone are based on the character study. The following is a précis of these character types:
• Garden setting: These areas display a theme of established formal gardens that contribute to the streetscape by way of mature vegetation. Areas with garden setting generally have the following features: − relatively large allotments; − deep front setbacks; and − wide lot frontages.
These formal gardens are mostly restricted to the Upper Mountains towns of Blackheath, Leura and Wentworth Falls, although there are some in Springwood. This reflects the naturalist aesthetic tradition of English garden-making in the Upper Mountains, on holiday estates and resorts. These exotic gardens are a quintessential part of the Blue Mountains experience and have been identified in the character study as an important and unique character type, worthy of preservation through land-use controls.
• Dominant landscape setting: As the name suggests, landscape is the predominant feature of areas identified with this character. While these areas do not generally contain traditional formal gardens, mature trees and shrubs dominate over built form in these localities. Often situated in long-established residential areas and around the town centres of villages, these areas contribute to the background setting of the villages themselves, especially in Glenbrook. The traditional subdivision patterns contribute to the character, with large deep allotments and lanes and relatively small dwellings being typical features of locations where this zone is applied. • Visually significant streetscapes: It is important to highlight the role that major streets play in setting the theme for the villages of the Blue Mountains. Streets of visual significance that were identified in the character study include Falls Road in Wentworth Falls, Hare Street in Glenbrook, and some parts of the Great Western Highway and the adjacent residential development.
4.2.7 Living – Bushland Conservation
The role of the ‘Living – Bushland Conservation’ zone is to limit the impacts of development and population growth within fringe locations and environmentally sensitive urban areas of the Blue Mountains. In this regard, it is generally an equivalent zone to the Residential – Bushland Conservation zone under LEP 1991. The Living – Bushland Conservation zone restricts the amount and type of development that can occur, ensuring that residential development minimises impacts on the surrounding environment (such as drinking water catchments) and encourages the retention, where applicable, of bushland residential character, including larger allotment sizes and native vegetation.
Bushfire
In the Blue Mountains there is a high degree of bushfire threat within many urbanised areas, particularly within areas that have developed along ridgelines or spurs. A secondary aim for this zone is to ensure that the form and location of buildings on allotments incorporate measures to minimise threats to life and property in areas of high to extreme bushfire threat, including land within the urban/bushland interface. The low density of development permitted in this zone will limit population growth in areas that are exposed to high and extreme bushfire threat.
55 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Environmental constraints
The natural areas of the Blue Mountains are integral to the region’s character; it is important that the impacts of development are minimised and that predominant bushland settings are retained. For this reason, the Living – Bushland Conservation zone has been extensively applied to areas where environmental qualities are predominant, including residential land that adjoins the national park or areas of open space, areas with slope constraints or land adjoining Environmental Protection zones. In addition, because of the low density of development in this zone, its application is beneficial within water supply catchment areas.
Character
In many cases the bushland character is formed by the presence of large lots that allow indigenous vegetation to dominate the setting. This ‘bushland setting’ has been identified in the Residential Character Study (BMCC 2002b). The minimum allotment size for the Living – Bushland Conservation zone reflects the general average size of blocks on the fringes of villages. The proportion of the site that may be covered by buildings (‘site coverage’) is also restricted. Maintaining low-density development will assist in the protection of bushland character and will limit the effect of residential development on the environment in these areas. For additional discussion on residential character types throughout the Blue Mountains refer to Volume 2 of this study.
Access
The Living – Bushland Conservation zone is also applied where access to services and transport is poor, or where additional development would adversely impact on access to the Great Western Highway. These areas are often located between the villages and contain some element of bushland character in terms of their broader setting. The limitation of development in these areas will help to maintain a separation between towns, and contributes to the experience of the national park and natural areas from the transport corridor. The restriction of residential densities outside the major service centres reinforces Draft LEP 2002’s aim of creating sustainable villages.
Infrastructure constraints
The Living – Bushland Conservation zone is also applied where servicing and infrastructure constraints were identified. In some cases a lack of infrastructure has been the predominant determining factor: for instance, where there is no possibility of providing reticulated sewerage in the future.
Some examples of areas where infrastructure constraints led to a zoning of Living – Bushland Conservation are given below:
• Wentworth Falls has water supply constraints, and there is limited capacity within the localised sewage pumping station at Henderson Road. Development densities have therefore been kept to a minimum in north Wentworth Falls. • Areas with low water pressure around Mitchell and Valley Road in Hazelbrook have been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation. • Faulconbridge has some localised problems at sewage pumping stations. To reflect this constraint, the area east of Burns Road has been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation and Environmental Protection – General. • The residential areas within Yellow Rock and Hawkesbury Heights have been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation to reflect, among other constraints, the lack of reticulated sewerage. These areas are on the Priority Sewer Program. However, the
56 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
cumulative impact of constraints within these towns and their isolation from major services have influenced the low-density residential zoning.
For additional discussion on infrastructure constraints throughout the Blue Mountains refer to Volume 2 of this study.
4.2.8 Employment – General
The ‘Employment – General’ zone aims to maintain existing areas for general industrial purposes, providing for traditional industrial and associated land uses. It also ensures that development incorporates measures to mitigate impacts on the environment. The areas available for industry in the Blue Mountains are limited, due to constraints in land supply, environmental sensitivity and infrastructure provision.
The Employment – General zone has been applied to the following types of land after an assessment of environmental constraints:
• land that is zoned Industrial 4(a) or 4(b) under LEP 4 and land proposed to be zoned Employment under Draft LEP 1997, modified in its extent in response to environmental constraints affecting the land; and • in some limited instances, other land where site characteristics, existing uses and surrounding uses are suitable for Employment uses.
The approach to zoning industrial lands was directed by Commissioner Carleton’s concern that environmentally sensitive land in this zone would not be protected (Carleton 1998, pp. 85–6). The zone priority system ensured that environmental constraints were considered before this zone was applied, and a consistent approach to environmental protection was taken with other zones.
For further discussion on industrial lands, refer to Volume 2 of this study.
4.2.9 Employment – Enterprise
The purpose of the ‘Employment – Enterprise’ zone is to provide opportunities for the location and growth of smaller businesses, information-based industries and ‘cultural’ industries. The zone allows for the co-location of residential dwellings and businesses, and for some limited retailing activity where it is ancillary to the industry.
There is a growing trend towards the establishment of business parks, which attract clusters of industries that benefit from co-location. In addition, the growth of information technology as an industry and the emergence of ‘clean’ industries allows for the opportunity for a more mixed-use type of industrial zone. The proposed Employment – Enterprise zone will accommodate a variety of land uses suitable for new industries in the Blue Mountains.
The Employment – Enterprise zone restricts some industrial land uses such as traditional manufacturing industries, liquid fuel depots, car repair stations and panel beating. The general intention is to provide an area with improved amenity for the location of new industries that do not heavily impact on the environment.
Studies and field investigations were undertaken in order to identify sites that were suitable for a mix of land uses and which fulfil the aims of the proposed Employment – Enterprise zone. The selection of sites was generally limited to areas zoned for industrial purposes under LEP 4, except for a small number of sites that were particularly suitable for this zone. Out of these sites, a selection was made of sites that met most of the following characteristics:
57 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• potential for development of business agglomerations, based on existing business activity; • proximity to residential development; • access and visibility from the Great Western Highway; • close proximity to support services; • high level of infrastructure support; • natural features or view attributes that are conducive to a high level of amenity and responsiveness to the natural environment; • potential to ameliorate impacts on the natural environment through development control provisions; • limited release area to encourage higher densities, and marketing and infrastructure focus.
4.2.10 Regional Transport Corridor
The ‘Regional Transport Corridor’ zone identifies and maintains land for the adequate functioning of the Great Western Highway and Western Railway Line through the Blue Mountains. These facilities represent fundamental infrastructure that underpins the urban settlement within the city.
The Regional Transport Corridor has been applied to land designated for this purpose under LEP 4. In addition, land that has been acquired by the RTA (through road widening and highway improvement programs) has been incorporated into the zone in consultation with the RTA.
New development abutting this zone will require concurrence from the relevant authority, and is not to hinder the traffic flow efficiency and safety of the arterial road network.
The mapping of the Regional Transport Corridor indicates the differentiation between the railway land (rail) and arterial roads (road) and the relevant consent authorities for the different lands. This has been incorporated into the Draft LEP maps through different colours for the different uses in the Regional Transport Corridor.
4.2.11 Recreation – Private
The aim of the Recreation – Private zone is to allow for private recreation and associated land uses throughout the Blue Mountains. The zone identifies land that is suitable for the private provision of recreational areas and facilities for the community. The zone application is confined to land in private ownership and generally recognises established recreational land uses such as golf courses, sports centres and tourist facilities. Examples include the scenic railway site in Katoomba and the golf courses in Wentworth Falls and Leura.
A secondary function of the zone is to allow for the limited provision of self-supporting housing for older people and people with a disability. It will provide opportunities for development to a sufficient scale to enable suitable support services to be provided for residents, as well as providing a range of lifestyle opportunities, particularly in association with recreational activities. Development of these sites will be controlled through precinct provisions that recognise the sites’ special attributes and constraints.
A portion of the St Columba’s site has been zoned Recreation – Private in recognition of the range of existing educational and religious activities on the site, and its use by the community (see 4.3.4 for further discussion).
58 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4.2.12 Recreation – Open Space
The ‘Recreation – Open Space’ zone provides primarily for public recreational opportunities, as well as parks and open space within the city. The zone application focuses on the recognition and retention of land currently reserved, zoned or used for public recreational purposes, rather than seeking to provide additional recreational settings.
Accordingly, the zone was applied to land in public ownership (mainly Council land or Crown land), where that land:
• is currently zoned for recreational purposes; and/or • is set aside or reserved for public recreational and open space purposes; and/or • is currently the site of established recreational uses or facilities.
The Draft LEP does not seek to provide any land for recreational purposes through the zoning and acquisition of private land. Council is currently undertaking the Blue Mountains Recreation and Sport Strategy which, over the next 12 months, will review recreation needs in the Blue Mountains; it will assess the adequacy of the current supply of land to satisfy those needs for formal and informal recreational purposes. The strategy will help Council to decide whether it is necessary to zone and acquire additional lands within the City for recreational purposes.
Through the zone priority system, environmental constraints were recognised in the zoning of land before the Recreation – Open Space zone was applied. This responds to Commissioner Carleton’s views in relation to the treatment of the Recreation zone under Draft LEP 1997 (Carleton 1998, 94–5).
4.2.13 Environmental Protection – General
The ‘Environmental Protection – General’ zone serves to define the extent of the Sustainable Development Threshold (SDT) and to identify land that is not suitable for future urban development, thereby protecting environmentally sensitive land. These areas have been identified as sites where one or a number of constraints to development exist.
The Environmental Protection – General zone applies to land that plays a major role in protecting the water quality, significant flora and fauna habitat and natural areas of the Blue Mountains. Land uses in this zone are restricted to those that are compatible with the maintenance of ecological values of the land.
In defining the extent of the SDT in terms of Residential Investigation areas and large undeveloped sites at the urban fringe, the Environmental Protection – General zone is applied to land that generally:
• has contiguous slopes steeper than 20 per cent; • contains verified significant vegetation communities; • is within a watercourse corridor and associated buffer; and • is uncleared land within Conservation Area Sub-catchments for the Hawkesbury– Nepean River system as identified under SREP 20.
Similarly, in providing for protection of environmental attributes within the more established residential areas, the Environmental Protection – General zone was considered potentially suitable for land that:
• has contiguous, vegetated slope(s) steeper than 33 per cent;
59 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• contains verified significant vegetation communities; • is within a watercourse corridor; • is in the vicinity of the above constraints, and development would result in unacceptable impacts on those identified constraints.
The zone is applied solely to define land capability. Within established urban areas, the application of the zone takes into account existing development. It also seeks to balance achieving environmental management objectives and establishing the site’s development potential, generally with reference to Protected Areas. In some instances it has been necessary to restrict the application of the zone to provide some development potential on a site, with the extent of development potential reflecting the environmental capacity of the land to sustain that development. Restricted application of the zone was undertaken only where the land was not suitable for inclusion in the public reserve system and was not an acquisition priority for Council.
Where land outside the reserve system has significant environmental constraints and is considered to be a priority for inclusion in the public reserve system, the land was subject to an Environmental Protection – Open Space zone and acquisition requirement, as discussed below.
4.2.14 Environmental Protection – Open Space
The ‘Environmental Protection – Open Space’ zone aims to protect environmentally sensitive land within a public reserve system. As with the Environmental Protection – General zone, it is applied to land that is subject to one or more environmental constraints and acts to preclude inappropriate development.
This zone applies to land that is significant for its capacity to contribute to protecting the water quality, significant natural areas and highly significant flora and fauna habitat of the Blue Mountains. This land is to be currently owned by Council or the Crown or proposed for acquisition, and set aside for open space or other public purposes. For the most part, such land is subject to public land management under the Local Government Act 1993 or the Crown Lands Act 1989.
The zone applies to land that:
• has contiguous, vegetated slope(s) steeper than 33 per cent; • contains verified significant vegetation communities; • is within a watercourse corridor; • is in the vicinity of the above constraints, and development would result in unacceptable impacts on those identified constraints.
Land in private ownership, which is subject to multiple constraints as listed above and is considered to be a suitable addition to the public land stock, is also considered for this zoning on a priority basis, as discussed in subsection 6.5. Such land is subject to provisions enabling the acquisition of this land by Council upon request by the owner.
Permissible land uses in this zone are restricted to those that are compatible with the maintenance of ecological values of the land, and access to the land for recreational purposes is limited to nature-based activities that foster an appreciation of those values.
60 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4.3 RESIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION LANDS
The Residential Investigation zone was applied to certain land under LEP 1991 that was considered to have potential for residential development. This was an interim zoning, pending detailed investigations to assess the development capacity of each site. These sites have now been incorporated into Draft LEP 2002, and their proposed zonings are based on an investigation of their environmental constraints and, where relevant, the site’s environmental and cultural heritage and availability of infrastructure. The following discussion outlines the approach to the proposed land-use structure for each of these sites under Draft LEP 2002.
4.3.1 Ridgewell Road, Blackheath
This site is located on the northern urban limits of the village of Blackheath. A watercourse (Hat Hill Creek) flows north-east to south-west through the central section of the site, with a tributary entering from the north-west and flowing east. Hat Hill Creek and its tributary are characterised by steep embankments exceeding 33 per cent slope. A significant swamp community is contained within the riparian corridor; Eucalyptus piperita – E. sieberi open forest and E. oreades – E. piperita open forest/tall open forest are the main vegetation communities occurring on the remainder of the site.
The site is subject to a number of significant constraints, including extreme bushfire threat, transmission lines that traverse the site, its location within a SREP 20 Conservation Area Sub- catchment, slopes steeper than 20 per cent, the presence of watercourses draining to the national park to the east, and significant vegetation communities.
In addition to the site constraints, there are significant infrastructure constraints affecting Blackheath as a whole. The water supply system for Blackheath is at capacity, and any further release of land for residential use would pose an immediate capacity problem. Similarly, the Blackheath sewerage system does not have the capacity to service existing land capable of subdivision until the system is amplified in 2003. Although the site is within the vicinity of backlog sewer programs, the land is below the level of the sewer and the cost of servicing the land is prohibitive.
Access to any potential subdivision on the western portion of the lots would most likely be along Ridgewell Road, a road that is dislocated from the primary urban areas of Blackheath and accessed by an unsealed road from the Great Western Highway.
Zoning outcomes
Subdivision and additional residential development on this site would represent an extension of the existing urban footprint towards Mount Victoria and would generate negative impacts on the watercourses flowing through the site. In addition, providing infrastructure to the site would be problematic and economically unviable.
For these reasons the site has been partially zoned Environmental Protection – General, in recognition of identified environmental constraints. The remainder has been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation, with a No Subdivision notation over the existing lots. This is consistent with the major planning principles of Draft LEP 2002, to limit urban expansion and environmental management in urban areas.
4.3.2 Riches Road/Park Road/Valley Road, Hazelbrook and Woodford area
This site of approximately 166 hectares is largely undeveloped and is located to the south of Hazelbrook and Woodford. Much of the steeper land is fully vegetated, though clearing has occurred on more level areas. A number of tributaries of Bedford Creek dissect the site from
61 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 north to south. All runoff from the site drains into Bedford Creek and ultimately into the Nepean River. These tributary creeks are surrounded by significant habitat, including swamp and creek-line communities, while escarpment vegetation occurs downstream. Significant flora species recorded on the site include Adenochilus nortonii, Lissanthe sapida and Pultenaea glabra. Significant fauna species have also been recorded from this area, namely the giant burrowing frog, red-crowned toadlet and brush bronzewing.
Development at the Residential Investigation lands at south Hazelbrook would place extra demand on the trunk water supply system and would necessitate larger reservoir storage. These works would be required to be funded at the developers’ expense. Consequently, the overall cost of developing these lands is likely to be prohibitive.
The bushfire threat to the entire site is classified as high to extreme, because it is within the urban/bushland interface and has poor access, significant slope and no natural barriers protecting the site.
Zoning outcomes
The site is heavily constrained by environmental factors and by its locality on the periphery of the urban area. Development within this site would place considerable pressure on servicing and infrastructure requirements and would expose communities to high levels of bushfire threat. In addition, the impact of development on watercourses and vegetation communities within the locality would be unacceptable. For these reasons, the Environmental Protection zone has been applied over land with the applicable criteria, and the Living – Bushland Conservation zone with a No Subdivision notation has been applied to other land. This zoning provides buffers to the environmentally sensitive sites and limits potential populations in this exposed and under-serviced area. The restriction of development potential on this site is consistent with planning principles of Draft LEP 2002, limiting urban expansion and applying environmental management within the urban areas.
4.3.3 Chapman Avenue/Martin Place, Linden
Most of the area in these Residential Investigation sites is very steep, with slopes steeper than 33 per cent. The limited area with slopes less than 20 per cent is surrounded by very steep side-slopes. A ridgeline separates two drainage lines, the western one being within the residential investigation area. These creeks drain to Glenbrook Creek and ultimately to the Nepean River.
Native vegetation on the site includes Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata open forest and Corymbia gummifera – E. sieberi woodland/open forest. Although neither is a significant community, both contain significant species of flora and fauna. Significant vegetation communities occur down-slope to the west, south and south-east of the area, including Riparian Complex and Ceratopetalum apetalum – Doryphora sassafras rainforest community.
Due to the steep slopes, complete vegetation cover and its location abutting the national park, the site is subject to high to extreme bushfire threat.
Sydney Water has advised that water storage reservoirs are sufficient to supply existing zonings in this area. However, development of this Residential Investigation site would require additional storage capacity in the area, and might require amplification of the system. This cost would have to be borne by the developer.
The site is not sewered, and costs of connections and any amplification to the existing system would need to be borne by the developer.
62 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Zoning outcomes
Development within this area is highly problematic due to the steep slopes, proximity to watercourses and bushfire threat. The locality is relatively isolated from services. For these reasons the site has been zoned Environmental Protection over the steep slopes and Living – Bushland Conservation over the remainder. This will restrict residential development within this area to a minimum. This zone application is consistent with the major planning principles of Draft LEP 2002.
4.3.4 St Columba’s, Hawkesbury Road, Springwood/Winmalee
The following overview provides a brief explanation and basis for the proposed zoning structure for the St Columba’s site, making explicit the assumptions and principles that give rise to that zoning. The scope of investigation and discussion reflects both Commissioner Carleton’s observation that “considerable debate exists over what is the most appropriate zoning for the St Columba’s site” (1998: 181) and the range of complex heritage and environmental considerations relevant to the land. The zone application relies on Council’s updated environmental data and builds on the following previous studies and assessments:
• Commissioner Carleton’s report into Draft LEP 1997, particularly Part 16: St Columba’s Site, Springwood. • St Columba’s Heritage Study, prepared for Blue Mountains City Council by Perumal Murphy Wu in February 1996. • St Columba’s Planning Report, prepared for Blue Mountains City Council by Perumal Murphy Wu in February 1996. • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) 20 - Hawkesbury Nepean River. • Environmental Management Plan 2, Study Area 4.
St Columba’s is situated between Springwood and Winmalee, north of Hawkesbury Road. It is one of the largest land holdings in the Lower Blue Mountains, covering approximately 500 hectares. The property extends 3.4 kilometres along Springwood Ridge, which extends north- east towards the Grose River, and is up to 1.7 kilometres wide. Much of the southern boundary of the property is defined by existing urban development. To the north, the property adjoins the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Heritage
The entire site is listed as a Heritage Item under LEP 1991 and the site and its buildings are also classified by the National Trust.
The property displays valuable evidence of three distinct phases of occupation:
• Aboriginal occupation before 1890; • limited European settlement at the turn of the twentieth century; and • institutional education and religious use from 1908 to the present.
Aboriginal heritage
Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council is opposed to development on the land, which is rich in significant Aboriginal sites. Any proposed development would require consent from the Director-General of National Parks in accordance with section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, to destroy sites or potential sites. Such a consent would not be issued until any views of Aboriginal Land Council had been considered.
63 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Consultants Perumal Murphy Wu undertook a heritage field survey over the potentially developable land for Council in 1995. The survey identified 18 Aboriginal sites (including seven shelters with archaeological deposits, two art sites and three grinding groove sites) and 14 potential sites. Of these sites, only one shelter with archaeological deposits and one grinding groove site had been identified previously. The 14 potential sites all consisted of shelters with potential archaeological evidence of Aboriginal occupation. Residential development will place all the sites at increased risk through exposure to vandalism and visitation.
European heritage
Most of the area north of the St Columba’s High School is native bushland, vulnerable to frequent fires and draining into sensitive watersheds of the national park. The remainder contains some important heritage precincts, which were the subject of the Perumal Murphy Wu heritage study in 1995. The heritage precincts were identified as the college buildings, important cultural landscape features such as the Grotto and the Stations of the Cross, the northern playing fields and handball courts, the eastern oval known as the Colosseum, the southern ‘top’ oval, the formal drive, ‘Elmhurst’ and St Thomas Aquinas Primary School.
The consultant’s recommendations for future development (Perumal Murphy Wu 1995, pp. 28–30), in terms of a conservation policy, included:
• retention of the cultural heritage precinct as a cohesive group; • limiting development along the main drive to complementary institutional functions or recreational uses such as playing fields; • maintaining the separation and independence of any future housing development from the school grouping, with access via external roads, not from the central avenue; • conservation of bushland on the site, including bushland along the north-eastern spur ridge; • retention of ovals for recreational use for students and the local community; and • maintenance of a continuous buffer edge between the precinct and any new development to the east.
Catchment issues
Springwood Creek and tributaries drain the south-western part of the land, and the creek forms the western boundary of the northern half. Blue Gum Swamp Creek meanders towards the north, close to the eastern site boundary. Springwood Creek flows into the Grose River and into the Hawkesbury River, while Blue Gum Swamp Creek turns east and drains into the Nepean River about 5 kilometres upstream of the Grose River.
The land west of St Columba’s ridge drains directly into Springwood Creek, forming part of the sub-catchment of the Grose River, which is identified as a conservation area sub-catchment under SREP 20. Clause 6(2) of the SREP 20, as considered by Carleton, provides a ‘clear intent … to preclude future development on uncleared areas in conservation area sub- catchments’ (Carleton 1998, p. 199).
Further, the Action Plan of the Hawkesbury–Nepean Environmental Planning Strategy requires that no future land is to be re-zoned for urban development in these sub-catchments (Action 2.8.2). Consideration must be given to the impact of development on national parks, nature reserves and state forests and conservation area sub-catchments, in order to protect water quality and biodiversity (Action 2.9.1).
The eastern portion of the site forms a part of the Middle Nepean sub-catchment, with the eastern portion of the site draining into Lynch’s Creek sub-catchment. This sub-catchment is not currently recognised as being within a conservation area sub-catchment under SREP 20.
64 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Blue Gum Swamp Creek is in the immediate catchment for this portion of the St Columba’s and has very high conservation status in view of its faunal habitat and corridors and the range of significant vegetation communities present.
It is within this context that Council resolved to seek to have the Middle Nepean included as a conservation area sub-catchment within SREP 20 at its meeting of 22 June 1999. An assessment, including inputs from the Hawkesbury–Nepean Catchment Management Trust, indicates that the upper portion of the Middle Nepean sub-catchment exceeds an 80 per cent bushland coverage. Such a proportion of bushland coverage is the primary criterion for establishing conservation area sub-catchments within the Environmental Planning Strategy of SREP 20. However, as the Middle Nepean sub-catchment includes urbanised parts of Penrith and Hawkesbury LGA, the catchment fails to meet the bushland coverage test when considered as a whole.
It is recognised that this is a relatively crude tool for assessing conservation status of catchments. In response to Council’s resolution, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning indicated in May 2000 that:
Future review of SREP 20 may include re-assessment of conservation sub-catchments using more finely grained assessment criteria capable of identifying conservation sub- catchments at a smaller scale. This assessment would be done using consistent criteria across the SREP 20 area.
Council’s resolution refers to amendment of SREP 20 to identify the Middle Nepean sub- catchment as a conservation sub-catchment. The Department would not support amendment to the conservation sub-catchments within the SREP itself prior to any future catchment-wide review. However, Council could identify the Middle-Nepean sub-catchment as a conservation sub-catchment and apply the controls in SREP 20 in the relevant Local Environmental Plan.
In view of the environmental significance of the immediate receiving waters, a case emerges for the protection of this portion of the St Columba’s site in a manner consistent with the provisions applying to conservation area sub-catchments. Since the eastern portion of the site may be included in a conservation area sub-catchment, any residential zoning of the land should be approached with caution, particularly where it involves clearing land for development.
Bushfire hazard and risk assessment
The bushfire hazard of most of the site is rated as either extreme or high, with a relatively small central portion classified as moderate (Perumal Murphy Wu 1996, p. 8). This high fire risk is due to aspect, wind and frequency of bushfire occurrence. The site is ‘exposed to a high risk of a large-scale fire driven by wind from the north-west through the Grose Valley towards the lower mountains’ (Sinclair Knight Merz, in Carleton 1998, p. 198).
The land is exposed to potential direct attack from the most frequent type of bushfire in the Blue Mountains Fires District. Fire history shows that most of the eastern part of the site has the highest fire threat in the Blue Mountains Fire District, in terms of both history and fire scenarios. The site has limited natural defences against fire and has problems with emergency access. Improved and alternative access, which could include a perimeter road, would be required before any development could occur. To reduce fire hazard, any residential development should be located on the lower-risk areas on relatively flat land, away from the gullies.
It is emphasised that the assessment of fire hazard is relative and there is no guarantee even that areas of low risk will never be subject to serious fires. Consideration of hazard at the zoning stage is based on probabilities rather than extremes, and it is considered that areas of low risk are relatively suitable for urban development (Perumal Murphy Wu 1996, pp. 8–9).
65 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
These areas of lower risk are to be the primary focus for potential residential development on this site.
Natural environment
Most of the land is vegetated and has probably never been cleared, although the extent of clearing before 1908, when the Church purchased the land, is unknown. Landscape elements are essential to the historical setting of heritage items on the site.
Bedrock in the area is Triassic Hawkesbury sandstone, overlain by Wianamatta Ashfield shale on the ridge to the south of the main college buildings, extending to the site entrance at Hawkesbury Road. Soils derived from Hawkesbury sandstone are sandy, low in organic matter, poorly structured and highly erodible after disturbance. The clearing of vegetation from steep sandstone slopes for fuel reduction purposes will expose these soils and lead to sheet, rill and gully erosion, which has detrimental impacts on water quality. The soils of the western part of the site pose a high to extreme erosion hazard due to slope, while western ridges are classed as a low to moderate erosion hazard. Eastern parts of the site have low, moderate or extreme erosion hazard depending on slope.
An endangered ecological vegetation community, Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) has been recorded growing on Wianamatta shale within the site. This community is located near the Hawkesbury Road entrance to the site, in the south-eastern corner between St Thomas Aquinas Primary School and the back of residences in Paulwood Avenue.
Other vegetation species of conservation significance include a stand of she-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis), which is the major food tree of the endangered glossy black cockatoo. This vegetation is located in the north-eastern corner of the site. Additionally, two plants of the nationally endangered Persoonia acerosa have been identified on the site.
More recently, botanist Steve Douglas has recorded 11 small populations of a rare shrub Pultenaea villifera within the St Columba’s residential investigation area (Douglas, 2001). The NSW populations of P. villifera are coded 3RC-1 by Briggs and Leigh (1995). Although the species is not currently listed under the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act 1995, it has been nominated for listing in the Blue Mountains as Endangered under Schedule 1 Part 2 of the TSC Act, and as Vulnerable in NSW under Schedule 2 of the TSC Act.
The P. villifera subpopulation at St Columba’s occurs in open forest/woodland of Corymbia gummifera and Eucalyptus sparsifolia with some shale influence, and adjoins cleared and highly modified Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest with dominants of E. sparsifolia and Syncarpia glomulifera. This subpopulation occurs on the ridge top north-east of the high school, and to the east and north of the existing football field, basketball and handball courts.
Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations
Commissioner Carleton (1998, pp. 198–200) made a number of recommendations relating specifically to zoning of the St Columba’s site:
• Large-scale urban development and clearing of vegetation should not occur on slopes steeper than 20 per cent for any purpose. • The western uncleared section of the site should be zoned Environmental Protection for consistency with SREP 20.
1 where 3 indicates that the population has a geographic range of 100km or more; R indicates that it is rare; C indicates that it is represented in conservation reserves, being national parks or State forests; and - indicates that it may not be adequately conserved. 66 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Residential zoning of land with an extreme to high bushfire risk should not occur; Commissioner Carleton supported Council’s zoning boundaries under Draft LEP 1997 as a reflection of bushfire risk. • A precautionary approach should be taken to bushfire threat. • Carleton supported the practice of prohibiting subdivision in unsewered areas, and recommended that the No Subdivision notation be retained. However, the option to allow subdivision for purposes associated with education and church uses should be investigated. • He did not support the zoning put forward by the landowner, nor did he support any Living zone for the site, in view of significant development constraints. • He supported the Living - Conservation zone for the site where appropriate. • Carleton recommended limited release of the site for urban development, with Stage 1 in relatively close proximity to existing urban development. A cautious approach should be taken, however; and unless initial development can satisfactorily mitigate impacts, more sensitively located land should not be developed. • He recommended that either the Residential Investigation zoning over the eastern portion of the site be retained while staged development is investigated; or that Stage 1 be zoned Living - Conservation, with the remainder of eastern ridge-top areas retaining Residential Investigation zoning.
Zoning outcomes
Although the site remains the largest greenfield site within the Blue Mountains, the significant constraints that have been identified have reduced its potential for major residential development. A balance of land uses has been proposed that will accommodate limited and site-responsive development on the most appropriate locations within the site.
The conservation of the site is considered, against the potential social and economic benefits arising from sustainable development of the site. However, the approach taken to the zoning of this land is underwritten by Carleton’s observation that ‘the proven environmental sensitivity of the site provides justification for the adoption of a cautious approach to the development of this land’ (Carleton 1998, p. 199). The zones of Environmental Protection – General, Recreation – Private and Living – Bushland Conservation are proposed for this site; each will be considered in turn.
Environmental Protection – General
In recognition of environmental constraints (particularly slope, vegetation and hydrological conditions), high and extreme bushfire threat and heritage issues, the Environmental Protection – General zone has been applied to a significant proportion of the site: that land which is outside the Sustainable Development Threshold. This is consistent with the major planning principles of limiting urban expansion and implementing responsible environmental management within the Blue Mountains, as well as the statutory constraints imposed by SREP 20.
The north-eastern ridge-top area, which had previously been suggested for a Living - Conservation zone under Draft LEP 1997 and recommended by Carleton for retention as a Residential Investigation zone (Carleton 1998, p. 200), is included in the Environmental Protection – General zone. This recognises that:
• a precautionary approach to the future residential development of this land is needed; • the land constitutes a high bushfire hazard (Perumal Murphy Wu 1996, pp. 8–9); and encouraging low-density residential development to extend along isolated ridge-tops
67 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
spurs above steep wooded slopes, with limited opportunities for alternative access, is difficult to support;2 • this land drains directly into Blue Gum Swamp Creek and the Middle Nepean sub- catchment, and would require extensive clearing of bushland for residential development and to ameliorate bushfire threat. The potential future nomination of this land as part of a conservation area sub-catchment should be resolved before considering a zoning for residential purposes, which would run counter to catchment protection objectives; • the conservation of bushland contributes to maintaining the historic and aesthetic setting for St Columba’s and, more specifically, the conservation of bushland along the eastern spur ‘would maintain a direct connection on the bush trail from the high school to the “Colosseum” and the bottom oval’ (Perumal Murphy Wu 1995, p. 30); • the suggested land use structure under EMP2 showed this land zoned Environmental Protection (BMCC 1997b, p. 140); • this eastern spur is recognised as the most constrained of the potential development areas, and its zoning for residential purposes should not proceed until impacts from the other development areas (i.e. the Living – Bushland Conservation and Recreation – Private zone as discussed below) are assessed. Whether the land is zoned Residential Investigation (as recommended by Carleton) or Environmental Protection – General, any future subdivision and use of this land for residential purposes would require the rezoning of the land. The rezoning process, including an accompanying environmental study, provides an appropriate vehicle for an assessment of the cumulative impact of the development on the site. Such a staged approach to development of this site was indicated by Perumal Murphy Wu (1996, p. 38) and recommended by Carleton (1998 p. 199), with the latter stating that:
the uncertainty and lack of investigation of critical matters, particularly potential downstream water impacts would be assisted by a staged development (and zoning) approach. Unless initial development can satisfactorily mitigate impacts, then later more sensitively located land cannot be developed.
• although it is not considered appropriate, before exhibiting the Draft LEP, to retain a Residential Investigation zoning, the option remains for this land to be deferred from the LEP prior to its final gazettal, should Council determine this to be necessary. Such a deferral would, in effect, retain the Residential Investigation zoning on this portion of the site as recommended by Carleton.
Recreation – Private
The central spine, following the main drive, is proposed to be zoned Recreation – Private. This zone covers previously cleared areas, and recognises the current uses of the land, which include educational, religious, recreational and community uses. Such uses are consistent with the heritage conservation objectives for the site, and serve to augment the short supply of level land in private ownership that is available for recreation uses in the Springwood/Winmalee area and would be permissible under the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning provides the potential for commercial return from parts of the site through either partnership or lease arrangements with sporting associations or other parties.
A precinct has been identified within the site that provides an opportunity for accessible housing to be developed, subject to detailed design controls. This type of housing permits a higher yield than the Living – Bushland Conservation zone, while limiting the areas potentially released and cleared for development and reducing the area of the urban/bushland interface. Perumal Murphy Wu observed that medium-density housing forms would not be
2 The particular vulnerability of areas with these characteristics was recognised by CSIRO as a planning consideration in 1978; refer to Luke and McArthur 1978, p. 137. 68 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 inappropriate on the site (1996, p. 39), although they generally favoured low-density housing. Discussion within EMP2 concerning the future zoning of this site provides an assessment that the site is not suitable for multi-unit housing, in view of its isolation from transport and commercial nodes, but considers that ‘aged housing may be appropriate’ (BMCC 1997b, p. 122).
Importantly, this site provides one of the few opportunities to provide suitably designed and serviced housing for older people and people with a disability in the Springwood/Winmalee area. The Recreation – Private zone will permit only self-sustained accessible housing within the precinct, subject to compliance with development controls that address, among other matters, bushfire threat and heritage conservation.
This precinct is limited to that area assessed as having a moderate bushfire threat (Perumal Murphy Wu 1996, Fig. 7) and being serviced by a number of local roads with direct access to Hawkesbury Road as well as the main drive through the site. The development of this housing form provides opportunities for an integrated response to bushfire threat. It is considered that cluster-style developments under a community title provide practical opportunities to manage direct fire threat in the design process. Such opportunities diminish with low-density housing forms and conventional subdivisions, where measures to protect against bushfire may be incompatible with the retention and re-establishment of native vegetation. A primary consideration for any residential development in this precinct must be the facility to respond effectively to bushfire threat, including emergency access and evacuation procedures meeting the needs of older people and people with a disability.
Planning for Bushfire Protection (NSW Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW 2001) provides the following relevant comment concerning accessible housing:
The nature of SEPP5 development determines that a relatively less mobile residential population is present and as such creates difficulties when evacuation is required. These residents cannot generally be expected to defend the property from bushfire attack.
SEPP 5 specifies that developments for older people or people with a disability can be excluded from lands identified in environmental planning instruments as having a ‘high bushfire hazard’ (or like description). Councils are advised that high hazard areas are a subset of bushfire-prone areas and SEPP 5 exclusion provisions should not be misconstrued as applying to all bushfire-prone areas. However, to reduce the impact of a bushfire event on this type of development habitable buildings must be constructed to the maximum setback identified [within the manual] for the relevant vegetation group and slope class. This setback must be maintained regardless of the level of construction applied.
(NSW Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW 2001, p. 26)
Consideration of bushfire threat has also informed the integration of this zone with other housing opportunities within the Living - Bushland Conservation zone.
Living – Bushland Conservation
The Living – Bushland Conservation zone has been applied to land adjacent to residential areas and will provide for alternative access for the site, other than by the main drive. It is considered that suitable measures to protect this portion of the site from the threat of bushfire can be incorporated into the assessment process for any subdivision of this land for residential development, which may include a cluster housing development under the draft plan.
69 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
4.3.5 David Road, Springwood
The site on David Road comprises part of the sub-catchment of Magdala Creek, situated to the east of Raymond Road and Scott Street. It lies within a kilometre of the Springwood Railway Station and abuts the town centre of Springwood.
EMP2 concluded that the area was heavily constrained by steep slopes, significant flora and fauna and bushfire threat, and that a more detailed study of the area was required. ERM Mitchell McCotter were appointed by Council in October 1996 to undertake a detailed study, which was completed in September 1997.
The consultants undertook a review of the suitability of the developable areas, and provided additional information on stormwater, archaeology, environmental management and road and traffic issues. Options for different development densities were considered, and a recommended density was proposed for each development area.
The developable areas were defined using explicit land capability/suitability criteria in a ‘sieve analysis’ process. Capability criteria included an assessment of the extent of ridge lines, escarpments, slopes, natural drainage lines, bushfire threat, visually significant vegetation, significant flora and fauna habitats and buffer zones, vegetation communities and Aboriginal archaeology across the site. This was supplemented by site inspections, site-specific studies and surveys from Draft LEP 1997. The resulting developable areas differed from those derived from a simple application of the EMP2 data, in that the significance of the forested area north of David Road was reassessed and the area was included as potentially developable.
Five areas were identified as having residential development potential. These areas were located around the edge of the valley on the upper slopes and ridges, and were further analysed and examined by the consultants. These developable areas were modified as a result of the investigations, as discussed below:
• Area 1 is the land north of the present David Road reservation. It has good access to the railway station and town centre, and is located on Macquarie Road, a future collector road. Most of Area 1 has been previously cleared and retains only a scattering of remnant vegetation. The northern part of the land is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development, and has a moderate fire threat. The southern section of Area 1 is highly constrained by steep slopes, part of the significant stand of Eucalyptus deanei and Syncarpia glomulifera, and the occurrence of a rare plant species, Lissanthe sapida. • Area 2 is part of the lot to the south-west of the David Road reservation. The southern and central portions of this large lot contain significant areas of slope steeper than 33 per cent. Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera tall open forest, a scheduled significant vegetation community, marks the northern boundary of Area 2. Other boundaries are largely determined by the extent of existing clearing, retention of drainage lines and steep slopes. • Area 3 is on the eastern side of Area 2, and occupies the lower end of a minor ridge abutting existing residential development. Currently the land is covered with dry open forest which, while having some intrinsic value, is not of high conservation significance. Only about 2000 square metres is suitable for development, outside the bushfire hazard reduction zones. • Area 4 is centred on the existing Anglican Youth Camp facility, located on a broad, largely cleared ridge top. The cleared areas are bounded by a dry open forest/woodland predominantly comprising regrowth. An intermittent natural drainage line exists at the eastern boundary of Area 4 and is surrounded by good-quality riparian vegetation. This drainage line is excluded from the development area. The recommended development area allows for a buffer of 10–12 metres above the
70 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
general alignment of the steeper slopes, to ensure that a screening fringe of vegetation is retained and to buffer the more sensitive down-slope areas. All fire hazard reduction zones are within the development area. • Area 5 is on the southern end of the site fronting Spring Street. It occupies the northern half of this ridge top, while existing residential development and tennis courts occupy the other side of the ridge. The area is covered in dry open forest/woodland and is relatively flat. An extreme bushfire hazard rating applies to the land.
Environmental context
Much of the site is dominated and defined by a number of major ridge lines. Slopes vary from flat to steeper than 33 per cent with about 60 per cent of the land having a slope of 20 per cent or more. Much of the steeper land is cleared or is highly disturbed, and drains into the Magdala Creek sub-catchment, which is also highly disturbed. This catchment receives most of the stormwater from the Springwood Town Centre. The majority of this site is outside the SDT.
Three vegetation communities characterise the site: Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera tall open forest; E. piperita – Angophora costata open forest; and E. gummifera – E. sparsifolia woodland/open forest. The Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera tall open forest is a significant vegetation community scheduled under Draft LEP 2002. It is listed as an Endangered Vegetation Community in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act. This community is found in two locations within the residential investigation lands: above the powerline easement in a large gully in the western half of the TAFE land, and below the David Road reservation in the north-western corner of the Glessauf P/L land.
Access
There is no formal access or practical vehicular access across the site. A road reserve currently allows for an extension of David Road, but steep slopes, significant vegetation and an archaeological site make this alignment unacceptable. Council proposes to close this road reserve.
Access to Area 2 is problematic; however, two options may be pursued. The existing battleaxe handle fronting Scott Street, while only 3 metres wide and on slopes of 20–25 per cent, may accommodate a driveway for a single dwelling. Alternatively, access could be purchased by negotiating a path over Sydney Water easements and private land to the south to Kerry Avenue, or through residential lots fronting Scott Avenue. Until alternative access can be negotiated, the lot as it is currently configured is capable of only a single dwelling.
Infrastructure provision
Discussions with Sydney Water have identified that it would be problematic to provide infrastructure to any major development within the David Road site. This is due to the ageing and overloaded systems that service the locality at present. New development within the vicinity would place increased pressures on the existing systems and require amplification at the developers’ expense.
In addition, development on the northern portion of the site would be of particular concern for Sydney Water given its proximity to the headwaters of Magdala Creek, which is within the SREP 20 sub-catchment. Any sewage overflows into this system could jeopardise Sydney Water’s licensing arrangement with the Environment Protection Authority.
71 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Zoning outcomes
Area 1 (North David Road): This part of the site is the most complex, with competing planning principles being applied within the area. The area is close to Springwood town centre, and is relatively accessible. However, the site contains remnant significant vegetation and steep slopes, and is close to watercourses. For these reasons an Environmental Protection – General zone has been applied to a major southern portion of the area. In addition, a Living – Bushland Conservation zone has been applied to the northern part of this area to act as a buffer and reduce pressures on infrastructure within the locality. The Living – Bushland Conservation zone also reflects the limited land that is appropriate for development within this location. The developable part of this area is relatively narrow and is confined by the presence of the significant vegetation and steep slopes to the south.
The eastern cleared portion of this area has been zoned Living – General and is within an Accessible Housing Area; this permits the development of accessible housing, reflecting its suitability for this form of development and its accessibility to De Chair Avenue.
Area 2 (Scott Street): Due to the existing access problems associated with Area 2, this area has been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation to allow a single residence to be built.
Areas 3 and 4 (Fels Avenue): Due to their proximity to Springwood, relatively unconstrained topography and the surrounding residential development, Areas 3 and 4 have been zoned as Living – General, with an Accessible Housing Area notation. These areas are already cleared, and the bushfire threat, although high, has been moderated by the presence of an access road around the perimeter of Area 4 and relatively good access from the site to the urban areas of Springwood. Sydney Water has indicated that access to the sewer would be provided only for single dwellings, as higher densities would require sewer amplification. Amplification would be undertaken at the developer’s expense.
Area 5 (Spring Street): This area has a dominant bushland character, is some distance from town and adjoins Environment Protection zones corresponding with the extreme slope. The Living – Bushland Conservation zone has been applied to parts of the area to provide a buffer. The bushfire threat in this area is extreme and the land behind the area slopes steeply, exacerbating the threat. Surrounding properties are similarly zoned Living – Bushland Conservation. Sydney Water has indicated that they would provide access to the sewer only for single dwellings, as any higher densities would require costly sewer amplification.
4.3.6 Farm Road, Springwood
The Farm Road residential investigation site is situated on a small plateau on the south side of Springwood. The site has some areas constrained by a slope steeper than 33 per cent, while very steep fully vegetated slopes adjoin it on the north and east. Gullies spur out to the north and north-east, and exposed rock shelves occur through the steeper parts of the site. The site is fully affected by an extreme bushfire threat.
Most of the site is vegetated with a mix of Eucalyptus gummifera – E. sparsifolia woodland/open forest and E. piperita – Angophora costata open forest. A significant plant species occurs close to the site (underground orchid Rhizanthella slateri), although no significant plant species have been recorded from the site itself.
In addition to the environmental constraints, there is no capacity in the sewerage system for further development of the Farm Road site. The surrounding properties are zoned Living – Bushland Conservation.
72 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Zoning outcomes
The less steep sections of the land have been zoned Living – Bushland Conservation, while Environmental Protection – General zoning covers the steeper portions. The bushfire threat in this area is extreme and the land surrounding the area is steeply sloping, exacerbating the threat and rendering the land unsuitable for conventional residential development. Council does not wish to allow more residential development in areas that abut bushland fringes in extreme bushfire threat areas.
Additionally, the site’s location some distance from the commercial and transport nodes reduces its potential for residential development. The lack of capacity of the sewerage system in this area also prevents the further development of this site.
4.4 LOCALITY PROVISIONS
Locality provisions and precincts have been incorporated within the land-use framework of Draft LEP 2002. The precincts represent areas of homogeneous function, design or character, with identifiable roles in the amenity and function of a particular village or locality. The purpose of the locality provisions is to ensure that development contributes to a stated outcome, or statement of ‘desired future character’, identified for each precinct. Site- specific controls relating to building height, setback and site coverage (the ‘building envelope’) combine with design considerations to ensure that development is consistent with the desired future character for the locality.
Precincts provide the base level of development control for the land to which they apply, which would otherwise be provided by zones. The structure of Draft LEP 2002 allows for additional precincts to be developed and incorporated within the plan as required. So far, precincts have been developed for higher-order zones, which allow for a more concentrated array of land uses, as follows:
• Village – Town Centre • Village – Neighbourhood Centre • Village – Tourist • Village – Housing • Recreation – Private.
Precincts have not been developed for all land within these zones, but rather for localities where there is judged to be high potential for development or redevelopment. Precincts have also been applied to prominent localities or to sites that are highly valued by the community for their existing amenity values.
Planning provisions for each precinct fall within the following sections:
• Desired future character statements
The planning provisions introduce ‘desired future character’ statements as an important means of identifying and retaining the character of precincts. The statements represent broader strategic initiatives for each precinct and give the community a better understanding of the plan’s aims.
The desired future character statements comprise two components: a ‘precinct vision statement’ and the more traditional ‘precinct objectives’. Future development must be tested against these performance measures as part of the land-use assessment process.
73 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Building envelope
This part of the plan provides both prescriptive and performance-based controls relating to building form and configuration:
− building height; − setback; − site coverage; and − development density. • Design considerations
The design considerations are tailored provisions relating to more intricate design details for each precinct, such as architectural detail and the need for street frontages that encourage pedestrian amenity and activity. Development proposals must demonstrate consistency with these provisions to Council’s satisfaction.
4.4.1 Precincts within major town centres
Precincts have been developed for the ten main town centres within the Blue Mountains. These town centres have been identified on the basis that they represent major shopping and service centres, have historic significance, play an important role in the tourist industry, or embody character traits unique to the Blue Mountains. The ten centres are:
• Mount Victoria; • Blackheath; • Katoomba; • Leura; • Wentworth Falls; • Lawson; • Hazelbrook; • Springwood; • Blaxland; and • Glenbrook.
The development of precincts within the ten town centres has been a collaborative process between Council staff, consultants and the community. Design-based planning workshops were held at eight of the ten major town centres during 2001 (excluding Katoomba and Lawson). These workshops assisted in the formulation of precincts and desired future character statements. Attendance at these workshops was high, with a total of 1250 residents participating in the process.
The use of precincts acknowledges that the protection and enhancement of character values within these towns is difficult to achieve through generic controls. Instead the specific character and qualities within each town, as identified by the community, can provide guidance and a context to future development.
4.4.2 Village – Housing precincts
The development of Village – Housing precincts acknowledges the potential impact of higher-density development on the amenity and character of towns and villages across the
74 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Blue Mountains. Precincts have been developed to balance the needs of the local population for a range of housing options against the need to retain character attributes. The Village – Housing precinct controls include site-specific design guidelines and provisions that will respond to site variations. This approach consolidates the fine-grained approach to zone application across the Blue Mountains, and reiterates a number of the major planning principles for Draft LEP 2002.
One or more Village – Housing precincts have been developed for the following towns:
• Blackheath; • Katoomba; • Leura; • Wentworth Falls; • Lawson; • Hazelbrook; • Springwood; and • Blaxland.
For further discussion on the application of the Village – Housing zone, refer to subsection 4.2.4.
4.4.3 Recreation – private precincts
There are a number of prominent sites within the Blue Mountains that have the potential for redevelopment for high-intensity land uses. Precincts have been developed to ensure that development within these sites is in line with community expectations, servicing capacities, and principles of environmental management and character retention. The precincts provide site-responsive design requirements and controls, which have been developed through detailed site analysis and consultation with the community, and are based on the recommendations of Commissioner Carleton. Precincts developed within this zone include:
• Glenbrook Infants School; and • St Columba’s school and surrounds (as discussed in subsection 4.3.4).
4.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Draft LEP 2002 contains an additional set of controls that complement the zoning and precinct applications in regulating land use. These controls relate to specific land uses or development restrictions that apply to individual parcels of land, and are shown on the statutory map series, with the exception of additional land uses. Specific notations on the map and provisions within the plan allow for a focused and fine-grained approach to locality planning, and respond to the physical capacities of land or other planning considerations in individual locations.
Such provisions operating through the Draft LEP 2002 maps include:
• Accessible Housing Area; • Consolidation Requirement; • No Subdivision Restriction; • Proposed Road Closure; and • Special Use 75 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The basis of these provisions are outlined below.
4.5.1 Accessible Housing Areas
The intention of the Accessible Housing Areas (AHAs) is to stipulate the location requirements for accessible housing, ensuring that it is located close to services and facilities that are adequate to meet the needs of older people and people with a disability. Ten primary townships, or Designated Service Centres (DSCs), were selected for the application of an AHA, to allow for the efficient consolidation of services and facilities. These townships have existing services and facilities that meet the baseline requirements of SEPP 5. They are:
• Blackheath; • Katoomba; • Leura; • Wentworth Falls; • Lawson; • Hazelbrook; • Springwood; • Winmalee; • Blaxland; and • Glenbrook.
The AHA was applied within the ten DSCs in accordance with certain criteria that identified the most appropriate areas for accessible housing. The AHA was to be within a minimum walkable distance of the central business core of the relevant DSC. This distance, generally, was 400 metres; however, where an acceptable gradient in the continuous path of travel was available, the minimum distance was extended to between 800 and 1000 metres.
Specific requirements were also applied to the access routes between the accessible housing development and the DSC. Access had to be available via a continuous accessible path of travel that could be used by a wheelchair or motorised cart, or where such a path could be reasonably developed in the future. Generally the path was not to exceed a slope of 1:14; however, a slope as steep as 1:10 could be considered, provided it was not sustained for more than 50–100 metres, in recognition of the topographical constraints within the Blue Mountains. Also, any crossing of an arterial road was to be at a signalised or other safe crossing point. Any route over the rail line was to be via a level pedestrian crossing, or a bridge providing for wheelchair access.
The AHAs included all areas zoned Village – Housing under the Draft LEP. Areas subject to Living – Bushland Conservation or Living – Conservation zones under the Draft LEP were excluded from the AHAs, because Accessible Housing is prohibited within these zones.
The allocation of AHAs is discussed in greater detail in Council’s Accessible Housing Strategy (BMCC 2002a). Council considers that locating accessible housing within a designated walkable catchment of these service centres is the optimum response to the existing and planned social infrastructure in the Blue Mountains.
4.5.2 Consolidation and No Subdivision requirements
Draft LEP 2002 has identified lands where increases in development intensity will detrimentally affect the environment. Consolidation and No Subdivision requirements have been applied
76 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 where land has significant environmental constraints and infrastructure limitations, and where it is necessary at the plan making stage to ensure that appropriate land use planning outcomes will be achieved. Although these tools were used in Draft LEP 1997 and LEP 1991, the review process to produce Draft LEP 2002 has sought to minimise reliance on them.
The consolidation requirement is applied where a parcel of land contains a number of lots (typically the product of pre-war subdivisions) where the development of each lot to its potential would have unacceptable environmental impact, or where adjoining undeveloped lots are affected by environmental or infrastructure constraints. Future development on land with a consolidation requirement can take place only if it is consolidated.
The No Subdivision notation has been placed on selected larger lots on the urban fringe, including some Residential Investigation lands. Council considered that the underlying zoning of Living – Bushland Conservation and its requisite subdivision requirements could not provide adequate protection for these lots at the development application stage, in terms of accounting for environmental and infrastructure constraints and limiting urban expansion. The No Subdivision provisions stipulate Council’s expectations regarding the future development of this land.
Consolidation requirements or No Subdivision restrictions are applied to the following:
• large parcels of land within water supply catchment areas; • land with service and transport limitations; • land with infrastructure limitations, particularly land that is not connected to reticulated sewerage; • areas on the periphery of urban settlement with environmental constraints; and • land that is substantially affected by Environmental Protection zonings, with limited developable areas.
The application of No Subdivision and consolidation requirements is consistent with the planning principles of Draft LEP 2002 of limiting urban expansion and promoting growth around existing urban centres. These requirements also provide an additional level of protection for highly sensitive environmental areas within water supply catchments or those adjacent to watercourses or steep slopes.
4.5.3 Proposed Road Closures
Draft LEP 2002 identifies a number of unformed roads that are highly constrained by slope, watercourses or significant vegetation communities, as well as unformed roads that occur within reserves. Unlike other roads subject to the Draft LEP that are shown on the maps as uncoloured, these roads have been allocated a zoning, such as Environmental Protection – Open Space, and proposed for closure, as shown by distinctive hatching.
Since the act of closing roads is controlled under the Roads Act 1993, no statutory provisions related to closure are provided under Draft LEP 2002. The purpose of the proposed road closure is to formalise Council’s intentions in relation to the land and to provide an appropriate underlying zone after the road is closed.
Proposed Road Closures apply if:
• the road is unformed; • its closure does not limit access to existing residential or non-residential facilities; • the road reserve is constrained by slope steeper than 33 per cent;
77 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• the road reserve is in a watercourse; • the road reserve traverses a significant vegetation community; and/or • the road reserve abuts a reserve where such access is deemed inappropriate.
The application of the Proposed Road Closure requirement is consistent with the planning principles of Draft LEP 2002. This mechanism provides protection for highly sensitive areas that would be adversely affected by road construction and maintenance or increased public access, and contributes to the rationalisation of reserve systems.
4.5.4 Additional Land Uses
The allocation of Additional Land Uses (ALUs) is a statutory mechanism that recognises situations where land uses are permitted on land despite its underlying zoning. The ALU provisions recognise a limited number of amendments for ALUs that have been made under LEP 4, that still have currency, and that will be subject to a one-year sunset clause. The ALUs are identified in Schedule 9 to Draft LEP 2002 which provides a mechanism by which any additional ALUs can be accommodated in the future by an amending LEP.
The ALUs were identified through internal Council consultation and a review of LEP 4 and its amendments. ALUs are limited to the following locations:
• 1–51 Acacia Street Katoomba (Katoomba Golf Course); • 10 Mount York Road and 34–36B Great Western Highway, Mount Victoria (integrated service station); and • 71–77 Wilson Street, Wentworth Falls (tourist facility).
4.5.5 Special use
Draft LEP 2002 provides for the recognition of a range of special uses. These uses recognise essential publicly provided facilities or land set aside for the future provision of these facilities, which might not otherwise be permissible under the land-use structure (zones) of Draft LEP 2002. Compared to the existing planning scheme (LEP 4), Draft LEP 2002 relies less on ‘special use’ because most land uses fall under an appropriate land-use zone.
Unlike LEP 4 and many older planning instruments in NSW, Draft LEP 2002 does not apply a specific special uses zone. Instead, land with special uses is identified by distinctive colouring on Map Panel C: Heritage Conservation and Special Uses, and the underlying zoning is retained. This approach simplifies any future transition of the land to a more conventional range of permissible land uses, in the event that the relevant authority abandons the special use requirements for the land.
In part, the special use provisions under Draft LEP 2002 have been developed on the basis of Commissioner Carleton’s recommendation to review the provision of special use zones (Carleton 1998, p. 80). It should noted that the focus of the special use provisions has been the recognition of existing publicly provided facilities, rather than the provision of new sites outside the land-use structure. In recognising existing facilities, Council maintains its position (as noted by Carleton 1998, p. 80) that it is better and more convenient for the community to maintain these facilities close to town centres and public transport nodes than to locate them in residential areas further away.
78 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
5 ASSESSING THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Site analysis and environmental assessment requirements have been incorporated within Draft LEP 2002 to provide a clear guide to Council’s expectations and requirements. The effectiveness of any planning instrument will rely, in part, on the quality and clarity of the objectives, provisions and zone applications contained within it. However, in large measure its effectiveness also relies upon proper application throughout the development assessment process. Part 3 of Draft LEP 2002 provides a transparent and logical framework for the environmental management of development projects.
Draft LEP 2002 deals systematically with the following five key areas of site and environmental assessment:
• site analysis; • protecting the natural environment; • character and landscape assessment; • heritage conservation; and • hazard and risk assessment.
5.1 ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
Compared with the existing planning scheme, Draft LEP 2002 places greater emphasis on site assessment during the preparation of development applications, and clearly sets out the nature and extent of the information that has to be submitted to Council for development assessment. This will encourage developers to give careful consideration to environmental character and heritage when preparing development applications, and places greater responsibility on them to demonstrate that the characteristics of a site have been appropriately considered. The EMP map sheets provide a broad range of accurate information to assist applicants in assessing their site/s.
5.1.1 Site analysis
In line with a commitment to ESD principles, Draft LEP 2002 emphasises site-responsive development. To ensure this is addressed in a timely and efficient manner, it identifies site analysis as a key starting point in the development assessment process. Draft LEP 2002 also clearly identifies what is required of applicants in support of development applications, thus ensuring that staff have the information they need when assessing an application.
Proper site analysis will also reveal where it is necessary to carry out more detailed environmental assessment, character assessment, heritage conservation or risk assessment, depending on the environmental values of the site. The nature and coverage of these are stipulated in the written instrument.
5.1.2 Protecting the natural environment
Once the environmental characteristics of a site are known, the next step is to assess what environmental impact, if any, the proposed development may have. This is the role of environmental impact assessment, following which management strategies are formulated. This section provides guidance on matters that will be considered in the assessment of the development proposal.
79 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Assessing environmental impact
Environmental impact assessment is the key mechanism to ensure site-responsive development and thus protection of the natural environment. Where environmental constraints or values are identified during site analysis, parts in this section give guidance as to how Council will arrive at a decision that reflects these environmental attributes. As this section accords with LEP 1991 (Amendment 25) it provides a consistent basis for undertaking environmental impact assessment across the City. It departs from LEP 1991, however, in that Draft LEP 2002 provides more guidance on how to respond to these requirements.
Environmental impact assessment is conducted against a set of environmental criteria that include flora and fauna, hydrology and water quality. These criteria reflect the more common constraints that are found throughout the city. Some of these constraints are mapped, but many will become apparent only during the initial site analysis process.
Where the development is proposed over land that has a Protected Area designation (as shown on Map Panel B), a detailed environmental assessment must be carried out. Refer to subsection 5.2 for further information on Protected Areas.
Watercourses
The background data used as the basis for mapping is considerably more accurate than that previously available. Nevertheless, the scale of mapping and on-ground assessment has meant that not all watercourses have been located. Some watercourses, therefore, will become evident only during site assessment.
Where a watercourse corridor is not shown as a Protected Area notation on the LEP maps but is identified during site assessment it is deemed to be covered by a Protected Area.
Significant vegetation communities
The appropriate management of native vegetation is fundamental to achieving the objectives of Draft LEP 2002. Not only is the vegetation important for its intrinsic values, but it is also a critical component of ecosystem function and biodiversity conservation generally.
Draft LEP 2002 refers to vegetation ‘communities’. These are groups of plants (trees, shrubs, herbs, ground-cover plants etc.) that commonly occur together in response to environmental variables including climate, soils and topography. ‘Significant’ vegetation communities are those that: have been recognised by local, NSW or Commonwealth governments as threatened or rare communities; are poorly represented in the national park system; protect important hydrological function; and are likely to be habitat for threatened species of flora or fauna. Not all vegetation communities recognised as significant under Draft LEP 2002 are listed under state or commonwealth legislation.
New citywide vegetation mapping became available late in the development of Draft LEP 2002, and replaces the partial coverage provided by the older vegetation mapping used for Draft LEP 1997. (This is discussed further in Volume 2.) The new mapping has, in some cases, refined the boundaries of significant vegetation communities and has identified new locations for these communities where they were not previously known to exist. There are now 24 significant communities recognised as being present within the Draft LEP 2002 area. The locations of these communities are shown on the EMP maps. This compares with 19 significant communities recognised in 1997, of which only 10 had been mapped.
Mapping and aerial photo interpretation, however, have their limitations, mainly relating to the scale and quality of the aerial photos, previous fire and disturbance history, and ecotones (transitions between different communities). Due to these factors and the dynamic nature of vegetation communities, mapping needs to be confirmed at a site level when the
80 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 development application is being prepared. To assist with the recognition of significant communities during site assessment, Draft LEP 2002 contains detailed descriptions of each of the 24 significant communities. These will be sufficient to allow a botanist or ecologist to identify the communities during a site assessment. This means that, even where these communities have not been mapped, they must be identified as part of the development application process. If a scheduled community is identified during site analysis, a detailed environmental assessment will be required.
The limitations of mapping and the need for site assessment were supported by Dr Judy Smith in her submission to Commissioner Carleton. As she stated, mapping is an:
…excellent tool which provides an overview of the vegetation which allows for zoning at the scale of mapping. However, when an individual development application is prepared there is a need for a competent ecologist or botanist to go on site with a surveyor and map the boundaries precisely…Therefore we need a schedule of definitions which can provide a biologist/ecologist with a good understanding of what comprises the vegetation unit on the ground – not its appearance in an air photo. The definitions must be comprehensive and tight.
(Carleton 1998, p. 134)
The idea of a schedule as a fall-back when the mapping does not identify significant communities is a common approach within planning instruments and dealing with vegetation protection generally. It was used in LEP 1991, because the underlying vegetation mapping was known to be deficient. Commissioner Carleton also supported this approach for Draft LEP 2002, as follows:
The Commission recommends that the DLEP include a comprehensive schedule of significant flora and fauna communities. These definitions should be based on the definitions provided by Drs Peter and Judy Smith. These definitions will offer protection to areas of significant flora and fauna habitats which were not mapped….
(Carleton 1998, p.142)
The new mapping identified scheduled vegetation communities in areas where they had not been previously known; not all these new occurrences have yet been verified. Those that have been verified include communities previously mapped by Smith and Smith and those listed in the TSC Act that have been mapped by Douglas. While giving protection to both, DLEP2002 differentiates between verified significant communities and those that have yet to be confirmed by site inspection. Environmental Protection zoning is placed over verified significant communities (see subsections 4.2.13 and 4.2.14), while those communities that have yet to be verified have a Protected Area Vegetation Constraint Area notation (see subsection 5.2.2).
Management of vegetation
Plants and vegetation communities do not have to be recognised as ‘significant’ to be of value. For example, vegetation slows or stops erosion and protects water quality, both of which are at risk due to the thin, erodible soils and steep slopes present across the city. In Draft LEP 2002 the term ‘vegetation’ means more than just trees, and includes shrubs, ground- cover plants, herbs and forbs, and other understorey plants.
Draft LEP 2002 protects vegetation generally (with the exception of weed species), whether the plants are native or introduced in origin, and provided they do not present a fire hazard. Weed species are listed separately in a schedule, and declared noxious weeds must be removed or controlled. Many development-related activities can kill or threaten the longer-
81 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 term viability of desirable vegetation. The environmental impact assessment process aims to prevent such activities.
This holistic protection of vegetation is generally carried through in the form of a separate Vegetation Management Order (VMO), which replaces the Tree Preservation Order currently existing under LEP4. The VMO provides an alternative approval system to that operating for development applications.
Erosion and stormwater control
Land capability is one of the key principles underpinning the land-use strategy. Soil types in the city have a generally high to extreme risk of erosion once disturbed. Erosion hazard also relates to slope: the greater the slope, the greater is the erosion hazard once soil is disturbed. Indeed even on relatively gentle slopes of 10 per cent, disturbance to some soil types may lead to significant erosion problems.
In seeking to ensure site-responsive development, Draft LEP 2002 aims to limit site disturbance such as cut and fill and the removal of vegetation, and thus protect water quality and soil integrity. In this regard, Commissioner Carleton recommended that:
…a provision be inserted ... requiring that all developments on land steeper than 20 per cent (including the clearing of vegetation) be accompanied by a geotechnical report. Council should not consent to this development unless it complies with Council’s Erosion and Sediment Control Policy. The clearing of vegetation on land greater than 20 per cent slope should be restricted as much as possible.
(Carleton 1998, p. 143)
Various controls are required during development to protect soil against erosion, many of which are closely tied to the management of stormwater. In an undisturbed environment, water infiltrates naturally into the ground and flows by subsurface means into watercourses. This happens at a relatively steady rate, enabling watercourses to cope with normal rainfall events. Development, with an associated increase in hard surfaces, greatly increases the volume of surface runoff in the mountain catchments causing creek lines to erode because they are unable to handle the increasingly large overland flows at the start of the storm. The resultant erosion and siltation can have serious impacts on the drinking water catchments and the creeks supporting the natural environment.
Draft LEP 2002 provides guidance as to the required outcomes of development, to limit site disturbance and the volume of stormwater leaving the site.
Removal of bush rocks
The collection of bush rock for building and landscaping purposes has occurred continuously since European settlement. Bush rock provides a critical habitat for a number of threatened and other fauna species, and its removal is now subject to impact assessment as part of the development application process.
5.1.3 Character and landscape assessment
Character within the Blue Mountains has been identified as a determining factor in zone application. Provisions have been incorporated within Draft LEP 2002 to maintain special character elements within these zoned areas.
82 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
General character and landscape assessment
Provisions within Draft LEP 2002 require all development applications to consider the impact of the proposed development on the character and streetscape of the surrounding area. Particular regard must be given to:
• scale and massing of buildings; • building materials and external finishes; • building form, including roof pitch and proportions of windows; and • siting and streetscape issues.
Particular emphasis has been placed on the assessment requirements for higher-intensity land uses such as dual occupancies, multi-unit housing and accessible housing, because these developments tend to have a greater impact on the character of a locality.
In addition, Draft LEP 2002 incorporates a range of landscaping requirements. These requirements specify that all applications for residential development must be accompanied by a concept landscape plan that demonstrates:
• siting of the development in order to retain mature vegetation; • replacement of mature vegetation on the site, where it is removed as a consequence of development; and • planting that screens the development from public streets and adjoining dwellings.
For accessible housing, boarding houses, dual occupancies, multi-unit dwellings or tourist accommodation, additional details are required. These include detailed landscape plans indicating the location, size and species of proposed plantings and replacement plantings, and ten-year plans showing the long-term result of proposed landscaping.
Period Housing Areas
As part of measures to protect character, a new set of provisions in Draft LEP 2002 provide for the identification and protection of older (pre-1946) housing stock that contribute substantially to the character of the Blue Mountains. These provisions operate as a protected area for period housing, which is discussed in 5.2.7 below.
Dominant Landscape Settings, Garden Settings and Visually Significant Streetscapes
Dominant Landscape Settings, Garden Settings and Visually Significant Streetscapes are character types that have been zoned and protected under the Living – Conservation zone, as discussed previously in subsection 4.2.6 and detailed in Volume 2.
In protecting predominant character attributes in the Living – Conservation zone, a range of provisions relating to the building envelope in this zone have been developed as follows:
• site coverage controls apply to ensure that a low proportion of the site area is covered by buildings and opportunities for maintaining a landscape character are retained; • a maximum building width applies, expressed as a proportion of the lot frontage, which is directed to providing opportunities for a landscape setting and planted areas between dwelling houses; • a variety of front setbacks apply, depending on adjoining setbacks and patterns of development, which seek to maintain existing patterns in the street; and • lower building heights apply, which reflect predominant building styles in those areas.
83 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
These provisions ensure that the proportion of the site covered by buildings is relatively low, and the predominance of the garden or landscape setting is retained. The low densities associated with these provisions will maintain some of the qualities associated with the Blue Mountains in key locations, particularly backdrops of large trees, and will reduce the impact of the built form.
Development applications within the Living – Conservation zone will require the submission of a detailed assessment of character, including:
• photo assessments of the site and adjoining locality; • details on the form and massing of the development (including details on roof pitch, and the design and location of doors and windows); • details of external finishes; and • landscaping plans that include: − details of how the proposal achieves the objectives of the Living – Conservation zone, ensures the retention of significant garden or vegetation settings, and incorporates replacement planting; and − details of scale and massing of the proposed landscaping within ten years.
Development within road reserves adjoined by Living – Conservation zones is required, to retain and strengthen the setting along these roads and retain where possible existing significant landscapes.
Protection of bushland dominant character elements
Areas with bushland dominant character have been zoned and protected under the Living – Bushland Conservation zone, as discussed in subsection 4.2.7 and detailed in Volume 2.
The standard provisions for the building envelope within the Living – Bushland Conservation zones have been developed to provide opportunities for retaining bushland character and include:
• a variety of front setbacks, depending on the setbacks of adjoining dwelling which provide opportunities for planting; and • site coverage controls apply to limit the maximum area of an allotment that may be covered by buildings, increasing pervious and landscaped areas.
In addition to these requirements, applicants for development within the Living – Bushland Conservation zone are required to compensate for the removal of native vegetation by revegetating the site with locally indigenous vegetation.
Protection of visually prominent areas
Visually prominent areas are protected through a Protected Area – Escarpment Areas notation (refer also to subsection 5.2.5) and are generally zoned under the Living – Bushland Conservation zone. This character type is discussed in Volume 2.
The following specific provisions apply to development within these areas:
• a maximum building height applies, which requires that a building must not visually protrude above tree canopy vegetation; • design must respond to the topography of the locality and minimise visual bulk; and • external finishes must minimise reflection and enable the development to blend with its surrounds.
84 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
These provisions have been designed in order to maintain the natural integrity of escarpment areas and to preserve this important and iconic natural feature of the Blue Mountains.
5.1.4 Heritage conservation
Draft LEP 2002 provides a comprehensive framework for the conservation of heritage items, which are identified in the Heritage Schedule. The heritage provisions within Draft LEP 2002 have been adapted directly from the model heritage provisions adopted by DUAP and the Heritage Office.
As outlined in the NSW Heritage Manual:
Heritage items can be landscapes, places, buildings, structures, relics, or works. They are valued not simply because they are old, but because they are associated with phases in history, or people and events of great importance. They may be exceptional in their sensory qualities, they may give community a sense of identity, or they may have a potential to inform us about our cultural history. They may be the best example of their kind or a rare survivor of their type.
(NSW Heritage Office and DUAP 1996b)
The identification of items of heritage significance involves the principles of investigating, assessing and managing significance (NSW Heritage Office 2001).
Heritage objectives
The framework for heritage conservation is based on the following objectives:
• to conserve the environmental heritage of the Blue Mountains; • to conserve the heritage significance of existing significant fabric, relics, settings and views associated with heritage items and heritage conservation areas; • to ensure that archaeological sites and places of Aboriginal cultural significance are conserved, whether or not those sites are identified by an environmental planning instrument; • to ensure that the heritage conservation areas throughout the Blue Mountains retain their heritage significance; and • to encourage public involvement in the conservation of environmental heritage.
Schedule 7 of Draft LEP 2002 lists heritage items and heritage conservation areas, and these are shown on Map Panel C, Heritage Conservation and Special Use, of the Draft LEP 2002 statutory map series. Part B of Schedule 7 incorporates a plan of each listed heritage conservation area. The schedule also indicates were an item is assessed as being of state significance and whether it is an archaeological site.
Draft LEP 2002 is supported by Council’s Heritage Register, which provides detailed heritage inventory data sheets for all heritage items and conservation areas listed in Schedule 7.
The listing of a site in Schedule 7 triggers the application of the planning provisions of Part 3, Division 4 in Draft LEP 2002 and the need to address the likely impact of any proposal on heritage significance.
Draft LEP 2002 also includes a series of ‘conservation incentives’ to encourage the retention, conservation and ongoing management of heritage assets.
85 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Consultation with NSW Heritage Office
Council has liaised with the Heritage Office on a number of matters regarding the review of the Heritage Register as part of Draft LEP 2002. The planning provisions also respond to comments raised in the course of Council’s formal consultation with the Heritage Office under section 62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Revised schedules of heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas
Subsection 2.5.5 describes in detail the review process undertaken in respect of items and areas of heritage significance.
Stage 1 of the Heritage Review process required the assessment of 457 properties with over 500 properties being surveyed in Stage 2 of the Review for the Core Village Areas. Many of these elements contribute to the classification of Heritage Conservation Areas.
Of those sites currently listed on Council’s heritage schedule, 296 have been recommended for retention and listing on Part A of Schedule 7 as Heritage Items along with eleven [11] currently listed heritage conservation areas on Part B to the schedule. 246 new listings are proposed under Part A of the schedule with one new heritage conservation area proposed in Katoomba.
Heritage Conservation Areas
A Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) is:
…more than a collection of individual heritage items. It is an area in which the historical origins and relationship between various elements create a sense of place that is worth keeping.
(NSW Heritage Office 1996a)
The establishment of Heritage Conservation Areas requires the assessment of the many elements that contribute to the significance of the precinct as a whole. Twelve precincts have been assessed and recommended as having the characteristics of HCAs.
Table 2: Heritage Conservation Areas Town Number of HCAs Heritage indicator* Mount Victoria 1 MV 023 Katoomba 2 K 053, K 0159 Leura 2 LA 018, LA 029 Wentworth Falls 3 WF 032, WF 044, WF 073 Lawson** 2 LN 025, LN 030 Hazelbrook* 2 H 008, H 010 *A local heritage identification number **The core village areas of Lawson and Hazelbrook are subject to further assessment.
Items of state heritage significance
Most items of heritage significance are assessed and endorsed as being worthy of listing at the local level. Some, however, have exceptional attributes, rarity and/or historical significance to the people of NSW as a whole, and are recommended for listing as items of state significance. The Heritage Council’s endorsement is necessary to confirm such a listing (NSW Heritage Office 2001).
86 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Schedule 7 indicates those items recommended for listing as being of state significance and subject to the provisions of the Draft LEP.
Potential deletions
As a result of the review of Council’s Heritage Register described in subsection 2.5.5, the consultants recommended deletion of a limited number of heritage items from the Register and from Schedule 7 of Draft LEP 2002. Those recommendations were made on the basis that the assessed significance of the sites was not deemed to be sufficient to warrant their listing as heritage items. The heritage review resulted in 66 existing heritage items and one heritage conservation area being recommended for deletion.
It is important to note that some of these are ‘technical’ deletions, where an item appears twice under different guises or where there has been a misidentification. Actual deletions are argued in the statement of significance. A typical reason is that the item’s association with a historic event, person or place does not necessarily bestow heritage significance on the site in its present state (Jack 2000).
The review process also covered a number of potential new sites that had been nominally identified as being of heritage significance. Some of the sites were assessed as having sufficient heritage significance to be listed in Schedule 7, whereas the significance of others was judged insufficient to warrant their listing as heritage items.
Aboriginal heritage
Draft LEP 2002 incorporates provisions relevant to the protection of Aboriginal heritage as well as potential archaeological sites. These provisions draw attention to the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service as provided for under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Non-Aboriginal archaeological sites and relics
Non-Aboriginal archaeological sites and relics are defined, and are subject to the provisions of the Heritage Act. Draft LEP 2002 provides for the assessment of known or potential archaeological sites and relics of non-Aboriginal heritage significance as part of the development process where applicable. In accordance with the requirements of the Heritage Act, any applications for development that may affect potential non-Aboriginal archaeological sites or relics must be referred to the Heritage Council, whether or not the development site is listed in Schedule 7.
Heritage inventory sheets
A major component of the review process has been to upgrade the data on Council’s heritage inventory sheets for each listing. The existing data has become outdated since it was compiled in 1982. For this reason Council has adopted the format established by the State Heritage Inventory Project (SHIP), to ensure consistency and compatibility with changes in heritage practice across the state. The SHI form allows data to be collected and presented in a consistent manner in response to guidelines established at a state government level. The information for a listing is then readily accessible for all to use; it includes a statement of heritage significance and descriptive information for each listing, to assist with the ongoing management of the heritage asset.
The completed SHI form provides recommendations and guidelines for the management of each item and identifies the basis for further investigations, such as heritage impact statements and conservation management plans, where these are required by planning provisions.
87 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The completed inventory form also provides an educative tool for the community, promoting an awareness and appreciation of heritage in a locality and in the broader context.
5.1.5 Hazard and risk assessment
Consideration of hazard and risk assessment is the final component of the assessment framework of Draft LEP 2002. It addresses:
• bushfire threat assessment; • protection of development against bushfire; • crime minimisation assessment; • land subject to inundation; and • remediation of contaminated land.
The first two of these issues, both of which concern bushfire, are considered below, followed by an overview of crime minimisation assessment. Clauses relating to inundation and contaminated land are standard within LEPs and relatively self-explanatory, and further explanation will not be provided as part of this document.
Bushfire
As the Blue Mountains is a highly bushfire-prone environment, the assessment and response to bushfire threat is a primary consideration for development, and its primacy is recognised as a principal objective of Draft LEP 2002. Within the planning framework of Draft LEP 2002, the response to bushfire threat is considered at two levels:
• land-use structure and zone application; and • site and development assessment.
In terms of zone application, the mapping of the urban/bushland interface provided broad- scale indications of fire threat, and the application of the Living - Bushland Conservation zone limits the density of development in bushfire-prone areas.
Commissioner Carleton recommended the introduction of a protected area that identifies areas of high and extreme bushfire threat (Carleton 1998, p. viii). This approach can identify broad-scale indicators of threat including proximity to bushland, history of bushfire, and access conditions, and has been undertaken within the Blue Mountains Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BMBMC 2000). An assessment of this kind provides a sound basis for bushfire management strategies, and is a good broad-scale tool for developing the land-use structure, but is less effective in determining the level of bushfire threat operating at a specific site. As well as establishing areas of high and extreme threat through strategic mapping, there also needs to be a precautionary approach taken within the Blue Mountains; site- specific assessments of all sites proposed for development must be made, to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect life and property from bushfire.
Accordingly, Draft LEP 2002 provides for the mandatory and consistent assessment of bushfire threat for all development within the Blue Mountains. A baseline assessment framework is provided within the Draft LEP, including provision for its augmentation by a detailed assessment of bushfire threat in certain areas and for certain development types at Council’s discretion. This assessment is to establish a bushfire threat rating of moderate, high or extreme. On the basis of this threat rating, a series of corresponding protective measures are to be incorporated into development.
88 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Crime minimisation assessment
The state government recently released guidelines for Crime prevention and the assessment of development applications (DUAP 2001c). These guidelines aim to enable councils to identify the risk of crime, and minimise opportunities for crime, through the assessment of development applications. The development assessment process is an important opportunity to identify features of a development that may cause a security risk, and to take measures to prevent crime through the appropriate design of buildings.
In accordance with the guidelines, Draft LEP 2002 incorporates provisions to ensure that the risks and opportunities related to crime are properly considered. Draft LEP 2002 seeks to recognise the importance of crime minimisation by ensuring that development complies with the four key principles of minimising crime risk: surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and space management.
The details of Council’s approach to crime minimisation are supported through a development control plan.
5.2 PROTECTED AREAS
The function of Protected Areas is to enable environmental attributes and constraints, or character elements, to be identified and protected. These Protected Areas provide the basis for managing development at the site level to account for these characteristics.
The development of Protected Areas was guided by the recommendations of Commissioner Carleton. There were already three types of protected area under Draft LEP 1997: Environmental Constraint Area, Escarpment Area and Water Supply Catchment. Carleton considered that these protected areas did not have the legal status to prohibit development on existing allotments in the manner of a land-use zone. However, he noted the role of protected areas in influencing the design and location of development on land in response to site conditions, and recommended that they should provide specific management controls to achieve their purpose (Carleton 1998, pp. 124–5).
Consistently with Carleton’s recommendations, the protected areas have been further refined, providing for more specific identification of environmental constraints, as well as detailed controls relating to the assessment and management of these constraints.
The Protected Areas developed for Draft LEP 2002 are:
• Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area; • Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area; • Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area; • Protected Area – Water Supply Catchment Area; • Protected Area – Escarpment Area; • Protected Area – Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor; and • Protected Area – Period Housing Area.
5.2.1 Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area
The aim of Slope Constraint Areas is to reduce the impact of development on the natural environment, through minimising vegetation clearing and soil disturbance on steep slopes.
89 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Slope Constraint Areas are applied to land, excluding Residential Investigation land, with at least 160 square metres of contiguous areas of slope steeper than 20 per cent, in accordance with Carleton’s major findings (1998, p. viii). The protected area does not apply to land that is subject to Environmental Protection zones.
In order to determine slope more accurately, Council used Digital Terrain Modelling (DTM) as part of the mapping review process. This has provided information on height, slope and aspect of land, which is critical in determining slope constraint areas, as discussed in subsection 2.5.1 of this document.
Controls in these areas will require the location of development, where possible, outside areas of steep slope. Where this is not feasible, controls relating to minimal clearing of vegetation and minimal soil disturbance (through clearing and cut and fill techniques) will apply.
5.2.2 Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area
The Protected Area - Vegetation Constraint Area applies to areas of significant vegetation mapped during the recent citywide project (Douglas 2001), as discussed in 2.5.3, but which have yet to be verified by a site inspection and which have not been identified in earlier vegetation mapping. These mapped areas comprise scheduled vegetation communities that occur on land unconstrained by very steep slopes or watercourses. Where multiple constraints exist in addition to the vegetation, such as a combination of significant vegetation, slopes steeper than 33 per cent and/or watercourses, an Environmental Protection zone has been applied (see subsections 4.2.13 and 4.2.14).
The assessment of an individual development site required by this section provides for the verification of these vegetation communities. Controls are introduced to minimise the impacts of clearing and earthworks on sensitive vegetation communities, and to ensure that site-appropriate ecological buffers are provided.
5.2.3 Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area
The Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area is a new concept that has been developed in Draft LEP 2002 in response to concerns raised by Commissioner Carleton. This Protected Area is applied to land adjoining an area of primary environmental significance to provide a buffer to nearby development.
The Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area has been applied where:
• land has been identified as a watercourse buffer, as defined in Draft LEP 2002 or as mapped in accordance the Riparian Buffer Model (see subsection 2.5.2); and/or • land extends for a distance of 50 metres from the edge of a significant vegetation community which is zoned Environmental Protection (EP).
The buffer width adjoining Environmental Protection zoned significant vegetation totals 60 metres, and comprises an Ecological Buffer Area 50 metres wide and a buffer ten metres wide which is incorporated within the Environmental Protection zone itself. This 60 metre wide buffer was recommended by Smith and Smith (1997) following their survey of urban impacts on 50 sites across the Blue Mountains.
The only exception to the application of this protected area occurs where roads are located within the 50 metre wide buffer. Where roads divide part of the buffer area from the significant vegetation itself (i.e. they occur on opposite sides of the road), the disjunct section of the buffer area has been removed. The road corridor is seen as sufficiently disruptive to
90 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 fauna and flora movement and habitat to negate any buffering effect a disjunct buffer may have on the significant community. This does not apply to Blue Mountains Swamp vegetation or watercourses as hydrology and sediment movement are not disrupted to the same extent by roads.
Disjunct buffer 10 metre wide buffer included within area separated Environmental Protection zone. from vegetation community by ro a d . Significant vegetation community zoned Environmental Protection.
Ro a d lo c a t e d within buffer zo n e . 50 metre wide Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area.
Figure 4: Application of Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area
5.2.4 Protected Area – Water Supply Catchment
A Protected Area – Water Supply Catchment has been applied to all land that is identified as a water supply catchment area under SEPP 58, Protecting Sydney’s Drinking Water Supply, or in the SREP, Sustaining the Catchments (DUAP, 2000b).
Water supply catchments subject to this type of Protected Area are those at Woodford, Blackheath and Katoomba/Medlow Bath. This Protected Area introduces controls over development aimed at minimising the impacts of stormwater runoff and on-site effluent disposal on these drinking water catchments. The Draft LEP discourages the future increase in development and/or population in these sensitive drinking water catchments.
5.2.5 Protected Area – Escarpment Area
This Protected Area provides a buffer between development and the environmentally sensitive escarpment area, expanding its previous role under Draft LEP 1997.
Escarpment Areas have been identified on the basis of information in EMP2, and additional information obtained using aerial laser scanning technology during the review of Draft LEP 2002.
Protected Area – Escarpment Area has been applied to:
• contiguous areas of at least 250 square metres with a slope steeper than 100 per cent; and • a 150-metre buffer adjacent to escarpment edges which was then modified to include nearby visually prominent buildings and to exclude others that were not visible due to local topography.
Controls in the Draft LEP for escarpment areas restrict the form of development and its proximity to the escarpment, to maintain the ecological integrity of the area and minimise visual impact.
91 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
5.2.6 Protected Area – Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor
The Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor is sited along the Hawkesbury–Nepean River and has been applied to all land identified as being within the Riverine Scenic Corridor, as defined in SREP 20.
Controls over the Riverine Scenic Quality Corridor, which are consistent with SREP 20, aim to restrict the siting, setback, orientation, size, bulk and scale of development, to ensure consistency with the landscape character described in the Hawkesbury–Nepean Scenic Quality Study (DUAP 1996b).
5.2.7 Protected Area – Period Housing Area
The intent of the Protected Area – Period Housing Areas is to identify areas with existing concentrations of older (pre-1946) housing stock that contribute substantially to the character of the Blue Mountains. This Protected Area was established to promote the conservation of existing streetscapes dominated by older housing stock, which create unifying character themes.
Any development in these areas, including major alterations and additions, must incorporate the existing pre-1946 dwellings into development and be of a form that strongly reflects the predominant pre-1946 housing character.
Demolition of pre-1946 housing in these areas will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the house is economically irreparable, or that the demolition will not have a significant adverse impact on the visual character of the building when viewed from the street.
The massing (that is, the bulk and form of building elements and the extent to which buildings present a common height and width to the street) of new development is required to be consistent with or less than the predominant massing of existing buildings in the street, particularly in relation to adjoining buildings. Applications for development within a Period Housing Area are required to be accompanied by photo assessment of the site and adjoining or contextual areas, and clearly demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with and will not adversely affect the character of the area.
92 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
The final element of assessment provided in Draft LEP 2002 relates to the function and operation of development, and provisions specific to certain land uses.
As noted in the discussion of the written instrument in subsection 3.3.1 (see Figure 3), the considerations for development relate to:
• subdivision; • services and infrastructure; • vehicular access, parking and roads; • privacy; • energy efficiency; • equity of access and housing choice; • accessible housing; • provisions for specific land uses; and • management of public land and public infrastructure.
For the most part, these considerations are common to all land-use assessment practice. In developing a full assessment framework, Draft LEP 2002 nominates relevant considerations within its planning framework that respond to local planning conditions. The aim of the Draft LEP is to make these considerations explicit, so that the issues they represent can be considered early in the project design stages and provide a platform for consistent land-use assessment.
Under the reforms to plan-making legislation, Plan First, it is proposed that all local planning controls be located within a single planning instrument (the Local Plan). Draft LEP 2002 moves in this direction, by providing the framework of key planning controls, while still relying on identified DCPs and guides to provide supplementary detail.
The relevance of the above development considerations in planning assessment is well established, and the basis of provisions is generally self-explanatory. Council has prepared a guide to development that touches on these considerations, and a detailed review of these considerations therefore falls beyond the scope of this document.
However, some of the issues forming part of considerations for development warrant further explanation, either in view of submissions made to Draft LEP 1997 or because the considerations are new to the planning scheme for the Blue Mountains.
6.1 SUBDIVISION
The Draft LEP 2002 framework for subdivision was developed in response to:
• Commissioner Carleton’s recommendations in relation to Draft LEP 1997; • the planning principles, particularly in relation to limits to urban expansion, environmental management and protection of town and residential character; • the Residential Subdivision Study, which considers the existing lot formation in the Living - General, Living - Conservation and Living - Bushland Conservation zones, and the implications of minimum lot sizes in determining the future location of development; • the subdivision framework of Amendment 25 to LEP 1991. 93 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
In reviewing the subdivision framework of Draft LEP 1997, Carleton commented that:
The Commission largely supports the subdivision provisions in the DLEP and Council’s intended subdivision requirements and provisions. However, the Council needs to make the intentions of this Clause clearer in the DLEP.
(Carleton 1998, pp. 154–5)
Accordingly, the review of the subdivision provisions for Draft LEP 2002 initially focused on clarifying the provisions of Draft LEP 1997, particularly in relation to minimum lot sizes. Draft LEP 2002 maintains minimum lot sizes that are consistent with Draft LEP 1997 and the planning principles underpinning Draft LEP 2002, as supported by the findings of the Residential Subdivision Study (reference should be made to this study for further information on the matters discussed below).
Living – General zone
There are 6634 lots proposed to be zoned Living – General under Draft LEP 2002, with an average size of 898 square metres and a median size of 724.2 square metres. This zone is most closely aligned to the Residential 2(a1) zone under LEP 4, which provides a minimum lot size of 700 square metres, with the exception of battle-axe allotments. In terms of zone application, this is the least constrained residential land within the LGA, with concentrations around the main service centres.
The primary premise of the subdivision provisions for the Living - General zone is the maintenance of the current lot configuration. By the retention of an allotment size of 720 square metres, as initially proposed under Draft LEP 1997, the draft plan will provide for continued subdivision activity in this zone in a manner that retains the existing variety of lot sizes. As part of the proposed land use strategies expressed in EMP 2 (refer to section 7.2.2) for the “Living Area” zone, it was suggested that there should be a variety of allotment sizes provided for the market and that 25 per cent of allotments produced should be greater than 850 square metres. Assessment undertaken as part of the Residential Subdivision Study which assesses the existing range of lot sizes, confirms that the retention of a 720 square metre minimum lot size would provide for a supply of lot sizes to the market that meets this aim of the EMP 2 study. Further, such a lot size, which is consistent with the median lot size in that zone, provides an approach to development that furthers the principle of concentrating development close to town centres and transport nodes.
Living – Conservation zone
The minimum lot size for the Living – Conservation zone was established by analysing specific locations that were representative of particular character types, as part of the Residential Character Study (BMCC 2002b). Large lot sizes were a defining attribute in each of the Garden Setting, Dominant Landscape Setting and Visually Significant Streetscape character types, which provide the basis for the Living – Conservation zone. The Draft LEP 2002 proposes to zone 4391 lots Living – Conservation; these have an average size of 1091 square metres, with a median of 919 square metres. Existing allotments subject to this zone have a markedly higher average and median size (approximately 190–195 square metres) than those represented under the Living – General zone, although land under both zones are curetnly subject to the same minimum lot sizes under the existing planning scheme (LEP 4).
This was coupled with a strategic assessment which considered likely subdivision activity across this zone, balanced against the stated objectives of preserving large lot configuration, as presented in the Residential Subdivision Study. As noted in that study the retention of a 700 square metre lot size would eventually see a reduction in larger lots, which are a defining feature within this zone. Therefore it is necessary to introduce a proposed minimum lot size of 1200 square metres for the Living – Conservation zone to ensure that an appropriate
94 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 landscape setting is retained, while promoting development that is consistent with existing subdivision configurations in areas where the zone has been applied.
Living – Bushland Conservation zone
The Living – Bushland Conservation zone under Draft LEP 2002 is intended to operate as an equivalent zone to the Residential – Bushland Conservation (RBC) zone under LEP 1991. However, Council’s assessment of the operation of the ‘eight lots per hectare’ requirement in this zone under LEP 1991 in the early stages of the EMP2 process showed that it resulted, in some cases, in the creation of lot sizes as small as 600 square metres. This outcome was not achieving the objectives of the zone to maintain bushland character and adequately protect environmental values.
The minimum lot size for the Living – Bushland Conservation zone is a baseline requirement for maintaining a bushland setting in the creation of new lots. An assessment of that land noted as having a ‘bushland dominant character’ in the Residential Character Study (BMCC 2002b) notes that land has an average lot size of 1346 square metres and a median of 914 square metres.
As discussed below, the subdivision of land in the Living – Bushland Conservation zone requires the provision of 750 square metres unconstrained ‘development space’, which is in keeping with the minimum lot size in the Living – General zone. Under the provisions applying to the Living – Bushland Conservation zone, a minimum of 60 per cent of the 1200 square metres (or 720 square metres) must be retained as soft, pervious or landscaped areas, providing opportunities for the retention and re-establishment of native bushland.
However, this does not make allowance for any bushfire asset protection zone that would require the removal/reduction of vegetation that otherwise contributes to the maintenance of the bushland character. Consequently, it is considered that it would be difficult for the environmental management and bushland character objectives of the zone to be satisfied should subdivision provide for lot sizes smaller than 1200 square metres. Such a lot size not only underpins the objectives of the Living – Bushland Conservation zone, but helps achieve the planning principles of environmental management, protection against bushfire threat and limiting urban expansion, as discussed within the Residential Subdivision Study.
There are 17337 lots proposed to be zoned Living – Bushland Conservation, with an average lot size of 1648 square metres and a median of 915 square metres. However, as lot configuration within this zone is directed as much towards environmental management measures as towards character considerations, the size of adjoining allotments is not considered as pertinent as it is in relation to the Living – Conservation zone.
The notion of a ‘building space’ within Draft LEP 1997 has been retained as a ‘development space’ applying to the Living – Bushland Conservation zone. This approach is consistent with that developed under Amendment 25 to LEP 1991, and ensures that subdivision in environmentally constrained areas enables future development to occur on land that is capable of sustaining that development. As with Amendment 25, Draft LEP 2002 uses the ‘development excluded land’ concept to define land that is not suitable for development in relation to subdivision. Draft LEP 2002 seeks to maintain consistency with Amendment 25, to provide for compatible assessment frameworks between the principal planning instruments, while focusing on simplifying the application of these provisions where possible.
Draft LEP 2002 responds to Carleton’s recommendation ‘to investigate the possibility of prohibiting development on “constrained land” for land subdivided under the provisions of Draft LEP 97’ (Carleton 1998, p. 155). As with Amendment 25 to LEP 1991, Draft LEP 2002 requires that development may occur on ‘constrained land’ (development excluded land) only where a detailed environmental assessment demonstrates that it will have no adverse environmental impact.
95 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
6.2 EQUITY OF ACCESS AND HOUSING CHOICE
Draft LEP 2002 requires the consideration of issues concerning accessibility and adaptability of buildings, as well providing measures that contribute to housing choice.
The focus on these issues is outlined in the planning principles. It is informed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Council’s policy commitment to providing access to all people, including older people, people with a disability and those with limited mobility. The provisions relating to access and adaptability have been developed in consultation with the Blue Mountains Access Committee and provide for non-discriminatory access to premises. These provisions are an important basis for Council’s Accessible Housing Strategy (AHS), increasing opportunities for housing that meets the access needs of the community and providing for housing that can adapt to changes in people’s access needs during different stages of their lives.
The detail of the provisions related to access and adaptability are separately provided in Council’s DCP Design for Equity of Access. Those provisions are based on Australian Standard 1428.1-2001, Design for access and mobility and Australian Standard 4299-1995, Adaptable Housing. The provisions have been adapted in response to the requirements of DUAP in relation to accessible housing and in response to local circumstances.
The provisions relating to housing choice within Draft LEP 2002 support the broader initiatives within the Residential Development Strategy 2002 (RDS 2002) to provide opportunities for alternative housing forms to meet residents’ needs. The provisions stipulate that this issue must be considered at the development assessment stage. They also require accessible housing and multi-dwelling housing developments to include smaller dwelling units, thus providing appropriate housing for one-person households, which comprise a significant component of the Blue Mountains population (refer to assessments within the AHS and RDS 2002).
6.3 ACCESSIBLE HOUSING
Council has sought exemption from the application of SEPP 5, Housing for Older People and People with a Disability, because appropriate controls for this form of development have been developed through Draft LEP 2002, as detailed within the AHS (BMCC 2002a).
The Draft LEP introduces ‘Accessible Housing’ as a land use to replace ‘Housing for Older People and People with a Disability’. Accessible Housing operates at three levels within the Draft LEP, providing access to housing in terms of:
• supply of appropriate housing opportunities within the Blue Mountains to meet the needs of its residents; • location of housing to provide residents with independent access opportunities to necessary facilities and services within town centres and to transport nodes; and • design of housing as it relates to site layout and access within housing units.
Draft LEP 2002 responds directly to the changing population profile within the Blue Mountains and the resulting need to provide appropriate housing choice. A full assessment framework for this form of development is provided within Draft LEP 2002, rather than relying on a separate planning instrument, SEPP 5, to make provision for this form of development.
Like other land uses, accessible housing will be subject to all the provisions of Draft LEP 2002 that are relevant to the development (including provisions that relate specifically to this form of development, which were developed in response to the amendment to SEPP 5 in 2000).
96 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
The provisions specific to accessible housing limit the occupancy of accessible housing to the target group, limit its location to appropriately accessible areas within the designated Accessible Housing Areas (AHAs), ensure that adequate support services are provided in conjunction with accessible housing, and ensure that appropriate access is available both internally and externally (see subsection 4.5.1).
In order to provide a degree of flexibility in the development of housing for older people and people with a disability, the provisions also allow certain ‘self-sustaining developments’ outside the AHA, particularly where these are associated with existing hospitals or nursing homes. It is recognised that, without the support of recognised service providers and the wider community, few developments are able to provide affordable transport and services for the life of the development. Such developments rely on economies of scale, and are likely to be of a size that is incompatible with prevailing urban character values and environmental capacities of this LGA. Therefore, these developments are permissible only in the Living – General, Recreation – Private and Village zones, subject to provisions ensuring that all necessary services are provided to their residents.
6.4 PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
The subsections that follow comment on a number of land uses that were the subject of significant community interest or objection in relation to Draft LEP 1997, as well as covering some new land uses that are proposed for introduction through Draft LEP 2002.
6.4.1 Bed-and-breakfast establishments
The approach to bed-and-breakfast establishments within Draft LEP 2002 is consistent with the recommendations of Commissioner Carleton (1998, pp. 72–3). Subject to specific prescriptive controls and merit-based considerations, Draft LEP 2002 permits this land use in the Living – Bushland Conservation and Living – Conservation zones.
6.4.2 Dual occupancies
Dual-occupancy developments are any allotments having two dwellings, either attached or detached. These developments will be permissible in the Village – Tourist, Village – Housing and Living – General zones, which generally allow for the redevelopment of a wide range of residential areas close to local service centres and facilities. Controls on the form and location of dual occupancies will encourage the retention of streetscapes dominated by single detached houses, and the provision of a range of housing types. Such an approach is consistent with Carleton’s comments in relation to this form of development (Carleton 1998, p. 58).
Dual-occupancy development will contribute to the range of housing options within the Blue Mountains. It upholds the major principles of Draft LEP 2002 in relation to reconfiguring existing housing stock to accommodate future population growth and changing household structures.
Targeting dual occupancies to the Living – General and higher-density residential zones will ensure that important character types in lower-density residential zones are retained, and environmentally sensitive areas are not pressured to accommodate further development. Dual occupancies in higher-density residential zones will also encourage consolidation in appropriate locations around major town centres. Council considers that the approach to dual occupancies within Draft LEP 2002 achieves a reasonable balance between state government planning policy, residential development needs within the LGA and the environmental attributes of the Blue Mountains.
97 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
6.4.3 Granny flats
‘Granny flats’ are defined as separate self-contained dwellings that do not have separate title rights. It is envisaged that this form of housing will make a substantial contribution to the expansion of housing options and the range of affordable housing types within the Blue Mountains. The permissibility of granny flats (otherwise known as ‘split housing’) in all residential zones will promote the ability of the existing housing stock to be modified and re- used to meet the housing needs of residents in a small-scale way.
6.4.4 Home employment
Home employment is an additional land use incorporated within Draft LEP 2002, designed to encourage the development of home-based businesses. The economic studies undertaken for Council in the preparation of Draft LEP 2002 identified a need to allow home-based businesses more opportunity to expand. The home employment land-use classification allows the use of a residential dwelling for commercial activity where the commercial floor space does not comprise more than 50 per cent of the gross floor area of the dwelling, and the business has no more than five non-resident employees. There are provisions within Draft LEP 2002 to ensure that the impact of home businesses on surrounding areas is mitigated. Home employment is permitted in the Village – Tourist, Village – Housing, and Employment – Enterprise zones.
6.4.5 Proprietary food outlets
The issue of controlling fast-food outlets within the Blue Mountains was raised in response to the exhibition of Draft LEP 1997, with Carleton noting that it has been ‘demonstrated that there have been significant levels of community objection against the establishment of fast- food chains in the Blue Mountains’ (Carleton 1998, p. 208).
Parties objecting to this form of development fall within two groups, with the first seeking the prohibition of fast-food chains throughout the Blue Mountains and the second requesting restrictions on the location of fast-food chains, seeking variously to prevent this form of development:
• at prominent gateways to village centres; • on the Great Western Highway; or • within any village centres.
Carleton’s response to these objections was:
In regard to this issue of fast food outlets in the Blue Mountains, the Commission notes that a take-away food outlet is only permissible in the Village and Employment zone in the Blue Mountains. The Commission questions whether a fast food outlet could be excluded from Council’s areas via the proposed LEP. However, the issue of placing further restrictions on the location of fast food outlets is a matter more appropriately addressed by Council, taking into account community concerns.
(Carleton 1998, p. 209)
Council has reviewed the permissibility of fast-food outlets and related land uses in line with the Commissioner’s recommendations. Council’s approach to this issue was formed with reference to DUAP, and is limited to planning considerations and the attainment of the planning principles on which the Draft LEP is based.
98 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 does not propose to prohibit the establishment of fast food chains within the Blue Mountains, but rather to limit their location to appropriate areas within the urban structure, and to ensure that the form and function of this type of development is compatible with its context.
In achieving this outcome, Draft LEP 2002 is highly specific in its definitions of the following land uses:
• drive-in take-away food outlet; • proprietary food outlet; • refreshment rooms; and • take-away food outlet.
The definitions applying to these land uses recognise that the various types of food outlets require different planning responses.
Drive-in take-away food outlets and proprietary food outlets (‘fast-food chains’) are limited to certain locations within the village centres of Katoomba and Springwood that do not form part of the entrances to these district-level service centres and are not accessed directly from the Great Western Highway.
Locality provisions have been developed to allow the development of these two land uses in a manner that integrates with the desired future character identified for that locality. Such an approach helps to prevent the homogenisation that may occur in village centres when fast- food chains give their distinctive corporate branding and generic building forms priority over place-responsive design. Further, allowing these land uses within the village centres rather than on the highway corridor can contribute to the retail function of these centres and attract more visitors.
Refreshment rooms and take-away food outlets (which do not include drive-in take-away outlets and proprietary food outlets) provide broader opportunities for the provision of food outlets in village centres and recreational settings.
6.4.6 Sex establishments
Development for the purposes of sex establishments or brothels is a controversial issue and has been the source of considerable objection within the Blue Mountains, as evidenced by submissions in response to Draft LEP 1997.
Draft LEP 2002 permits sex establishments, but imposes controls over their location, operation and design. This approach gives the community the widest possible opportunity, through the public exhibition process, to consider the permissibility of this land use and the adequacy of the proposed controls prior to making the LEP and formalising the approach to this land use.
Background
Sex establishments were defined as a land use permissible with consent in the Employment zone under Draft LEP 1997, and there were no additional provisions relating to their design, location or operation. The inclusion of this land use was a response to the 1995 amendment to the Disorderly Houses Act 1943 (DH Act), which had the effect of rendering brothels a legitimate land use.
There was considerable opposition to the inclusion of sex establishments as a land use during the public exhibition of Draft LEP 1997, with 126 objections lodged in relation to this issue during the public hearing. The vast majority of objections were made on moral and religious
99 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 grounds; other concerns related to possible increases in corruption and the inappropriate location of brothels as a result of Draft LEP 1997. In addition, there was concern expressed in regard to the adequacy of local government to regulate the operation of brothels. Commissioner Carleton responded by recommending a thorough review of the existing provisions relating to sex establishments in Draft LEP 1997 (Carleton 1998, pp. 84–5) and ‘consultation with the wider community’ (p. 85).
In addressing the submissions Commissioner Carlton recommended that Council ‘may be able to rectify some community concerns regarding brothels by the creation of provisions within the local environmental plan that prohibit brothels from operating within a set minimum distance from schools or a place used for a cultural or recreational purpose’ (Carleton 1998, p. 85). Matters such as signage, window displays, business hours and amenity issues could also be controlled through provisions of the Draft LEP.
Existing situation
There are no accurate figures on the current number of sex establishments in the Blue Mountains. Council’s Development Application register has no records of sex establishments or brothels, however this is more a reflection of the use not being defined than an indication that sex establishments do not exist in the Blue Mountains.
Anecdotal advice on the number of sex establishments has been obtained from relevant organisations. The Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) is an organisation that works with the sex industry providing advice to sex workers. They suggest that there are several sex establishments and ‘home business’ sex establishments operating within the area. This view is supported by the Sexual Health Centre at Katoomba Hospital, which is visited by many of the sex workers who live and work in the Blue Mountains. The Intelligence Officers at Springwood Police Station are aware of several premises that exist, and advised that they receive very few complaints from the public about the existing premises.
Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995
In 1995 an amendment to the 1943 DH Act legalised the operation of brothels and attempted to establish adequate protocols for their regulation and operation.
The amendment does not require local councils to include sex establishments as a permissible land use in local environmental plans. However, as noted by Carleton (1998, p. 82), advice has been received from DUAP on the issue, stating:
It is no longer a criminal offence to keep a brothel. Brothels are now a legitimate land use which can be regulated through local environmental plans (LEPs)… If a brothel is not specifically defined in an LEP it would generally come under the definition of commercial premises… Brothels are most suitable in commercial and industrial areas that are not adjacent to schools or facilities frequently used by children. (DUAP 1995)
and
Councils can restrict brothels to industrial areas that are not adjacent to schools or facilities frequently used by children. (DUAP 1996a)
Council also received the following advice from DUAP on 27 March 1997:
The Disorderly Houses Amendment Act (DHA Act) 1995 contains no requirement which forces Councils to permit brothels in their local government areas. Councils are entitled to include provisions in their draft local environmental plans which prohibit brothels from their local government areas if they so desire. However, the Minister has advised Councils that he does not support the blanket prohibition of brothels by Councils
100 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
throughout their local government area as this would have the effect of making the establishment of brothels illegal under planning law. This would contradict the intention of the DHA Act, may result in increased street prostitution, and could encourage attempts to corrupt Council staff. Council should note that the DHA Act is not based on the moral aspects of prostitution.
The implications of the above advice are that there is an impetus for Council to acknowledge the existence of brothels and allow for their use under local planning law, in accordance with the intentions of the DHA Act.
Precedents set in relation to the DHA Act
The Land and Environment Court has considered a number of cases dealing with sex establishments since the amendment to the Disorderly Houses Act in 1995. The majority of these cases before the court have raised issues relating to:
• moral objections; • purported amenity impacts; and • consent of councils being contingent upon extensive conditions.
Key decisions established as a result of these cases are summarised below:
• Moral issues are not a planning matter, as determined by section 79C of the EP&A Act, that Council can use as a reason for refusal of a DA (Liu v. Fairfield City Council, December 1996). • Sex establishments constitute commercial developments as defined in the Model Provisions (if the use is not otherwise defined). • In general, the court regards sex establishments as a discreet, quiet land use, the adverse amenity impacts of which can be controlled through appropriate conditions. • Sex establishments can be acceptable in industrial, commercial and mixed-use areas and may even be acceptable in residential zones. Their acceptability in residential zones will generally depend on whether the applicant can demonstrate that the premises will not have an adverse amenity impact in terms of noise, parking, late-night activity and the like. • Management plans have been seen as a way of controlling such impacts.
Cases that the court has refused have generally been those where a substantial number of objections have been received from local residents, who have been willing to appear as witnesses in court and demonstrate that the amenity impacts will be sufficiently adverse to warrant a refusal. Impacts have included excessive noise late at night and knocking on the wrong doors in the vicinity of sex establishments.
Proposed approach in Draft LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 takes the approach of defining sex establishments as a land use, in line with court rulings on the matter and advice provided by DUAP. It is considered that the identification and control of this particular form of development through land-use provisions is preferable to unlicensed, unregulated and illegal land uses.
Defining sex establishments and designating this land use as permissible with consent in certain zones will promote the regulation of sex establishments in appropriate locations. Without definition, the land use may be subsumed as ‘commercial premises’ and become permissible by default in village centres. Alternatively, the land use could be defined and prohibited within the LGA, subject to approval by DUAP.
101 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Controlling the location of sex establishments and setting standards for their management will address many of the concerns raised in public submissions to Draft LEP 1997. In addition, Council will be able to maintain control over approved sex establishments through the enforcement of conditions of consent and clause 17 of the DH Act. Clause 17 allows for Council to initiate action to close sex establishments if it can be demonstrated that they are having negative impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood.
The benefits of defining and permitting sex establishments within an LEP include:
• control over the management and location of sex establishments and the minimisation of conflicts between land uses; • control over issues such as signage, hours of operation and lighting, through the requirement for a Plan of Operation; and • general improvements in the working conditions and health of the sex workers through standardising the operation of sex establishments.
Draft LEP 2002 defines sex establishments as a land use and proposes to limit its permissibility, with consent, to the Employment – General zone. In addition, the plan contains controls and requirements related to:
• location of sex establishments in relation to other sensitive land uses; • operation, amenity, design and form of sex establishments; • safety of staff, sex workers and clients; and • submission of a Plan of Operation.
Each of these is discussed in detail below.
Location
It is an aim of Draft LEP 2002 to avoid a conflict of land uses and to ensure the separation of a sex establishment from other sensitive land uses. The restriction of sex establishments to the Employment – General zone goes part of the way in achieving this. However, to ensure the appropriate location of this land use, Council has introduced a requirement that a sex establishment is not to be located within 100 metres of the following land uses:
• educational establishment; • child-care centre; • recreational area; • place of worship; • hospital; or • any other place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities.
In addition to this, a sex establishment is not to be within 50 metres of any zone in which a dwelling house is a permissible land use, and must not have frontage or vehicular access to the Regional Transport Corridor.
Operation, amenity and design
Provisions within Draft LEP 2002 require that sex establishments do not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining areas by way of inappropriate lighting, advertising or hours of operation. Restrictions on shop fronts also apply, and waiting rooms must be provided to discourage clients from loitering outside the premises.
102 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
These measures aim to address the concerns of the public in regard to the visibility of sex establishments and their operation in terms of late-night hours of operation, noise and loitering.
Safety of sex workers and clients
Design controls have been incorporated into Draft LEP 2002 that will attempt to maximise the safety and security of sex workers and clients. These measures include the requirement for entrances to be located so as to be visible from a public street, and the design of premises to provide for passive surveillance from adjoining streets and/or public places. In addition, there are requirements for the provision of an alarm or intercom system in each room that can be monitored from a central base at all times, to enhance the safety of the sex workers.
Plan of operation
Details of the proposed operation are to be submitted to Council, outlining the design and management of the sex establishment in accordance with the requirements of Council. The Plan of Operation is to be adhered to by the proprietors, should the establishment be approved. Adherence to the Plan of Operation would be a condition of consent.
6.5 ACQUISITION OF LAND
The consistent application of planning provisions across the city has resulted in some lots being wholly zoned Environmental Protection – Open Space, which significantly reduces the development potential of this land. In accordance with Council policy and practice, this land will be subject to acquisition by the Council. A clause within the Draft LEP provides for acquisition of the land, where it is identified with the relevant border on the Draft LEP maps.
Council has implemented a process to assess each of these lots individually and assign priority for their acquisition. This process is based on Commissioner Carleton’s recommendation that:
…Council undertake a detailed assessment and analysis of likely EP zonings (including potential EP zonings), taking into account their importance or priority, likely property acquisition costs for a range of potential scenarios, and likely financial commitments, payment projects and plans. This review should aim to provide a practical balance between environmental protection of significant areas and sound financial planning and appropriation for Council. (Carleton 1998, p. 94).
Once the assessment of proposed acquisitions is complete, a confidential report will be submitted to Council. An assessment has been made based on the unimproved land value of lots to be acquired. It has been recommended that Council also undertake an independent detailed estimate of the cost of acquiring these lands before public exhibition of Draft LEP 2002.
Assessment process
Many lots across the City are affected by environmental constraints, however not all should be acquired. A priority system was developed to rank the potential acquisitions, so that the best long-term environmental outcomes would be achieved with Council’s available resources. The priority for acquisition was based on:
• existing environmental constraints on an allotment (significant vegetation, steep slopes, watercourses);
• proximity of an allotment to public reserves (to facilitate integrated management of Council-owned land and reduce impacts of urban encroachment); 103 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• history of Council resolution to acquire an allotment under previous planning instruments and state legislation; and
• value for money relative to the acquisition and management of other parcels.
This last consideration includes an evaluation of the potential for successful long-term management of each site, the environmental contribution of each site relative to others and the type and extent of ongoing management intervention that will be required to maintain a functioning ecosystem. Overall, the emphasis has been on sustainable long-term land management.
Based on the considerations above, acquisition criteria were developed to establish an order of priority for acquiring lands zoned Environmental Protection – Open Space across the city. A numerical value was assigned to each, and they were summed to give a score out of 100, with 100 being the highest priority for acquisition. The criteria used in assigning priority ranking are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Priority for acquisition Acquisition criteria Score 1. Current zoning Rural 1A3 where land is within a conservation area sub- 100 catchment
2. Current zoning not Rural 1A3 Watercourse present 30 Contiguous with reserve or NP* 25 Significant vegetation present 20 Slope >33% present 10 Large size lot or one of several adjoining lots being acquired 5 No adjoining development 5 Public access available 5 Full services available (water, sewer) –5 Total score /100 * May be adjoining or connected via road closure or other Environmental Protection zoning.
As not all parcels are similarly constrained, Table 4 apportions scores based on the extent of the environmental constraint existing on that parcel. For example, a parcel containing a creek running through its entirety is given a higher score than one where the creek cuts across a small section of the lot. Likewise a parcel that is entirely covered in significant vegetation scores more highly than one with only a small area of land covered in significant vegetation.
104 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Table 4: Priority for acquisition Acquisition criteria Scores for land not zoned Rural 1A3 Score Watercourse present Land includes substantial length of watercourse or bank 30 (max. possible score = (generally traversing site) 30) Land includes moderate length of watercourse or bank 25 Land includes short length of watercourse or bank 20 Land within EBA, close to creek line and >20% slope 20 Land within EBA, not close to creek line and >20% slope 15 Land within EBA, close to creek line and <20% slope 10 Land within EBA, not close to creek line and <20% slop 5 Significant vegetation Majority of land covered by/large amount of sig veg 20 (sig veg) present (max. Half of land covered by/large amount of sig veg 15 possible score =20) Small area of land covered by/small amount of sig veg 10 Land within EBA and close to EP zoned sig veg 5 Slope >33% present All land affected by slope>33% 10 (max. possible score >75% of land with slope>33% 8 =10) 50-75% of land with slope>33%, balance >20% slope 7 25-50% of land with slope>33%, balance >20% slope 5 Contiguous with Contiguous with National Park 25 reserve, NP or EP lands Contiguous with other reserve 20 (max. possible score Contiguous with large amount EP zoned land 10 =25) Contiguous with small amount EP zoned land 5 Large size lot or one of Combined total of land much greater than 1 hectare 5 several adjoining lots Combined total of land = or > 1 hectare 2 being acquired (max. possible score =5) No existing or potential Building envelope or potential building envelope >60m from 5 adjoining development nearest boundary of acquired lot (max. possible score =5) Building envelope or potential building envelope 40-59m 3 from nearest boundary of acquired lot Building envelope or potential building envelope 20-39m 2 from nearest boundary of acquired lot Building envelope or potential building envelope 10-19m 1 from nearest boundary of acquired lot Public access available Formed road access 5 (max. possible score =5) Full services available Reticulated water and sewer available to lot –5 (max. possible score -5) Rural 1A3 lands under SREP 20
The first criterion in Table 3 refers to land currently not zoned for residential purposes (Rural 1A3), and located in conservation area sub-catchments under SREP 20. Under the provisions of that SREP (Action Plan, Cl. 2.8.2) Council cannot rezone such land for urban development. Irrespective of the other identified constraints applying to that land, it remains a priority for acquisition (DUAP 1997b).
In the interests of limiting urban expansion and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, Council has been actively acquiring land in this zone for a number of years. The provisions of LEP 4 do not allow for the construction of a dwelling in this zone unless it is ancillary to an agricultural land use. It should be noted that Council's previous and continuing acquisition of these properties has been in response to a Council resolution and not as a result of a statutory obligation under LEP 4. These Rural 1A3 lands are now identified as being within Conservation Area Sub-Catchments under SREP 20, which places limitations on these sites regarding rezoning and development of uncleared land. This essentially consolidates the status of this land as being unsuitable for development and reinforces the Draft LEP 2002 zoning of this land as Environmental Protection – Open Space.
105 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Other land
Other land subject to Draft LEP 2002 was assessed for acquisition priority on the basis of the following environmental constraints (Table 4): the presence of severe slope, a watercourse, and/or scheduled significant vegetation. In addition to the environmental criteria, other criteria relating to the strategic location and future public land management of each site were also considered. These included: the size of the allotment and its relationship with existing reserves, the national park and other blocks being acquired or protected by EP zonings, and whether public access was available. The latter criterion reflects the zoning of acquired lots as Environmental Protection – Open Space. The availability of a reticulated sewer system and water supply attracts a penalty, as this represents an under-utilisation of available infrastructure resources.
Under Draft LEP 2002, 281 allotments are identified for acquisition by being zoned Environmental Protection – Open Space. Of these, 267 (or 95 per cent) are allotments located on land that is currently zoned Rural 1A3 under LEP 4. Draft LEP 2002 proposes the acquisition of 14 allotments in addition to those currently zoned Rural 1A3 under LEP 4. These 14 allotments are located throughout the Blue Mountains and are to be acquired over the life of Draft LEP 2002. Of these, 12 acquisitions (86%) function directly to protect sensitive environmental land. In contrast, Draft LEP 1997 proposed the acquisition of 16 allotments in addition to the Rural 1A3 zoned land. These allotments comprised two strategic acquisitions, which have been carried into Draft LEP 2002, plus 14 other acquisitions related to: recreation (one lot), scenic values (two lots), and miscellaneous purposes within Springwood Village centre (11 lots).
The acquisition of the current Rural 1A3 zoned land and the additional lots is required, in the main, to protect water quality and biodiversity in Sydney’s drinking water supply catchments and in the national park. It will be recommended, therefore, that Council approach state government for funding to assist with land acquisitions in the Environmental Protection – Open Space zone.
106 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
7 OUTCOMES OF DRAFT LEP 2002
This section describes how the land-use framework has addressed the major planning principles underpinning Draft LEP 2002. These have been introduced in subsection 3.2 and are:
• limiting urban expansion; • managing the environment; • meeting housing and social needs; • protecting town and residential character; • promoting local employment; and • providing sustainable transport and access.
As a component of ‘meeting housing and social needs’, consideration is given to potential land supply, alternative housing provision and impacts on projected population.
7.1 LIMITING URBAN EXPANSION
Draft LEP 2002 has adopted a land-use framework that concentrates development around the major town centres and reduces the potential for development on the urban/bushland interface, with its requisite impacts on infrastructure. This land-use framework has been formed through the development and consistent application of zones based on the Sustainable Development Threshold (SDT), as applied to areas on the periphery of towns and centres that are currently zoned Residential Investigation under LEP 1991. Combined with the Living – Bushland Conservation zone as a secondary tool, low residential development densities have been secured in peripheral and bushland-dominant areas. Protecting land outside the SDT will help to protect fragile ecosystems (including watercourses) and contribute to the appropriate management of infrastructure systems. Limits to urban expansion will place constraints on the supply of land for urban development, and this outcome is considered in subsection 7.3 below.
7.2 MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT
Draft LEP 2002 has introduced a range of environmental management tools that work towards the achievement of ESD principles and practices within the Blue Mountains. These tools operate at a range of levels. At the zone level, application of the Environmental Protection – General zone has identified and ensured the protection of land that is unsuitable for urban development, with the Living – Bushland Conservation zone playing an increased role in providing for sustainable development, by balancing environmental management with provision of land for residential purposes.
The draft plan introduces accurately mapped protected areas that work towards identifying environmental constraints and ensuring that these are considered in the development process. These constraints include the main environmental attributes of the Blue Mountains:
• steeply sloping land; • potentially significant vegetation communities; • ecological buffers to identified significant vegetation communities and watercourses; • water supply catchment areas; • escarpment areas; and
107 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• riverine scenic quality corridors.
Finally, Draft LEP 2002 provides a comprehensive and explicit framework for the assessment of environmental attributes, which covers:
• watercourses; • significant vegetation communities; • measures for the protection of flora and fauna; • weed management; • site disturbance and erosion control; • stormwater management; • modification of land form; • bush rock removal; and • bushfire assessment and protection measures.
7.3 MEETING HOUSING AND SOCIAL NEEDS
The reduced availability of land for new housing in fringe areas has necessitated a flexible approach towards the provision of housing choice within existing urban areas. Although singe detached housing still predominates, Draft LEP 2002 makes provision for adequate alternative housing in response to the identified housing needs of residents. This approach and its outcomes are detailed in the Residential Development Strategy 2002 (RDS 2002) and Accessible Housing Strategy (AHS).
This section identifies the residential outcomes arising from Draft LEP 2002, including a summary of the assessment of land supply and potential dwelling yield capacity. A more detailed discussion of land supply, dwelling yields and implications for population growth can be found in the RDS 2002.
7.3.1 Land supply
Land supply has been calculated following an assessment of the vacant serviced land that is available within the area of Draft LEP 2002, and the potential for additional subdivision under the zoning and land-use provisions of the Draft LEP. It is estimated that a total of 5202 lots may potentially be developed; these are shown by town in Table 5. These figures are intended to give an indication of the likely potential land supply for additional development where all development opportunities are realised by the housing market. The calculations consider the Draft LEP 2002 area only, and do not consider the potential for additional dwellings within the area zoned under LEP 1991.
Table 5: Residential Land Stock Available under Draft LEP 2002, Following Subdivision Town Vacant land that Additional land after Total land supply cannot be subdivided subdivision Parcels Parcels Parcels Bell 0 0 0 Mount Victoria 104 102 206 Blackheath 456 280 736 Total Planning Area 1 560 382 942 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 433 367 800 Leura 280 159 439 Wentworth Falls 263 379 642
108 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Town Vacant land that Additional land after Total land supply cannot be subdivided subdivision Parcels Parcels Parcels Total Planning Area 2 976 905 1 881 Bullaburra 56 53 109 Lawson 131 84 215 Hazelbrook 171 157 328 Woodford 91 37 128 Linden 13 0 13 Total Planning Area 3 462 331 793 Faulconbridge 49 191 240 Springwood 97 362 459 Valley Heights 25 4 29 Winmalee 95 114 209 Yellow Rock 0 0 0 Hawkesbury Heights 0 0 0 Total Planning Area 4 266 671 937 Warrimoo 35 30 65 Blaxland 36 286 322 Glenbrook 42 168 210 Lapstone 4 0 4 Mount Riverview 18 30 48 Total Planning Area 5 135 514 649 TOTAL 2 399 2 803 5 202 The potential land supply calculated above has been assessed against the likely rate of development, estimated from the number of dwellings approved in the LEP 4 area in 1998, as an indicative year. At existing rates of development, the land stock proposed under Draft LEP 2002 will allow for development that is forecast to reach the capacity of the urban land stock in 2019. There is some variation between the Planning Areas, with Planning Area 4 reaching capacity in the year 2012.
Once the available land has been taken up, the majority of additional residential development potential will be in the form of redevelopment of existing residential areas for smaller housing options, particularly as the demographics of the population change and the demand for alternative housing options increases.
7.3.2 Alternative housing supply
The analysis of population trends presented in Volume 2, section 8 of this planning study suggests that Draft LEP 2002 must set appropriate directions for the provision of alternative housing if the current and projected needs of households of the Blue Mountains are to be met.
The following types of alternative housing are promoted in Draft LEP 2002:
• dual-occupancy development, in the Village – Town Centre, Village – Tourist, Village – Housing, Living – General and Employment – Enterprise zones; • ‘granny flats’, in all Living and Village zones (except the Village – Neighbourhood Centre zone) and in the Employment – Enterprise zone; • accessible housing, in a number of major service centres and in a limited number of other locations, where development is self-contained; • medium-density housing and redevelopment at greater residential densities in Village – Housing zones, with a specified proportion of smaller dwellings, to provide affordable accommodation for smaller households;
109 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• smaller dwellings, by permitting re-alignment of the public housing stock in a greater variety of situations; and • mixed-use residential and commercial development and alternative housing types, within the Village – Town Centre and Village – Neighbourhood Centre zones.
Table 6 describes the estimated potential yield of the various alternative housing forms under the proposed zoning of Draft LEP 2002, and shows that a total of 3818 alternative dwellings would be permissible. These notional figures are based on scenarios of maximum possible development or a 100 per cent take-up rate. It is emphasised that the aims of the RDS 2002 and Draft LEP 2002 would be fully realised if development occurred at a take-up rate of 25 to 33 per cent of potential development opportunities, providing between 954 and 1272 additional units. Should this take-up rate occur, the opportunities for alternative housing under the Draft LEP would be reassessed.
Table 6: Potential yield of alternative housing types under Draft LEP 2002 Town Dual Occupancies Accessible Housing / Multi Total (Dwellings) dwelling housing (No. Units) Mt Victoria 54 23 77 Blackheath 9 238 247 Medlow Bath 0 0 0 Katoomba 101 635 736 Leura 26 225 251 Wentworth Falls 3 130 133 Bullaburra 0 0 0 Lawson 14 171 185 Hazelbrook 5 173 178 Woodford 0 0 0 Linden 0 0 0 Faulconbridge 161 0 161 Springwood* 98 945 1,043 Winmalee 57 30 87 Yellow Rock/ Hawkesbury 0 Heights 0 0 Valley Heights 0 0 0 Warrimoo 16 0 16 Blaxland 250 363 613 Mount Riverview 22 0 22 Glenbrook 14 55 69 Lapstone 0 0 0 TOTAL 830 2,988 3,818 *Includes St Columba's site
7.3.3 Impacts on projected population
The potential additional land supply under Draft LEP 2002 would allow for a maximum estimated 9 020 additional dwellings, as calculated from Table 5 and Table 6. Of these, 42 per cent (3 818 dwellings) would be smaller alternative housing types such as units for the aged, town houses and other units, and the remaining 58 per cent (5 202 dwellings) would be detached dwellings. Such development would involve additional subdivision of land (generally within the existing urban footprint), development of vacant allotments and the potential for the redevelopment of areas immediately surrounding the major towns with a wider range and larger quantity of alternative housing types.
The potential new dwellings within the Blue Mountains would allow a population increase of approximately 19 772 within the urban areas. This estimate is based on an average household size of 1.5 people in semidetached dwellings, units and town houses, and an average of 2.7 people in detached dwellings. However, this assumes 100 per cent take-up of development
110 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 potential under Draft LEP. Considering a more likely development scenario of 100 per cent take up of vacant land (2 399 parcels), a 25 per cent take up of subdivision opportunities on presently vacant and developed land (2 803 parcels) and a 25 per cent take-up of development potential for alternative dwellings (3 818 parcels) would result in a population increase of about 9 800.
This forecasts, as an indicative figure only, a population threshold of approximately 82 300 resulting from the land-use pattern under Draft LEP 2002. Due to the trend towards decreasing household sizes, this population could either remain stable or decrease.
The spatial distribution of additional land supply and potential additional dwellings under Draft LEP 2002 will focus on the district centres of Katoomba (1 536 potential additional dwellings) and Springwood (1 502 potential additional dwellings). A high proportion of this increase will be in a form that promotes greater housing choice and accessibility.
Projected population growth is discussed in detail in Volume 2, subsection 8.3.3 of this planning study. The estimated Blue Mountains population in 2000 was 76 929. By 2021, the population of the Blue Mountains is projected to be 84 600, an increase of 7671 (ABS 1996). If there is a 25 per cent take-up of the potential alternate dwellings, a 25 per cent take up of subdividable developed land and a 100 per cent take-up of remaining vacant land for detached dwellings under Draft LEP 2002, the available dwellings will be adequate to house the projected additional population.
7.4 PROTECTING TOWN AND RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER
Character studies and workshops with the local community have identified town and residential character as an important component of local identity. The particular character types that differentiate the Blue Mountains from other areas have been identified within Draft LEP 2002, and have been protected through a range of measures. These include:
• listing the protection of character as a principal objective of the Draft LEP; • the application of the Living – Conservation zone to areas of important and vulnerable character characterised by large allotment sizes, dominant landscape settings and traditional gardens; • the application of the Living – Bushland Conservation zone which, in addition to protecting areas of environmental sensitivity, promotes the retention of residential bushland character; • the identification of Period Housing Areas on the Draft LEP zoning maps, with provisions that control demolition of older housing stock and promote sympathetic design for renovation or infill development; • the application of Protected Areas – Escarpment Area, which incorporates additional development controls for height and built form in visually prominent escarpment areas; and • both general and precinct-specific controls on the design of village housing, site coverage, building height and vegetation retention.
Precinct planning has been introduced through Draft LEP 2002 and is an integral component of identifying important character elements within the Blue Mountains villages; it has been developed in collaboration with the community. Precinct planning has been applied to areas that are the focus of development pressures, or where the protection of character attributes is paramount, and provides the basis for protecting character in these areas.
The heritage conservation provisions of Draft LEP 2002 acknowledge the sense of place and village character that is generated through the preservation of the heritage resource. The
111 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 approach adopted by Draft LEP 2002 in assessing heritage significance is consistent and compatible with contemporary heritage practice across the state, and provides a framework for sound decision-making regarding the management of the heritage asset. The draft plan and its provisions are supported by detailed studies and inventory data sheets, which qualify the listing of an item and provide a useful tool for the ongoing conservation and management of a heritage resource.
7.5 PROMOTING LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
Measures have been incorporated in Draft LEP 2002 that respond to the existing economic situation in the Blue Mountains. Most significantly, a new ‘industrial’ zone has been established, to respond to the changing nature of industry. The Employment – Enterprise zone is a mixed-use zone that seeks to promote a high-quality built environment and accommodate ‘clean’ industries, which are establishing as a result of technological change. This is in addition to the Employment – General zone, which maintains a land-use framework for traditional industries.
Under LEP 4 a total of 146 hectares of land is zoned industrial. Of this land, 100 hectares is not utilised for industrial purposes, indicating a significant oversupply of this land. The areas of land zoned for Employment – General and Employment – Enterprise are listed below:
Table 7: Areas of industrial land by town Town LEP 4 Draft LEP 2002 Draft LEP 2002 (m2) Employment G Employment E (m2) (m2) Bell Mount Victoria 24 488 Blackheath 166 854 Medlow Bath Katoomba 535 883 445 502 64 411 Leura 9 290 Wentworth Falls 816 Bullaburra Lawson 496 704 197 694 27 750 Hazelbrook 2 729 Woodford Linden Faulconbridge Springwood 104 993 98 469 Winmalee Valley Heights 69 229 77 189 Mount Riverview Warrimoo Blaxland 58 563 50 005 Glenbrook 15 087 Lapstone Subtotal 868 859 119 267 Total 1 457 530 998 126 It is evident that the supply of industrial-zoned land in the LGA has been reduced under Draft LEP 2002. This results from the removal of surplus industrial-zoned land from Mount Victoria, Blackheath and Wentworth Falls, although additional land has been zoned for employment- generating development in Leura and Hazelbrook. The reduction reflects an increasing focus on the environmental sensitivity of land within the LGA, and the identification of surplus industrial land.
Draft LEP 2002 has identified the need to respond to businesses operating from home. It provides for two levels of business (Home Occupation and Home Business), that are
112 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 permissible in residential areas, and a third land use (Home Employment) that permits co- location of residential and commercial uses in the higher-density zones. Draft LEP 2002 establishes an identifiable business growth path, allowing small businesses to grow and not be restricted by planning legislation, while ensuring that environmental integrity and residential amenity are maintained.
The established hierarchy for retail and service centres is consolidated within the existing villages, by retaining or encouraging higher densities and a wider variety of uses in these areas, depending on their role within the retail hierarchy, and discouraging land uses that might lead to ribbon development on the Great Western Highway.
7.6 PROVIDING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT AND ACCESS
The land-use structure developed under Draft LEP 2002 contributes to integrating land use and transport systems. The plan encourages an urban form where higher density residential uses are concentrated within walking distance of primary townships. These townships have been selected on the basis of their ability to satisfy the local service needs of residents and provide access to transport. This approach to the zoning of village centres has been coupled with a zone structure that restricts an increase in population concentrations in fringe areas. In essence, the zone structure of Draft LEP 2002 provides for a decrease in population densities as the distance from transport, services and commercial facilities increases.
There is an increasing recognition of the need for equitable access opportunities. Draft LEP 2002 provides for this in its consideration of access to public buildings and facilities, and by ensuring that adequate provision has been made for accessible housing.
113 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1996. Census of Population and Housing.
Australia ICOMOS Incorporated. 2000. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999. Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, Burwood, Victoria.
BBC Consulting Planners (for Blue Mountains City Council). 1998. Lawson Township Study. BBC Consulting Planners, Sydney.
Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee (BMBMC). 2000. Blue Mountains Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee, Sydney.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) and Centre for Regional Research and Innovation (CRRI). 2001. Blue Mountains Business Information Package. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1982. Local Environmental Plan No. 4 (as amended to 02/10/01). Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1989. Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Environmental Study Stage 1: Rural and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1997a. Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1991. Local Environmental Plan 1991 (as amended to 27/3/01). Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 1997b. Environmental Management Plan Stage 2: Local Environmental Study. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002a. Accessible Housing Strategy. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002b. Residential Character Study. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002c. Residential Development Strategy 2002. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC). 2002d. Response to Commissioner Carleton’s Recommendations. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Briggs, J. and J. Leigh. 1995. Rare or Threatened Australian Plants, Revised Edn, Special Publication No. 14. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.
Carleton, M. 1998. Report to Blue Mountains City Council: Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997 (DLEP 97) Section 68 Public Hearing EP&A Act 1979. Office of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning, Sydney.
Centre for Regional Research and Innovation (CRRI). 2001. Economic and Business Indicators. Available http: http://www.uws.edu.au/crri/html/blue_mountains.html Accessed 2001.
114 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Available http: http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/national/strategy Accessed 2001.
Croft and Associates with Meredith Walker. 1983. Blue Mountains Heritage Study. Blue Mountains City Council, Katoomba.
Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. 2001. Small Area Labour Markets, Australia: June Quarter 2001.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1995. Circular 29 December 1995. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1996a. Circular 16 July 1996. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1996b. Hawkesbury–Nepean Scenic Quality Study. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1997a. Pers. comm. (letter), 27/03/97.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1997b. The Action Plan of the Hawkesbury– Nepean Environmental Planning Strategy 1997. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2000a. Housing for older people and people with a disability in your community: A guide for councils and applicants. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2000b. Sustaining the Catchments: A draft regional plan for the drinking water catchments of Sydney and adjacent regional centres. Available http: www.duap.nsw.gov.au Accessed 2000.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2000c. Pers. comm. (letter), 27/03/00.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2000d. Pers. comm. (letter), 05/00.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2001a. PlanFirst: Review of plan making in NSW White Paper. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2001b. Exemption from SEPP 5 – Housing for Older People or People with a Disability. Pers. comm. (letter), 20/03/01.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 2001c. Crime prevention and the assessment of development applications. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Douglas, S. 2001. Native vegetation of Areas 1 to 5 in Blue Mountains City Local Government Area. Ecological Surveys and Planning P/L, Hornsby.
Hill PDA. 1997. Katoomba Town Centre Study. Hill PDA, Sydney.
Hill PDA (for Blue Mountains City Council). 1998. Katoomba Retail Town Centre Analysis. Hill PDA, Sydney.
Hill PDA. 1999. Lawson Town Centre Retail Impact Assessment. Hill PDA, Sydney.
Hill PDA. 2001. Retail Study for the Blue Mountains. Hill PDA, Sydney.
115 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Holloway, D. and M. Wood (for Blue Mountains City Council). 2001. City of Blue Mountains Housing Market Study Part One: The Demand for Diverse Housing Options. University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown.
Jack, R. (for The University of Sydney). 2000. Review of Heritage Register – Blue Mountains City Council, Final Draft. University of Sydney, Sydney.
Keith, D. and Benson, D. 1988. The natural vegetation of the Katoomba 1:100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia, 2: 107-44.
Luke, R. and A. McArthur. 1978. Bushfires in Australia ‘Village and Outer Urban Protection’.
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). 1999. Blue Mountains Bioindicators Study 1999. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Blackheath.
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). 2000. The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney: Technical Report. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NSW Heritage Office. 2001. Assessing Heritage Significance – NSW Heritage Manual update. NSW Heritage Office, Sydney.
NSW Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). 1996a. Conservation Areas: Guidelines for Managing Change in Heritage Conservation Areas, NSW Heritage Manual. NSW Heritage Office, Sydney.
NSW Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996b. NSW Heritage Manual – Introduction. NSW Heritage Office, Sydney.
NSW Rural Fire Service and planning NSW. 2001. Planning for Bushfire Protection: A Guide for Councils, Planners, Fire Authorities, Developers and Home Owners. Available http: http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/quenchfiles2/PfBP2001.pdf Accessed 2002.
NSW Scientific Committee. 1998. Final Determination, Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest. Available http: http://www.npws.nsw.gov.au/news/tscdets/f981016b.htm Accessed 2002.
Outcomes Consultancy (for Blue Mountains City Council). 1999. Study of Land Use Needs of Business and Industry in the Blue Mountains. Unpublished.
Perumal Murphy Wu Pty Ltd (for Blue Mountains City Council). 1995. St Columba’s Heritage Study: Main Report. Perumal Murphy Wu, Surry Hills.
Perumal Murphy Wu Pty Ltd (for Blue Mountains City Council). 1996. St Columba’s Planning Report. Perumal Murphy Wu, Surry Hills.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1988. Sensitive Vegetation Types within the City of Blue Mountains. P & J Smith Ecological Consultants P/L: Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1995a. Flora and Fauna Study for Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Study Area 1: Bell to Medlow Bath. P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants, Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1995b. Flora and Fauna Study for Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Study Area 2: Katoomba to Wentworth Falls. P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants, Blaxland.
116 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1995c. Flora and Fauna Study for Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Study Area 3, Bullaburra to Linden. P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants: Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1995d. Flora and Fauna Study for Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Study Area 4: Faulconbridge to Hawkesbury Heights. P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants, Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1995e. Flora and Fauna Study for Blue Mountains Environmental Management Plan – Study Area 5: Warrimoo to Lapstone. P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants, Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1997. Buffer Zones for Protection of Sensitive Vegetation Units in the City of the Blue Mountains. P & J Smith Ecological Consultants P/L: Blaxland.
Smith, P. and Smith, J. 1998. Sensitive Vegetation Units in the City of the Blue Mountains. P & J Smith Ecological Consultants P/L: Blaxland.
Specht, R., Roe, E. and Boughton, V. 1974. Conservation of Major Plant Communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Aust. J. Bot. Supp. Series, No. 7. CSIRO Editorial and Publishing Unit: Melbourne.
Tropman and Tropman Architects. 1992 (left incomplete). Heritage Study Review, unpublished.
Legislation and case law
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/index.html Accessed 2000.
Liu v. Fairfield City Council (1996). Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/1996/272.html Accessed 2000.
NSW Crown Lands Act 1989. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla1989134/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dha1943221/index.html Accessed 2000.
NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Local Government Act 1993. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lga1993182/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Roads Act 1993. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ra199373/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Soil Conservation Act 1938. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sca1938215/ Accessed 2000.
NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/index.html Accessed 2000.
117 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 58: Protecting Sydney’s Drinking Water Supply. Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/seppn58psws775/index.html Accessed 2000.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan Number 20, Hawkesbury–Nepean River (No. 2 1997). Available http: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/srepn20hr21997640/index.html Accessed 2000.
118 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: CONSULTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 62 OF EP&A ACT
The following public authorities and agencies were consulted during the preparation of Draft LEP 2002, in accordance with section 62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:
• Aboriginal Housing Office • Ageing and Disability Department • AGL Gas Company • Ambulance Service of NSW • Department of Aboriginal Affairs • Department of Community Services • Department of Defence • Department of Education and training • Department of Housing • Department of Land and Water Conservation • Department of Local Government • Department of Public Works and Services • Department of State and Regional Development • Environmental Protection Authority • Hawkesbury–Nepean Catchment Management Trust • Hawkesbury City Council • Heritage Council of NSW • Integral Energy • Lithgow City Council • Liverpool City Council • Ministry for Police • Ministry of Energy and Utilities • National Parks and Wildlife Service • NSW Department of Agriculture • NSW Department of Sport and Recreation • NSW Department of Transport • NSW Fire Brigades • NSW Rural Fire Service • NSW Small Business Development Corporation • Oberon City Council • Office for Emergency Services • Office of Western Sydney 119 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Penrith City Council • Rail Services Australia • Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW • State Emergency Services • State Forests of NSW • State Rail Authority of NSW • State Transit Authority of NSW • Sustainable Energy Development Authority • Sydney Catchment Authority • Sydney Water Corporation • Tourism NSW • Transgrid • Wentworth Area Health Service • Western Sydney Institute of TAFE • Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils • Wollondilly Shire Council
120 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
APPENDIX 2: RIPARIAN CORRIDOR BUFFER
Riparian Corridor Buffer Model
The riparian zone consists of the bank and edge of watercourses and lakes, while the term ‘riparian corridor’ refers to the environment including the vegetation within the riparian zone. The riparian vegetation plays a critical role in stabilising stream banks, providing habitat to flora and fauna, and moderating the chemical and physical properties of the water itself.
The beneficial functions that buffer strips provide to riparian (streamside) corridors are well documented and generally accepted. Buffers to riparian corridors moderate the impact from development-related disturbance by reducing the impact from sedimentation and erosion, alterations to surface water runoff, weed encroachment and habitat destruction. The maintenance of riparian corridor buffers contributes to improving water quality, maintaining essential biological and ecological processes of riparian systems and protecting sensitive habitat for terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
The appropriate width of a buffer to protect each watercourse depends on various factors. These include: catchment management and water quality objectives; catchment characteristics, including catchment and watercourse sensitivity, land use, development impact potential, vegetation cover, slope, soil type and erodibility; and climate. Arbitrary buffer widths are prescribed in planning instruments and legislation, and these do not account for the variables and characteristics of individual watercourses or their catchments.
To determine appropriate buffer widths for watercourses in the Blue Mountains, a mathematical model has been developed: the Blue Mountains Riparian Corridor Buffer Model (the Buffer Model). It provides a means of identifying and mapping a variable buffer that best reflects the individual requirements of each watercourse.
The Buffer Model has been developed and refined though a joint project involving a range of stakeholders forming a Steering Committee. The primary objectives of the project were to:
• identify the location of watercourses on all land included in Draft LEP 2002, using a digital terrain model and digital ortho-rectified infrared aerial photography; • identify a hierarchy of watercourse buffer requirements in the Blue Mountains, using a geographic information system (GIS); • develop a model, using methodology and information that was readily available, cost- effective and able to be adapted for use by other local governments and land managers; and • identify and map a variable buffer to watercourse corridors for inclusion as a Protected Area – Ecological Buffer in Draft LEP 2002.
Buffers generated using the model have a minimum width of 20 metres, with variation occurring beyond that distance up to a maximum of 100 metres according to the characteristics of the individual watercourse.
The model had to rely on using key factors influencing watercourse buffer requirements for which reliable data already existed, or that could be captured in a cost-effective way. The data output also had to be in a form that could be effectively used within Draft LEP 2002.
Other limitations associated with the development and implementation of the model included time and resource constraints.
121 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Riparian Corridor Buffer Index
Application of the Buffer Model results in a hierarchical index of buffer requirements called the Riparian Corridor Buffer Index. This index is used to determine appropriate buffer widths for riparian corridors in the Blue Mountains. The index values are determined from analysis of the following watercourse catchment characteristics (briefly explained below):
• Soil Class Factor (SCF); • Slope Class Factor (TCF); and • Proximity Factor (PF).
The index is calculated using the following equation:
Riparian Corridor Buffer Index = (W1*[Slope Class Factor]) + (W2*[Soil Class Factor]) + (W3*[Proximity Factor]) where W is the relative weight applied to represent the importance of each factor within the equation (Table A2.1).
The weighting used in this model was reached using a Delphi process, where the participants in the process were members of the Steering Committee. The process involved participants voting anonymously on the relative rank of the three factors (slope, proximity and soil) followed by discussion and eventual resolution of agreed weightings. Soil erodibility was consistently high across the municipality (as most soils are derived from sandstone); soil therefore had a consistent effect on erodibility and thus was given a low weighting. Slope, however, was highly variable and had a large impact on the index, and received the highest weighting.
Table A2.1: Summary of Slope Class Factor, Soil Class Factor, Proximity Factor and relative weighting for watercourse catchment characteristics used in the Buffer Model Slope class Slope class Soil erodibility Soil class Euclidean Proximity (%) factor (K Factor) factor distance from factor Weight (W1) = Weight (W2) = watercourse Weight (W3) = 0.45 0.15 (m) 0.40 0–2.5 1 0.008–0.015 1 100 1 2.5–5 2 0.015–0.022 2 90 1 5–7.5 3 0.022–0.029 3 80 1 7.5–10 4 0.029–0.036 4 70 1 10–12.5 5 0.036–0.042 5 60 6 12.5–15 6 0.042–0.049 6 50 7 15–17.5 7 0.049–0.056 7 40 8 17.5–20 8 0.056–0.063 8 30 9 20–33 9 0.063–0.0 7 9 20 10 33–100 10 0.07–0.077 10 10 10
Soil Class Factor (SCF)
The Buffer Model assumes that during the construction phase of development, soil disturbance will occur and/or the existing natural ground cover will be removed. The Soil Class Factor (SCF) is a value that represents the potential for adverse impact on a watercourse as a result of soil disturbance on land adjacent to the watercourse. The SCF infers a linear relationship between the erosion hazard of soils, estimated by rainfall erosivity and soil landscape, and the potential for adverse impact on the watercourse (Figure A2.1).
The SCF used in the Blue Mountains Riparian Corridor Buffer Model was derived from analysis of soil landscapes, slope length gradient and rainfall erosivity to determine an estimated
122 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002 calculated maximum soil loss (CMSL). The analysis to determine the CMSL is based on a modified form of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, a model designed to predict the long-term, average, annual soil loss experienced from typical construction sites for urban development under Australian conditions. The equation used is:
CMSL = R*K*LS
where,
K = soil erodibility
R = rainfall erosivity
LS = slope length/gradient
The soil erodibility factor (or K factor) used to determine the calculated maximum soil loss was derived from data prepared by the Department of Land and Water Conservation for soil landscapes mapped in the Blue Mountains. In the Blue Mountains K ranged between 0.008 and 0.077. This range was divided into ten classes with equal intervals for incorporation into the model (Table A2.1).
The Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R) is a measure of the ability of rainfall to cause erosion. It is derived from average annual rainfall information and is a product of two components (E* I30) where E is total energy and I30 is the maximum 30-minute intensity for each storm event. The R factor used in the model ranged between 2000 and 3500.
The slope length/gradient factor (LS) describes the combined effect of slope length and slope gradient on soil loss. The LS factor used in the model was determined for a range of slope class ranges (between 0 per cent and >20 per cent slope) for an average slope length of 80 metres. Soil Class Factor
Potential impact on watercourse Figure A2.1: Relationship between Soil Class Factor and the potential for impact on a watercourse to occur
Slope Class Factor (TCF)
The slope class factor (TCF) used in the Buffer Model was derived from the classification of slope from a digital terrain model (DTM) of the Blue Mountains. The DTM used in the model was generated from spot heights captured from aerial laser scanning.
The Slope Class Factor (TCF) infers a linear relationship between the gradient of slope adjacent to a watercourse and the potential for adverse impact on the watercourse (Figure A2.2). Put simply, the greater the slope the higher the potential for impact.
123 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Slope Class Factor Factor Class Slope
Potentia l impact on watercourse
Figure A2.2: Relationship between Slope Class Factor and the potential for impact on a watercourse to occur
Proximity Factor (PF)
The Blue Mountains Riparian Corridor Buffer Model assumes that, as the distance from a watercourse increases, the potential for adverse impact on the watercourse decreases. The Proximity Factor is a value that represents the potential for adverse impact to occur (Figure A2.3a). As the Proximity Factor increases, the potential for adverse impact to occur increases. The model assumes that the relationship between proximity and potential impact increases along a curve with break points at distances of 20 metres and 60 metres from the watercourse (Figure A2.3b). The model considers proximity for up to 100 metres.
Break points were introduced into the weighting of the Proximity Factor to emphasise the relative potential for impact to occur within 20 metres of the watercourse and beyond 60 metres.
)
m r ( P facto Distance from Distance watercourse watercourse Potential impact Potential impact
Figure A2.3a and b: Relationship between distance from watercourse and potential impact on watercourse
Analysis Methodology
Once all creeks were identified and their direction found, a raster analysis was done whereby any given raster square was assigned a number from 10 to 1 for each factor, proximity, soil and slope. The squares that were closest to the watercourse, had the most erodible soils and were located on the steepest land received the highest numbers (Table A2.1).
The soil was rather uniform for the LGA areas being analysed (Hawkesbury or Narrabeen sandstones); soil therefore had little influence overall on the buffer index as it had a consistent effect across the area. Slope and proximity were the two major factors affecting buffer determination.
Each of the number assigned to the three factors was then multiplied by its given weighting, and the weighted scores for each raster square were added up to give the Buffer Index
124 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
(Figure A2.4). The GIS program then ascribed a colour for index ranges up to 100 metres away from the watercourse, to delineate the watercourse buffer. Extensive field inspections were then used to confirm the appropriate index range for the buffer boundary.
So i l
Proximity 6 3
Slopeimity Index = (3 x 0.15) + (6 x 0.40) + (10 x 10 0.45) Ind e x = 7.35
Ind ex = (soil c la ss fa c tor x w eig hting ) + (p roximity fa c tor x weig hting ) + (slop e c la ss fa c tor x weig hting )
Figure A2.4: Method for calculating the index at a point
125 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
APPENDIX 3: SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
SIGNIFICANCE CLASSIFICATION
Significance has been assigned on the basis of whether a community has been listed under either a state or commonwealth act, or nominated as of conservation concern in a recognised botanical publication (e.g. Keith and Benson 1988). Those communities which are known to be of conservation concern, but for which there is insufficient documentation, have been listed as locally significant. This category may include communities which are significant on a regional or state level but for which there is currently not sufficient published information to support that classification.
The classifications are:
• national significance: listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act); • state significance: listed on a Schedule of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSC Act); and • local significance: significant within at least the Blue Mountains LGA.
SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Rainforest • Ceratopetalum apetalum – Doryphora sassafras rainforest; and • Backhousia myrtifolia – Ceratopetalum apetalum rainforest.
These communities are locally significant. Rainforest is listed on Schedule 3 of LEP 1991.
Distribution: Rainforest communities are limited in extent in the Blue Mountains region and constitute only 1.6 per cent of the total area of the Blue Mountains National Park (Smith and Smith 1995a). While these rainforest communities do occur elsewhere in the region, their extent is limited by their requirement for moist sheltered sites that rarely burn. Some of the best stands occur outside the national park.
Two rainforest communities have been identified: Ceratopetalum apetalum – Doryphora sassafras rainforest in the Upper and Mid Mountains, and Backhousia myrtifolia – Ceratopetalum apetalum rainforest in the Lower Mountains. The two communities intergrade around the Springwood area.
Values: Rainforest provides a habitat for many plant species that are restricted to this type of vegetation, including the rare fern Blechnum gregsonii.
A number of threatened fauna species are also closely associated with rainforest. These include the endangered giant barred frog Mixophyes iterates, the vulnerable stuttering frog Mixophyes balbus, grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus, spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus, and sooty owl Tyto tenebricosa. Other significant species include the brown cuckoo dove Macropygia amboinensis, and a nocturnal snake, the bandy bandy Vermicella annulata.
Rainforest has aesthetic values, especially for the contrast it presents to the eucalypt forests and woodlands that dominate the local vegetation. It also has scientific value as a remnant of a vegetation type that was much more widespread in the past when the Australian climate was wetter.
126 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Threats: Due to their position in the landscape, most rainforest patches have a high ratio of boundary to area, making them vulnerable to degradation from frequent fires and weed invasion.
Tall open forest/open forest
• Moist basalt cap forest (Eucalyptus fastigata – E. viminalis – E. blaxlandii – E. radiata)
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: It is rare and restricted in the Blue Mountains, being found on the deeper parts of the basalt cap plateaux in the north between 800 and 1000 metres in altitude. It is best represented at the Mounts on the top of the plateaux and the sheltered upper slopes where it often adjoins rainforest. Current knowledge suggests that this community is minimally represented in the Blue Mountains National Park.
Values: Moist basalt cap forest supports much larger populations of birds and mammals than dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands in the region. These forests are a major source of nest hollows for owls, parrots, gliders and other hollow-dependent fauna, including threatened species such as the yellow-bellied glider Petaurus australis, the powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami.
This forest community is also a favoured habitat for the koala Phascolarctos cinereus and spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus, both threatened species in NSW. Additionally, the deep leaf litter at the edges of permanent streams in this wet forest form the preferred habitat for the vulnerable stuttering frog Mixophyes balbus.
Eucalyptus viminalis is a food tree for koalas protected under Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection.
Threats: Clearing for rural–residential land use; altered fire regime.
• Blue Mountains shale cap forest (Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera – E. cypellocarpa)
This community is of state significance. It includes the Blue Mountains shale cap forest (BMSCF) that is listed as an endangered ecological community on Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act. This forest is listed on Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
Distribution: Eucalyptus deanei – Syncarpia glomulifera – E. cypellocarpa tall open forest is significant in the Blue Mountains because of its rarity. This community is restricted to ridge-top caps of Wianamatta Shale and immediately adjoining slopes, mainly in the Springwood area. Much of the original forest has been cleared, and what remains is often degraded. Very little of this community is included in the Blue Mountains National Park (Keith and Benson 1988).
Values: This community provides habitat for a number of significant plant species including the vulnerable Dillwynia tenuifolia and the regionally significant Calotis dentex. Due to the significant hollows formed by E. deanei, this community supports a higher diversity of birds and mammals than other dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands in the region. These forests are a major source of nest hollows for owls, parrots, gliders and other hollow-dependent fauna, including threatened species such as the yellow- bellied glider Petaurus australis, powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Additionally a small threatened frog, the red-crowned toadlet Pseudophryne australis, occurs in areas of moist litter along drainage lines and upper gullies within this dry eucalypt forest.
Threats: Clearing for urban development; weed invasion.
127 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Turpentine–ironbark forest (incl. variant of Sydney turpentine–ironbark forest)
This community is of state significance. Within Blue Mountains LGA this community incorporates the Sydney turpentine–ironbark forest listed as an endangered ecological community on Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act.
Distribution: This is a lower-altitude community occurring on ridge-top caps of Wianamatta shale overlying sandstone and in the transitional areas between the two geological units. It is closely related to BMSCF, which it often adjoins. It is estimated that only 0.5 per cent of the original area of STIF exists within the Sydney Basin bioregion (NSW Scientific Committee 1998). Representation of this community in the Blue Mountains National Park is very poor.
Values: The small and scattered remnant patches often provide habitat for a number of plant species of conservation significance, such as the regionally significant Arthropodium milleflorum. Additionally, these forests are a major source of nest hollows for owls, parrots, gliders and other hollow-dependent fauna, including threatened species such as the eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, common bentwing bat Miniopterus schreibersii, powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathamii.
Threats: Clearing for urban development; weed invasion; rubbish dumping; physical damage from recreational activities.
• Sandstone/shale forest complex (incl. shale/sandstone transitional forest)
This community is of national significance. It includes, but is not restricted to, the shale/sandstone transition forest that is listed as an endangered ecological community under both the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the State TSC Act.
Distribution: This community occurs in strips and patches between Springwood and the Eastern Escarpment on the edges of Wianamatta shale ridge caps. It is naturally restricted and has declined significantly in its distribution. Variants of this community are also found on the Lapstone Monocline. A large proportion of the area where SSTF occurred in the past has been cleared for urban development. Representation of this community in the Blue Mountains National Park is very poor.
Values: The small and scattered remnant patches often provide habitat for a number of plant species of national, state or regional conservation significance, including the vulnerable Dillwynia tenuifolia and the regionally significant Macrozamia spiralis. Moreover, this transitional vegetation helps protect the nutrient-poor sandstone communities by filtering the increasing urban runoff as the clay soils readily absorb phosphorus that is utilised by the eucalypt–turpentine forest communities.
This grassy woodland supports a richer fauna than other dry sclerophyll forest does. This faunal diversity includes the endangered regent honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia, several bird species seldom found in the drier woodland, and populations of macropods. These forests are a major source of nest hollows for owls, parrots, gliders and other hollow-dependent fauna, including threatened species such as the eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, common bentwing bat Miniopterus schreibersii, powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami.
Threats: Clearing for urban development; weed invasion; rubbish dumping; physical damage from recreational activities; changed fire regime.
128 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Eucalyptus deanei – E. piperita tall open forest
This community is locally significant. Forest dominated by E. deanei is listed in Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
Distribution: This wet sclerophyll community is limited in extent within the Blue Mountains. It occurs in moist sheltered sites predominantly on the talus slopes below the sandstone escarpments of the Jamison, Kedumba and Grose Valleys, and also in some moist sheltered sites away from the escarpments. This community is better represented in the conservation estate than in the urban areas of the LGA.
Values: This community contains at least one regionally significant plant species, Melaleuca squamea, and is a rich habitat for fauna. While other trees may provide small hollows, E. deanei commonly produces larger hollows required by those larger fauna species that are obligate hollow nesters. These include the vulnerable sooty owl Tyto tenebricosa, powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Additionally, large hollows would also provide resting and breeding sites for the two large gliders, the vulnerable yellow-bellied glider Petaurus australis, and the locally significant greater glider Petauroides volans.
Threats: Clearing for urban expansion; weed invasion.
• Eucalyptus cypellocarpa – E. piperita tall open forest
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: Eucalyptus cypellocarpa – E. piperita tall open forest is limited in extent within the Blue Mountains region, occurring in moist sheltered areas and on talus slopes of the western escarpment (Megalong and Kanimbla valleys). It also occurs in moist sheltered sites away from the escarpments as far east as Woodford. It is rare above the escarpment, and found mainly on the Illawarra coal measures. It appears not to have been significantly reduced in geographic extent by human activity in the past.
Values: The forest has high visual amenity. It also provides a rich habitat for many fauna species, supporting greater populations than the lower and drier eucalypt forests (Smith and Smith 1995). Eucalyptus cypellocarpa is a major source of nest hollows for the larger hollow-dependent species including owls, parrots, gliders and bats, and provides a significant food resource for koalas Phascolarctos cinereus.
Threats: Clearing; weed invasion.
• Eucalyptus oreades open forest/tall open forest
This forest is locally significant. Eucalyptus oreades forest is listed in Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
Distribution: This vegetation community is limited in extent within the Blue Mountains region, and not well represented in the Blue Mountains National Park. Much of the original old growth forest on the ridges has been cleared for urban expansion, leaving mainly variants on the slopes below. While E. oreades forest occurs north to the Queensland border, there has been a reduction in integrity across most of its geographic range. The Blue Mountains contains the largest remaining populations of this community.
Values: This forest is characteristic of the Upper Mountains and has high visual amenity. The larger trees in these forests are a major source of large nest hollows for hollow- dependent fauna, many of which are threatened species e.g. sooty owl Tyto
129 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
tenebricosa, and the glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathamii. However, most of the larger remnant trees in the urban areas have been removed.
Threats: Fire; clearing for urban expansion; weed invasion.
• Eucalyptus dalrympleana – E. piperita tall open forest
This vegetation community is locally significant.
Distribution: Currently this community is known only from one small stand in the upper reaches of Pope’s Glen Creek at Blackheath. The stand is growing on a Council reserve. Further investigation is required to confirm its status as a full community rather than a variant of the more common E. piperita community.
Values: This stand has considerable aesthetic appeal due to the large E. dalrympleana trees on the site.
Threats: Weed invasion, although this has been significantly controlled since Smith and Smith first described the community in 1995.
• Eucalyptus amplifolia tall open forest
This vegetation community is of state significance. It is listed as an endangered ecological community on Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act.
Distribution: Eucalyptus amplifolia tall open forest is a very rare and unusual vegetation community in the Blue Mountains. There is a single, modified and greatly fragmented occurrence at Sun Valley growing on the diatreme (a diatreme is a geological term meaning an intrusive volcanic neck). Other diatremes in the region support quite different communities. The largest, most intact fragment occurs on Council-managed land. This community is not represented in the conservation estate.
Values: This very rare community has been grossly altered through clearing and grazing; however, regeneration is occurring in parts where grazing is excluded. This forest provides habitat for a population of the threatened squirrel glider Petaurus norfolkensis (Smith and Smith 1995d).
Threats: Weed invasion; mowing; grazing; fragmentation; physical damage through recreational use such as horse riding; altered fire regime.
• Montane gully forest (Eucalyptus fastigata – E. cypellocarpa – E. dalrympleana)
Montane gully forest is locally significant.
Distribution: This community appears to have little representation within the conservation estate (Keith and Benson 1988) and has a very restricted distribution within Blue Mountains City. It occurs mainly on the Western Escarpment above an elevation of 850 metres from Mount Victoria to Bell.
Values: This community clothes the steep, highly erodible western slopes, protecting them from erosion. Where it adjoins the rare Cox’s River Swamp community it provides a filter protecting the swamp from sedimentation. The taller variants of this community provide hollows suitable for the larger hollow-dependent fauna, including threatened species such as the powerful owl Ninox strenua and glossy black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Powerful owls are known to occur in this community (Douglas 2001).
Threats: Grazing; logging; landslides.
130 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Casuarina cunninghamiana ‘river oak forest’
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: River oak forest occurs elsewhere in the region along the Cox’s River, Hawkesbury–Nepean River, Wollondilly River and within the national park estate. It is highly unlikely that any intact remnants of this community exist outside core areas of the Blue Mountains National Park. Most remnants on freehold land occur in the Megalong Valley and are degraded by weeds and agricultural disturbance.
Values: These riparian communities are floristically simple but ecologically important, playing a role in riparian zone management and providing a habitat for species that are rare elsewhere in the area. Moreover, C. cunninghamiana is listed as a protected species under the Soil Conservation Act. This community provides an important riparian corridor for wildlife moving through the predominantly cleared agricultural landscape surrounding this community.
Threats: Weed invasion; ongoing disturbance due to stock access; changing river morphology; agricultural clearing and impacts.
• Eucalyptus radiata subsp. radiata – E. piperita open forest
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: This community is rare and restricted. While only known from a small number of easterly-facing slopes in Katoomba and Leura, this forest may occur elsewhere in the higher Blue Mountains as far west as Blackheath. While Smith and Smith (1995a) originally listed it as a discrete community, further investigation is required to confirm its status.
Values: This community is valued for its rarity.
Threats: Clearing for urban expansion; weed invasion.
• Blue gum riverflat forest
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: This community is restricted to rare occurrences on deep alluvial terraces along larger watercourses of the Lower Mountains. The best example is along Fitzgerald’s Creek. This community is a variant of the endangered Sydney coastal riverflat forest listed under the TSC Act. Less than 1 per cent of the 1750s distribution of this endangered community still exists (NPWS 2000).
Values: This community provides a rich habitat for many fauna species, supporting a greater diversity of mammals and birds than the lower and drier eucalypt forests and woodlands. Additionally, the tall Eucalyptus deanei are a major source of big nest hollows for the larger hollow-dependent species including owls, parrots, gliders and bats.
Threats: Weed invasion; clearing; uncontrolled recreational vehicle use.
Low open forest
• Melaleuca linariifolia low open forest
This community is locally significant and is listed on Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
131 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Distribution: The significance of Melaleuca linariifolia low open forest is due to its rarity in the Blue Mountains. It is restricted to deep alluvial sands associated with stream reversals caused by uplift of the Blue Mountains Plateau. Most occurrences are in the Cripple Creek catchment in the Lower Mountains. This community is poorly represented in the national park estate.
Values: As riparian vegetation, this community plays an important role in preventing erosion of the stream banks and protecting water quality. Melaleuca flowers may also provide an important food resource for fauna, particularly the vulnerable grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus.
Threats: Weed invasion is the major threat; natural rarity makes this community vulnerable to loss from stochastic events such as scouring by floods.
Woodlands
• Eucalyptus gullickii alluvial woodlands
This community is locally significant. Listing under the TSC Act may be warranted in the future.
Distribution: Eucalyptus gullickii alluvial woodland is limited in distribution and naturally rare in the Blue Mountains. Its distribution within the conservation estate is unknown, but thought to be limited. There has been a reduction in integrity and distribution across this community’s entire range. This has occurred also within the LGA where most of these woodlands have been cleared and/or degraded by urban development.
Values: This community occurs around the edges, or upslope, of hanging swamps where it serves to buffer the swamps from urban impacts. Several significant plant species are associated with this community including: Almaleea incurvata, Celmisia longifolia, Acacia ptychoclada, Goodenia rostrivalvis, Blandfordia cunninghamii, Notochloe microdon and Olearia quercifolia.
Eucalyptus gullickii woodland is likely to provide supplementary habitat for the endangered Blue Mountains water skink Eulamprus leuraensis, which has been recorded in museum surveys from woodland habitat adjoining Blue Mountains swamps.
Threats: Draining and filling swamps for urban expansion; weed invasion.
• Eucalyptus sclerophylla bench woodland
Eucalyptus sclerophylla bench woodland is locally significant. It is listed on Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
Distribution: This community occurs on alluvial/colluvial benches formed where the geomorphology has been significantly affected by stream reversals associated with the uplift of the Blue Mountains Plateau. They occur in the Lower Mountains east of Springwood. While this community is naturally rare within the Blue Mountains, it is conserved in other regions outside the LGA.
Values: Significant species associated with the community include an endangered species, Persoonia hirsuta, and two rare species: Lomandra brevis and Pultenaea glabra (found near Lawson). There is also a record of a possible undescribed species of Grevillea, although this requires further investigation to determine its true status.
This community is very important to fauna. Eucalyptus sclerophylla trees provide many hollows for nesting and roosting, and the abundant Banksia spinulosa and B. oblongifolia shrubs in the understorey supply a rich source of nectar. The alluvial soils
132 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
and vegetation are hydrologically important, serving to filter and slow the flow of water from the surrounding upland areas into the creeks. They are also of scientific interest because of their unusual geomorphic history, which is associated with the Kurrajong Fault.
Threats: Clearing for urban expansion; weed invasion; physical impacts of unrestricted access and recreation; altered fire regime.
Heath/scrub/sedgeland/fernland
• Blue Mountains heath and scrub
This community is locally significant. It is listed on Schedule 3 of LEP1991.
Distribution: Heath/scrub is limited in extent in the Blue Mountains and constitutes only 1.1 per cent of the total area of the Blue Mountains National Park (Smith and Smith 1995a-e). Some of the most extensive areas of heath in the region remain outside the conservation estate including the heath on the western and southern sides of Blackheath, on the edges of The Mounts and the Western Plateau area.
Values: The heath/scrub community is relatively rare. This distinctive vegetation community provides important habitat for numerous threatened and regionally significant plant species that are restricted to, or are most abundant in, heath. Such species include: two endangered species, Leionema lachnaeoides and Acacia gordonii; eight rare species, Eriostemon obovalis, Eucalyptus apiculata, E. burgessiana, E. gregsoniana, Leptospermum petraeum, Monotoca ledifolia, Pseudanthus divaricatissimus and Velleia perfoliata; and three regionally significant species, Acacia baueri subsp. baueri, Darwinia fascicularis subsp. oligantha and Mirbelia baueri.
A number of fauna species are also more or less restricted to heath or associated vegetation, including the vulnerable heath frog Litoria littlejohnii, and one regionally significant species, the tawny-crowned honeyeater Phylidonyris melanops. The beautiful firetail Emblema bella is a locally significant species that utilises the dense wetter heath and scrubs, particularly at the edge of forests and swamps.
The rock outcrops associated with the heath provide habitat for an endangered species, the broad-headed snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides, and the vulnerable heath monitor Varanus rosenbergii.
The flowers of several heath plants, particularly Banksia ericifolia, provide an important food source for nectar-feeding birds and mammals. The winter-flowering Banksia ericifolia attracts large numbers of honeyeaters to the heath, including winter migrants from outside the Blue Mountains region.
Heath acts to stabilise the shallow, sandy soils on which it grows. Clearing heath can lead to rapid erosion of these soils and unsightly landscape scars in visually prominent locations.
Threats: Inappropriate fire regime; fragmentation due to clearing and uncontrolled access; erosion; and dumping.
• Blue Mountains swamps
Blue Mountains swamps are locally significant.
Distribution: Swamp vegetation is limited in extent in the Blue Mountains and constitutes only 0.8 per cent of the total area of Blue Mountains National Park (Smith and Smith 1995a-c). There are a number of types of swamps or ‘variants’ identified by Douglas
133 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
(2001) and named in reference to their location. The Cox’s River Swamp variant is extremely rare in general and only a very small number of examples are known from Blue Mountains City, these being restricted to the eastern Megalong and upper Kanimbla Valleys. Considerable losses and degradation has occurred as a result of livestock grazing. This variant is not protected in conservation reserves.
Megalong Swamps are also inherently rare and only a few examples are known from the area around Nellies Glen Road in the far eastern Megalong Valley. This variant is also not protected in the national park estate.
Values: Swamps support a range of distinctive vegetation types and numerous swamp- dependent flora. These include two endangered species: Eucalyptus copulans and a new species of Carex, C. klaphakei. The vulnerable plant species Pultenaea glabra and Prasophyllum fuscum are also found in this community. In addition, there are five rare species, Almaleea incurvata, Blandfordia cunninghamii, Burnettia cuneata, Notochloe microdon and Olearia quercifolia, and three regionally significant species, Acacia ptychoclada, Celmisia longifolia and Xanthosia dissecta, that occur in this community.
The swamps are also an important fauna habitat, with a number of animals being restricted to them. They include two endangered species: the Blue Mountains water skink Eulamprus leuraensis, the only vertebrate fauna species endemic to the Blue Mountains, and the giant dragonfly Petalura gigantea. Vulnerable species of frogs that utilise swamps include the red-crowned toadlet Pseudophryne australus, giant burrowing frog Heleioporus australiacus, and the vulnerable heath frog Litoria littlejohnii, which has been recorded from swampy heath at Blackheath (Smith and Smith 1988).
The swamps also provide habitat for three regionally significant fauna species, the southern emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus, Lewin’s rail Dryolimnas pectoralis and buff- banded rail Gallirallus philippensis. Many swamps support populations of nectar-rich plants that are an important food source for birds and mammals. The winter-flowering Banksia ericifolia, in particular, attracts large numbers of honeyeaters to the swamps, including winter migrants from outside the Blue Mountains region. The swamps also provide a source of water for fauna, especially during dry periods.
The swamps have important hydrological functions. They store moisture, which is then released slowly and helps to maintain creek flows during dry periods. They also serve to filter and purify the water flowing into them, and protect the stream banks during peak water flows.
Threats: Clearing and/or filling for urban expansion; changed hydrological regime; stormwater impacts; inappropriate fire regimes.
• Pagoda rock complex
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: This community only occurs within the LGA in a small area to the west of Bell. Although it is well conserved in the Gardens of Stone National Park, this community is very restricted in the broader regional context, thus all occurrences of it are significant.
Values: The Pagoda Rock Complex is significant within Blue Mountains City. It is potential habitat for a number of rare and threatened plant species and for the endangered broad-headed snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides, the vulnerable heath monitor Varanus rosenbergii, and the vulnerable heath frog Litoria littlejohnii.
Threats: Weed invasion.
134 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
• Lagoon vegetation (Glenbrook Lagoon)
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: Glenbrook Lagoon is the only natural upland lagoon in the Blue Mountains. Variants of this community occur on the Hawkesbury–Nepean floodplain.
Values: This lagoon is an important habitat for wetland flora and fauna. Important species include two regionally significant plant species, Lepidosperma longitudinale and Gratiola pedunculata, and a variety of waterbirds not found elsewhere in the municipality. The most abundant reed species at the lagoon, Lepironia articulata, is also noteworthy as it occurs at only a few localities in the Sydney Basin Bioregion.
Threats: Weed invasion and eutrophication due to its position as a sump within a highly urbanised catchment.
• Blue Mountains riparian complex
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: This community is restricted to creek lines and is also associated with water supply dams.
Values: Riparian vegetation has important hydrological functions. It serves to filter and purify water flowing overland into creeks, and protects the stream banks during peak water flows.
The creekside environment is a particularly rich habitat for flora and fauna, supporting a wide variety of plant and animal species, many of which are restricted to this habitat. Riparian vegetation provides a wildlife corridor through an otherwise unsuitable environment for many specialised fauna species. Tiny pockets of rainforest, swamp and escarpment vegetation often occur along creek lines, adding to the floristic and habitat diversity.
Species closely associated with creeks in the Blue Mountains include the endangered giant dragonfly Petalura gigantea, the vulnerable Adams emerald dragonfly Archaeophya adamsi, and giant burrowing frog Heleioporus australiacus. This community also supports two rare plant species, Grevillea longifolia and Lomandra fluviatilis, two regionally significant plant species, Dodonaea multijuga and Leptospermum emarginatum, and two regionally significant fauna species, the swamp snake Hemiaspis signata and azure kingfisher Alcedo azurea.
Threats: Weed invasion; slumping and damage to banks due to increased water flows; uncontrolled access by people and stock; sedimentation; pollution.
• Blue Mountains escarpment complex
This community is locally significant.
Distribution: Blue Mountains escarpment complex is restricted to escarpments and their immediate environs, and other extensive outcroppings of sandstones. This community has a limited extent and is under threat across the bioregion.
Values: This complex of communities provides a specialised habitat for many significant plant species. These include: four endangered species, Epacris hamiltonii, Leionema lachnaeoides, Zieria covyeni, and Microstrobos fitzgeraldii; two vulnerable species, Acrophyllum australe and Isopogon fletcheri; eleven rare species, Adenochilus nortonii, Alania endlicheri, Epacris coriacea, E. muelleri, Euphrasia bowdeniae, Goodenia
135 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
rostrivalvis, Leptospermum rupicola, Pterostylis pulchella, Rupicola apiculata, R. sprengelioides and Sprengelia monticola; and one regionally significant species, Scaevola hookeri. In addition, there are two rare eucalypt species, Eucalyptus baeuerlenii and E. cunninghamii, which grow only on clifftop sites.
Other significant species occur in the pockets of heath, swamp, rainforest and eucalypt forest among the rock outcrops. Two rare species are associated particularly with the communities when they occur as part of this vegetation complex: Blechnum gregsonii grows in rock crevices within rainforest, and Blandfordia cunninghamii typically grows in clifftop swamps.
Rock outcrops and associated heath are also the habitat of the endangered broad- headed snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides and the vulnerable heath monitor Varanus rosenbergii. The habitat of the regionally significant rockwarbler Origma solitaria includes rocky hillsides, gullies and caves along the sandstone cliffs. Although not particularly rare, this species is noteworthy because it is the only bird species endemic to mainland New South Wales.
Threats: physical impacts of recreation such as rock sports; weed invasion; clearing for urban expansion and views; urban stormwater runoff.
136 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
VEGETATION STRUCTURAL FORMATIONS IN AUSTRALIA (after Specht et al., 1974)
LIFE FORM AND HEIGHT OF TALLEST PROJECTED FOLIAGE COVER OF TALLEST STRATUM STRATUM Dense Mid–dense Sparse Very sparse (70–100%) (30–70%) (10–30%) (<10%) Trees >30 m ± Tall closed forest Tall open forest Tall woodland Tall open woodland Trees 10–30 m ± Closed forest Open forest Woodland Open woodland Trees 5–10 m ± Low closed forest Low open forest Low woodland
Shrubs 2–8 m ± Closed scrub Open scrub Tall shrubland Tall open shrubland Shrubs 0–2 m ± Closed heath Open heath Low shrubland Low open shrubland
Hummock grasses 0–2 n/a n/a Hummock grassland Open hummock m grassland
Herbs Closed Open Ephemeral herbland herbland ² Herbland ² Herbland ² including moss, 1. Closed tussock 1. Tussock grassland 1. Open tussock ferns, grassland 2. Grassland grassland hemicryptophytes, 2. Closed tussock 3. Herbfield 2. Open herbfield geophytes, 3. Closed grassland 4. Sedgeland 3. Open sedgeland therophytes, 4. (repeat) Closed 5. Fernland 4. Open fernland grassland hydrophytes, 6. Mossland 5. Open mossland 5. Closed herbfield helophytes 6. Closed
sedgeland 7. (repeat) Closed sedgeland 8. Closed fernland 9. (repeat) Closed fernland 10. Closed mossland
Isolated trees (emergents) may project from the canopy of some communities. In some closed forests, emergent Araucaria, Acacia, or Eucalyptus species may be so frequent that the resultant structural form may be classified better as an open forest.
Some ecologists prefer to ignore scattered trees and shrubs, equivalent to emergents in a predominantly grassland, heath or shrubland formation.
± A tree, for the purposes of this schedule, is defined as a woody plant more than 5 m tall, usually with a single stem. A shrub is a woody plant less than 8 m tall, frequently with many stems arising at or near the base.
² Appropriate names for the community will depend on the nature of the predominant herb.
Produced with permission of CSIRO Australia
137 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
APPENDIX 4: CORE VILLAGE AREAS
Draft LEP 2002 - Mount Victoria Core Village Area
Deleted:
138 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 - Blackheath Core Village Area
Deleted:
139 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 - Katoomba Core Village Area
Deleted:
140 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 - Leura Core Village Area
Deleted:
141 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 – Wentworth Falls Core Village Area
Deleted:
142 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 - Lawson Core Village Area
Deleted:
143 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 – Hazelbrook Core Village Area
Deleted:
144 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 - Springwood Core Village Area
Deleted:
145 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 – Blaxland Core Village Area
Deleted:
146 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
Draft LEP 2002 – Glenbrook Core Village Area
Deleted:
147 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 VOLUME 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFT LEP 2002
APPENDIX 5: PROTECTED AREA – ESCARPMENT AREA (NO REFERENCE TO THIS IN TEXT)
• Glenbrook: Brook Road and parts of Grey Street
This location is highly visible from Bruce Road, from the train line and from the national park. At a height of 214 metres, Brook Road towers above Bruce Road (at 166 metres), which is only 300 metres away.
• Blaxland: Ross Crescent, Boynton Street and Plateau Parade
This locality has significant slope constraints. Once again the site is visually predominant with views towards Blaxland shops, the national park and over to Campbelltown. Development within this locality is constrained to preserve the bushland character and assist in the delineation between towns.
• Mount Riverview: Dawn Crescent and Calver Avenue
These sites abut the side of a cliff. The lots on the other side of the street are constrained by slope and are also visible.
• Warrimoo: Florabella Street and The Avenue
These streets run along a ridge line and are visually prominent from both the west and the east. Warrimoo Public School, located on Florabella Street, is already constrained by slope. The effect of development on the escarpment should be controlled.
• Warrimoo: Torwood Road
This location is visible from the Great Western Highway. Impacts of development within this area should be reduced in order to maintain a visual separation between towns.
• Springwood: Stypandra Place, Lomatia Lane, Park Avenue, Norton Avenue and Boland Avenue.
These locations overlook one another. A unit development at Stypandra Place makes this site particularly prominent when viewed from the town centre car park and railway station. The GIS identifies escarpment directly on Stypandra Street and adjoining streets. Boland Place has views to the north. Due to the dominant siting of lots on this street, future development would be visible from the Great Western Highway and Perry Avenue.
• Faulconbridge: Adeline Street, Hillcrest Avenue and St Georges Crescent
All these sites are situated on steep slopes which are visually prominent. Hillcrest Avenue abuts the national park, while Adeline Street has views across to Springwood, Hillcrest Avenue and St Georges Crescent.
• Faulconbridge: Gazania Street and Hunter Way
These locations have views across to Springwood. The land tends to plateau at the top of these streets, such that development on these lots is visually prominent.
• Woodford: Grey Gum Drive and Careya Crescent
This area is located on a single road access, which is located on a long ridge cut through bushland. As this particular ridge is isolated, the development becomes quite prominent.
148