Gillieston Heights South (Western Precinct) Area, As Detailed Below

24 NOVEMBER 2020

10.5 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH

FILE NO: RZ 14/002 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) (under seperate cover) 2. Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct) (under seperate cover) 3. Locality Plan 4. Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Master Plan 5. DPIE Letter 2.11.2020 6. Agency Consultation Tables 1 & 2 RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Matthew Prendergast - Group Manager Planning & Environment Andrew Neil - Manager Strategic Planning Claire Swan - Coordinator City Planning AUTHOR: Carolyn Maginnity - Strategic Planner MAITLAND +10 Outcome 7. Diverse and affordable housing COUNCIL OBJECTIVE: 7.2.1 To ensure land and housing choice is consistent with forecast demographic demand

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council resolved on 24 November 2015 to progress a planning proposal for land at Gillieston Heights South. The planning proposal (the current planning proposal) sought rezoning to facilitate residential development on land east and west of Cessnock Road. It also considered land to the west of South Maitland Railway for environmental conservation purposes.

The purpose of this Council report is to provide an update regarding the current planning proposal and seek a Council resolution to submit two (2) revised planning proposals for the land east and west of Cessnock Road to the Department, seeking new Gateway determinations. This will enable the two (2) revised planning proposals to proceed to public exhibition in a timely manner. The land to the west of South Maitland Railway will no longer be included, as it is likely to be subject to a future biodiversity stewardship agreement.

Council received correspondence from the Department, on 2 October 2020, advising of a focused work program to finalise planning proposals that have been under consideration for four (4) or more years. This is part of the recently announced Planning System Acceleration Program. The current planning proposal is identified as one of these proposals and as such, is required to be finalised by 31 December 2020, consistent with the Department’s advice.

Page 1 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) planning proposal to the Department, seeking a new Gateway determination. The Department has assured Council that the new Gateway determination will recognise the work undertaken to address the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination and enable the revised planning proposals to proceed to public exhibition. The Department has indicated to Council that the Minister will only discontinue the current planning proposal once new Gateway determinations have been issued. This is anticipated to occur before the 31 December 2020.

The current planning proposal includes approximately 470 hectares of land on the western side of Cessnock Road (western precinct) which is owned by Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd (Hydro), as well as approximately 43 hectares of land on the eastern side of Cessnock Road (eastern precinct). The eastern precinct comprises five (5) separately owned land parcels.

Agency consultation for the current planning proposal identified a number of outstanding matters for resolution that are different for the eastern and western precincts. The variation in timeframes to address these outstanding matters may result in possible delays in the rezoning process. For these reasons, separating the current planning proposal into two (2) revised planning proposals is considered appropriate.

Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) and Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct) are provided as Attachments 1 and 2 to this report for Council’s consideration.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Pursuant to Section 3.34(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council submit two (2) revised planning proposals, Gillieston Heights South Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) and Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct), to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, seeking new Gateway determinations. 2. Following issue of the new Gateway determinations, Council undertake consultation with the community and relevant government agencies in accordance with Section 3.34 and Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the conditions of the Gateway determinations. 3. A further report be presented to Council following public exhibition of Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) and Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct) to consider any submissions received during the community consultation process.

BACKGROUND Council resolved to progress the current planning proposal to rezone land at Gillieston Heights South for the purposes of facilitating residential development and protecting environmental values. The current planning proposal relates to land east and west of Cessnock Road. The lands to the west of Cessnock Road are owned by Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd (Hydro) and are referred to as the western precinct. This includes the lands to the west of South Maitland Railway. The lands to the east include five (5)

Page 2 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) separately owned parcels and are referred to as the eastern precinct. The current planning proposal seeks to specifically amend the MLEP 2011:

- land zoning map to rezone land from RU2 Rural Landscape to R1 General Residential, - minimum lot size map to apply a minimum lot size of 450 square metres to land zoned R1 General Residential, and - urban release area (URA) map to identify land as an extension of the Gillieston Heights URA.

A Locality Plan showing the land subject to the current planning proposal is included as Attachment 3.

Strategic intent The intent of the current planning proposal is to facilitate development of the eastern and western precinct for urban purposes. The land has been identified in the Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2012 as Category 1 Residential land. The Category 1 land accounts for the remaining developable land in the Gillieston Heights locality. In addition, the current planning proposal includes approximately 400 hectares of land west of the rail corridor which is currently zoned RU2 Rural Landscape and E2 Environmental Conservation. This land is not proposed to be rezoned for urban purposes. Part of this land to the west was originally intended to be rezoned for environmental purposes. However, as it will likely be the subject of future biodiversity outcomes as part of a potential Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA), it will not be included in the revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct).

Gateway Determination A Gateway determination was issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the Department) to progress the current planning proposal on the 23 March 2016. It includes the agency consultation and exhibition requirements for the current planning proposal.

The Gateway determination specified a thirty-six (36) month timeframe for the completion of the local environmental plan (LEP), with completion due March 2019. In January 2019, Council wrote to the Department requesting an extension of time in which to complete the LEP. The Gateway determination was subsequently altered on 10 September 2019, to amend the Gateway determination conditions and extend the timeframe for completion of the LEP by 23 December 2020.

The current planning proposal has progressed consistent with the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination. There are outstanding issues for resolution requiring further information and consideration prior to the finalisation of the planning proposal process.

Page 3 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) Alignment with Cessnock City Council’s adjoining Planning Proposal The western precinct includes part of the wider land holding of the former Kurri Kurri Aluminium (Hydro) Smelter and surrounding buffer lands. The northern extent of the Hydro site is situated within the Maitland LGA. The remainder of the site (approximately 1,300 hectares) is located in the Cessnock LGA and is subject to a separate Planning Proposal with Cessnock City Council, to give effect to the Hydro Rezoning Masterplan. The proposed rezoning of the former Hydro site has been submitted as a joint Planning Proposal. The approach to assessment, milestone delivery and consideration of cross- boundary impacts for both Maitland and Cessnock Council’s planning proposals is intended to align wherever possible.

Outstanding issues The current planning proposal is complex, with multiple site constraints, various developers involved in the planning over time, updates in agency feedback, and legislative amendments. In resolving the complex issues associated with the site, the current planning proposal has experienced delays in progressing through the planning process. The current planning proposal has required (and in some cases, requires further) consideration of agency and stakeholder input, including Transport for NSW (TfNSW), the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division (BCD) of DPIE and private landowner, South Maitland Railways, whose land traverses the Hydro site. The complex issues are detailed below.

Need for Comprehensive Flood Study & Flood Free Access Strategy A detailed investigation of flooding was required in order to adequately address conditions 1(a) and 1(b) of the original Gateway determination. In the absence of accurate baseline data, a comprehensive flood study, outlining the full range of flood behaviour and associated consequences within the study area, was required. Maitland City Council (in partnership with Cessnock City Council) commissioned the work using grant funding obtained through the State Floodplain Management program managed by the former Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and engaged WMA to undertake the Wallis and Swamp-Fishery Creek Flood Study in March 2017.

The study took approximately two (2) years to complete and involved extensive hydrologic and hydraulic modelling across three (3) catchments to define flood behaviour for a range of design flood events including the 1% AEP. The flood study was publicly exhibited in October 2018 and was formally adopted by Council on 26 March 2019. The findings of the study address the original Gateway determination conditions in relation to flooding impacts and the provision of a flood free access strategy for the proposed residential development and have informed the revised planning proposals for both the eastern and western precincts.

Biodiversity Legislation Reforms Hydro intend to apply for biodiversity certification across the western precinct in parallel with the rezoning process and is currently finalising a Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR) to accompany a standard biodiversity certification application to BCD.

Page 4 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.)

In August 2017, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and amendments to the Local Land Services Act 2013 commenced, as part of a major overhaul of the land management and biodiversity conservation framework in NSW. These Acts repealed the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act) and introduced the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) 2017. As part of the reforms, transitional provisions were introduced for existing biodiversity certification proposals that had been prepared under the TSC Act. The Hydro rezoning was nominated as a proposal subject to these provisions.

Hydro originally intended to proceed under the transitional provisions. However, in August 2019, a decision was made to proceed under the new legislation. In accordance with the BAM 2017, BCD would not accept field surveys older than five (5) years. Accordingly, Hydro were required to undertake additional targeted seasonal surveys over the course of 2019-2020. Hydro intend to complete this survey work and incorporate the results into a final BCAR to be submitted to BCD with a standard biodiversity certification application prior to finalisation of the planning proposal process. In accordance with the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017, Council will be given 42 days in which to provide formal comment on the BCAR. There will also be a formal public exhibition process. This is anticipated to occur prior to the finalisation of the revised planning proposals.

The revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) identifies the need for further detailed assessment of biodiversity constraints and potential biodiversity impacts of the development, following completion of Hydro’s biodiversity study encompassing the entire Hydro site (being undertaken as part of the biodiversity certification process). In the absence of this information, Council is unable to determine whether there is any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal.

BCD, in their response to Council’s initial agency consultation, have also indicated their preference to review the applicable planning proposal and the standard biodiversity certification application concurrently, to ensure a consistent approach for conservation and development outcomes over the site. However, the biodiversity certification application has not yet been lodged with BCD. It is expected that BCD will provide detailed comment on the revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) when Council undertakes further agency consultation as a result of the new Gateway determination.

The land in the eastern precinct is not intended to be included in the above biodiversity certification application. A detailed flora and fauna assessment was carried out by Anderson Environment & Planning in August 2017 in respect of this land. BCD has

Page 5 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) reviewed the flora and fauna assessment report and raised no issues in terms of its adequacy for rezoning purposes.

Contamination Given the nature of the former Hydro industrial land use, potential contamination has been an issue in determining the suitability of the site for its intended residential development. Council should be satisfied the level of investigation is adequate to fulfill the statutory requirements under Ministerial Direction 2.6 – Remediation of Contaminated Land. The work completed to date has included a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Remedial Action Plan, Validation Report, Site Audit Report and Site Audit Statement.

Council officers have reviewed the above documents and raised concerns in relation to the adequacy of the sampling carried out across the proposed residential land. The proponent has been advised further soil sampling is required to address the requirements of the Ministerial Direction. The sampling is to be undertaken in accordance with the EPA’s sampling guidelines across the site, with laboratory analysis for all potential contaminants, including those that would normally be associated with previous rural/agricultural uses of the site, coal mining and the existence of the coal train line. This is to satisfy Council that the land proposed to be rezoned is suitable for all uses permitted in the R1 General Residential zone.

It is Council’s understanding that this additional soil sampling and analysis is yet to be undertaken. The results of the additional sampling will need to be provided, in order to satisfy Council that the land proposed to be rezoned to R1 General Residential is suitable for all uses permitted in the zone, prior to finalisation of the revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct).

A Phase 1 contamination assessment has been carried out in respect of land within the eastern precinct. Based on the site history and site observations, several Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) were identified relating to a former commercial poultry farm and potential burial pits, septic tanks and associated trenches, storage of waste and farm materials and fill of unknown quality and origin. Based on the findings of the Phase 1 assessment, a Phase 2 contamination investigation (including sampling of surface soils, fill stockpiles and surface water), will be required prior to finalisation of the revised Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct).

Voluntary administration of Flow Systems In the early stages of the rezoning process, Flow Systems Pty Ltd, a multi-utility provider of recycled water and wastewater services, entered into an agreement with Hydro to purchase their land and subsequently developed a masterplan for the site to be known as Loxford Waters. However, all progress made in relation to the Loxford Waters proposal became redundant in December 2018, when Flow Systems Pty Ltd entered into voluntary administration and ceased progression of the Loxford Waters proposal. In January 2020, Hydro announced that they had signed a new agreement for the sale of the site to the McCloy/Stevens Group. Since that time, the McCloy/Stevens Group, as the future developers of the land, have been involved in joint meetings between both Councils, the

Page 6 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) proponent and the Department in a concerted effort to progress the current planning proposal. The McCloy/Stevens Group have submitted a revised version of the original Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Master Plan for Council’s consideration, a copy of which is provided as Attachment 4.

TfNSW Main Road 195 Corridor Strategy Condition 1(i) of the altered Gateway determination requires agreement from TfNSW for proposed intersections and upgrades to Cessnock/Main Road (MR 195) between the New England Highway and the Hunter Expressway, including staging and development thresholds for upgrades and funding mechanisms to deliver the agreed upgrades.

In issuing the altered Gateway determination, the Department acknowledged that TfNSW is currently undertaking a Corridor Strategy for this section of MR 195, the purpose of which is to:

• Identify the timing for duplication of MR 195; and • Assess location points for future connections and / or restrictions or upgrades to existing intersections, including identifying the type of intersection controls to meet the needs of residential growth within the corridor over the next twenty (20) years.

Condition 1(i) also requires the proponent to undertake a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) that considers the impact of the development on the local road network and responds to the need to consolidate access points along the length of Cessnock/Main Road and identify preferred intersection locations.

The Department and TfNSW have acknowledged that the outcomes/findings of the Corridor Strategy will largely address the requirements of Gateway condition 1(i) and in an effort to minimise the overlap in the scope of works between the TfNSW Corridor Strategy and the TIA being prepared by the proponent, TfNSW have offered to share the results of their microsimulation modelling and other relevant traffic data with the proponent and Council, if required.

TfNSW recently advised the Department there is no objection to the revised planning proposals proceeding to public exhibition. The Department subsequently wrote to Council on the 6 November 2020 to advise the Department is satisfied the planning proposals should proceed to public exhibition (refer to Attachment 5).

It is expected that the new Gateway determinations will require the revised planning proposals to be consistent with the findings and recommendations of the impending MR

Page 7 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) 195 Corridor Strategy. This is relevant for the revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) and Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct).

AGENCY CONSULTATION In accordance with the original and altered Gateway determination, Council undertook preliminary consultation with relevant Government agencies in February 2020 regarding the western precinct. In June 2020, Council undertook a further round of agency consultation specifically in relation to the eastern precinct. The issues raised by Government agencies and Council’s comments are summarised in Tables 1 and 2, included as Attachment 6.

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE On 2 October 2020, Council received correspondence from the Department (refer to Attachment 5) advising of the recently announced Planning System Acceleration Program to reform the NSW planning system. A key part of the reform program involves delivering improved processes for determining and finalising planning proposals more efficiently to reduce the time taken to finalise rezoning decisions by 33%. To ensure the new system achieves these outcomes, the Department intends to first clear the backlog of planning proposals that have remained under consideration for an extended period, namely more than four (4) years, and assist councils to finalise these proposals by 31 December 2020. The current planning proposal is one of these long-standing proposals. It will not be possible to finalise the current planning proposal by 31 December 2020 as a result of outstanding matters, including public exhibition being required and not yet completed. Therefore, the Department has advised Council to submit the current planning proposal to the Department seeking a new Gateway determination. The Department has assured Council that the new Gateway determination will recognise the work already undertaken to address the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination and enable the proposal to proceed to public exhibition. The Department has indicated to Council that the Minister will only discontinue the current planning proposal once a new Gateway determination has been issued, this is expected to occur before 31 December 2020. The Department advised, on 6 November 2020, that it is satisfied the current planning proposal can be publicly exhibited as soon as practicable, irrespective of the outstanding issues that need further consideration, particularly relating to traffic and transport related issues. Cessnock and Maitland Councils, the Department and TfNSW will continue to work together to align the progression of the respective planning proposals to ensure these issues are adequately addressed. It is anticipated the Department’s draft Hunter Expressway (HEX) Strategy and TfNSW draft Main Road 195 Corridor Strategy will be exhibited concurrently with the revised planning proposals. The draft BCAR and associated biodiversity certification application will be lodged with BCD and publicly exhibited prior to the finalisation of the revised planning proposals. The associated draft Development Control Plan and likely development contributions plan will be prepared in parallel with the progression of the revised planning

Page 8 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) proposal and most likely publicly exhibited after the finalisation of the revised planning proposal.

REVISED PLANNING PROPOSALS The current planning proposal has progressed, with work undertaken over the last four (4) years to address the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination. The current planning proposal has been separated into two (2) revised planning proposals representing the western and eastern precincts. This was considered appropriate following preliminary consultation with relevant Government agencies which identified outstanding issues that differentiated the eastern and western precincts. The variations in timeframes to address these outstanding issues may possibly delay the planning process if the revised planning proposals were considered as one.

A summary of the revised proposal is provided below.

Planning Proposal (Western Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct) Precinct) Applicable Lot 1, 2, 5 and 8 DP456946 Lot 1 and 2 DP 302745 Land Lot 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 DP 456946 (part Lot 1 and 2 DP 601226 of these lots that are east of South Lot 1 DP311179 Maitland Railway) Lot 54, 55, 69, 70 and 71 DP975994 Landowner Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Various Land size Total 69.4 Ha Total 43.55 Ha Current Zone RU2 Rural Landscape RU2 Rural Landscape E2 Environmental Conservation Proposed Portion of the precinct to be zoned Portion of the precinct to be zoned Zone R1 General Residential with the R1 General Residential and E3 remainder staying RU2 Rural Environmental Management with Landscape the remainder staying E2 Environmental Conservation Applicable R1 General Residential – 450 sqm R1 General Residential – 450 sqm Minimum MLS MLS Lot size RU2 Rural Landscape - 40 Ha MLS E3 Environmental Management - 40 Ha MLS E2 Environmental Conservation – 40 Ha MLS Map LZN Map 004B amended to identify LZN Map 004B and Map 005 amendments R1 General Residential land amended to identify R1 General MLS Map 004B amended to amend Residential land and E3 the minimum lot size for the Environmental Management residential portion of land to 450 MLS Map 004B and Map 005 sqm amended to amend the minimum URA Map 004B amended to identify lot size for the residential portion of the applicable land as Gillieston land to 450 sqm and the Heights South URA. environmental portion to 40 Ha

Page 9 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) Planning Proposal (Western Planning Proposal (Eastern Precinct) Precinct) URA Map 004B and Map 005 amended to identify the applicable land as Gillieston Heights South URA.

A locality map and copies of the proposed zoning, minimum lot size and URA maps are provided in Part 4 of the revised planning proposals, included as Attachments 1 and 2 to this report.

CONCLUSION Council continues to support rezoning of Gillieston Heights South (western and eastern precincts) and recognises the strategic merit of the revised planning proposals, given the overall consistency with the NSW Government’s Hunter Regional Plan 2036, Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan 2036 and Council’s adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement and Urban Settlement Strategy.

It is recommended that Council submit the revised planning proposals to the Department and seek two (2) new Gateway determinations to enable the proposals to proceed to public exhibition.

RISK IMPLICATIONS Should Council decide not to submit the revised planning proposals to the Department seeking a new Gateway determination before the 31 December 2020, there will be implications for the finalisation of the current planning proposal in accordance with the original and altered Gateway determination timeframe. This would be contrary to the Department’s requirements for clearing the backlog of planning proposals, the consequences of which are unclear.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If Council is unable to finalise the planning proposal by 30 June 2021, its application for $3 million of funding under the NSW Public Spaces Legacy Program may be at risk. To ensure Council is awarded this grant funding, it is essential that Council obtain a new Gateway determination to enable the planning proposals to proceed to public exhibition as soon as is practicable.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter has no specific policy implications for Council.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS This report has regard to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Page 10 24 NOVEMBER 2020

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011 - REZONING OF GILLIESTON HEIGHTS SOUTH (Cont.) As this matter is covered by the definition of a “planning decision” under Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, details of those Councillors supporting or opposing a decision on the matter must be recorded in a register. For this purpose, a division must be called when a motion in relation to the matter is put to a meeting. This will enable the names of those Councillors voting for or against the motion to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting and subsequently included in the required register.

Page 11

Planning Proposal

AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011

Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct Version 1.0 16/11/2020 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 2

PART 1: OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES ...... 6

PART 2: EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS...... 6

PART 3: JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED REZONING ...... 8

SECTION A – NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL ...... 8

SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 9

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ...... 20

SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS ...... 23

PART 4: MAPPING ...... 28

MAP 1 - EXISTING ZONING MAP………………………………………………………………………………….……….27

MAP 2 - PROPOSED ZONING MAP……………………………………………………………………………………....28

MAP 3 - EXISTING MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP…………………………………………………………………...... 29

MAP 4 - PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP………………………………………………………………….….30

MAP 5 - PROPOSED URBAN RELEASE AREA MAP…………………………………………………...………... 32

PART 5: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION………………………………………………………………………………....33

PART 6: TIMEFRAME...... 35

Version 1.0 – 18/11/2020 (For Section 3.3 Council Report)

Tables

Table 1: Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies...... 12

Table 2: Section 9.1 Directions...... 14

Appendices

Appendix A: Gateway Determination ...... 34

Appendix B: Alteration to Gateway Determination ...... 35

Appendix C: Summary of Agency Consultation...... 36

p i | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Precinct Maitland City Council

INTRODUCTION

This planning proposal has been prepared in accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). It explains the intended effect of, and justification for, the proposed amendment to Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Maitland LEP 2011) with regard to land in the Gillieston Heights South (Western Precinct) area, as detailed below.

Lot Area Owner Lot 1 DP456946 8.0ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 2 DP456946 7.4ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 3 DP456946 390m2 Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 4 DP456946 1.5ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 5 DP456946 3.6ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 7 DP456946 1.2ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 8 DP456946 3.8ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 9 DP456946 2.0ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 10 DP456946 820m2 Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 54 DP975994 9.3ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Pt Lot 55 DP975994 8.6ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 69 DP975994 3.8ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 70 DP975994 9.4ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Lot 71 DP975994 9.6ha Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd Total 69.4ha

The purpose of the planning proposal is to amend the Maitland LEP 2011 to provide for the development of the subject land for residential purposes. The subject lands are identified with the Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2012 (MUSS 2012) for future urban development consistent with the sequencing and release of urban land in Gillieston Heights. A locality plan identifying the subject land is provided in Figure 1.

At its meeting of 24 November 2015 Council considered a report for the Gillieston Heights southern area. Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal (the current planning proposal) and seek Gateway determination for an extended area that included Hydro owned land to the west of Cessnock Rd and the remaining developable land (various landowners) east of Cessnock Rd (Eastern Precinct). A Gateway determination was issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the Department) on 23 March 2016. It includes the agency consultation and exhibition requirements for the current planning proposal (refer to Appendix A).

The Hydro owned land forms part of the wider land holding of the Kurri Kurri Hydro Aluminium industrial complex. This industrial land use ceased operation with the landowner investigating potential redevelopment opportunities for areas of the site. The northern extent of the Hydro site is situated within the Maitland local government area (LGA) and is subject to this planning proposal. The remainder of the Hydro Site (approximately 1300 hectares) is located within the Cessnock LGA and is subject to a separate planning proposal currently under consideration by Cessnock City Council to give effect to the Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Masterplan (refer to Figure 2). The proposed rezoning was submitted as a joint planning proposal. The approach to milestone p 2 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct delivery and consideration of cross-boundary impacts for both Maitland and Cessnock Council’s planning proposals was intended to align wherever possible.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

Figure 2 – Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Masterplan p 3 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct

The Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Masterplan proposes urban development extending from the Hunter Expressway to Gillieston Heights. Development of the subject lands will establish a continuity of infrastructure and urban development, linking Hydro’s proposed development to Cessnock Road, and establishing a connected growth corridor.

The original Gateway determination specified a thirty-six (36) month timeframe for the completion of the local environmental plan (LEP), with completion due March 2019. In January 2019, Council wrote to the Department requesting an extension of time in which to complete the LEP. The Gateway determination was subsequently altered on 10 September 2019, to amend the Gateway determination conditions and extend the timeframe for completion of the LEP by 23 December 2020 (refer to Appendix B).

The current planning proposal has progressed consistent with the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination. However, there are outstanding issues for resolution requiring further information and consideration prior to the finalisation of the planning proposal process.

p 4 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Council received correspondence from the Department, on 2 October 2020, advising of a focused work program to finalise planning proposals that have been under consideration for four (4) or more years. This is part of the recently announced Planning System Acceleration Program. The current planning proposal is identified as one of these proposals and as such, is required to be finalised by 31 December 2020, consistent with the Department’s advice.

In order to finalise the current planning proposal there are outstanding matters to address, including public exhibition. It is not possible to finalise the planning proposal by 31 December 2020 due to the outstanding matters. The Department has advised Council to submit a revised planning proposal to the Department, seeking a new Gateway determination. The Department has assured Council that the new Gateway determination will recognise the work undertaken to address the conditions of the original and altered Gateway determination and enable the revised planning proposals to proceed to public exhibition. The Department has indicated to Council that the Minister will only discontinue the current planning proposal once new Gateway determinations have been issued. This is anticipated to occur before the 31 December 2020.

p 5 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct PART 1: OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES

The objectives of the proposal are to:

1. Enable residential development;

2. Identify a new urban release area (the Gillieston Heights South URA) to encompass the subject land;

3. Protect and manage areas with environmental constraints; and

4. Ensure that future residents have access to adequate local and regional infrastructure. PART 2: EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS

The objectives of this planning proposal are intended to be achieved through amending the Maitland LEP 2011 to provide for the development of the subject land for residential purposes.

A summary of the proposed amendment is provided in the table below. The proposed map amendments are detailed in Part 4 of this planning proposal.

Applicable Land Lots 1, 2, 5 and 8 DP456946 Part Lots 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 DP 456946 (i.e. the parts of these lots that are east of South Maitland Railway) Lots 54, 55, 69, 70 and 71 DP975994

Landowner Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd

Land size Total 69.4ha

Current Zone RU2 Rural Landscape

Proposed Zone Portion of the precinct to be zoned R1 General Residential with the remainder staying RU2 Rural Landscape.

Applicable Minimum Lot R1 General Residential – 450m2 size RU2 Rural Landscape - 40 Ha

Map amendments LZN Map 004B amended to identify R1 General Residential land. LSZ Map 004B amended to amend the minimum lot size for the residential portion of land to 450m2. URA Map 004B amended to identify the subject land as an urban release area.

As the site is to be identified as an urban release area, it will be captured under the provisions of Part 6 of the Maitland LEP 2011. Subsequently, and consistent with other green field urban release areas, this ensures that satisfactory arrangements for the provision of designated state public infrastructure are met prior to the development of the subject site.

It is proposed to retain the existing RU2 Rural Landscape zone over that part of the subject land that is subject to environmental constraints, including mine subsidence, EECs and threatened species.

p 6 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct The proponent intends to apply for biodiversity certification of the subject land under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, in parallel with the rezoning process and is currently finalising a Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Report (BCAR) encompassing the entire Hydro site. Once the BCAR is finalised, Council will be able to determine whether there is any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats will be adversely affected by the proposal, and thus determine whether an Environmental zone should be applied over this area.

p 7 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct PART 3: JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED REZONING

In accordance with the Department’s ‘Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals’, this section provides a response to the following issues:

 Section A: Need for the planning proposal;  Section B: Relationship to strategic planning framework;  Section C: Environmental, social and economic impact; and  Section D: State and Commonwealth interests.

SECTION A – NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

Yes. The subject lands are identified in an endorsed strategy (i.e. MUSS 2012) as being suitable for consideration for urban purposes, consistent with the sequencing and release of land in the Gillieston Heights area, as outlined in the MUSS 2012.

2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

It is considered that an amendment to the Maitland LEP 2011 through the Gateway process and preparation of this planning proposal is the most effective and timely method to achieve the vision and objectives of the Hunter Regional Plan 2036 (HRP 2036), Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan 2036 (GNMP 2036) and Council’s adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and MUSS 2012.

The current land zoning does not permit residential development or supporting community and public infrastructure for the development of a future urban area. The rezoning will be supported by a Section 7.11 Contributions Plan and Development Control Plan to achieve the objectives outlined in this planning proposal.

3. Is there a net community benefit?

No net community benefit test has been undertaken as part of this proposal. However, Council envisages that this planning proposal will result in a net community benefit.

Specifically, the subject lands are considered as part of the adopted policy position for urban investigation sites identified within the MUSS 2012.

The rezoning of the subject site would enable residential development, contributing to the local economy given that a high proportion of residents within the subject area will be able to readily commute to the Maitland CBD. Additionally, this will assist in providing a local supply of labour for local businesses.

Residents within the subject area will also have ready access to jobs within the future employment lands being proposed as part of the Hydro Kurri Kurri Rezoning Masterplan within the Cessnock LGA. p 8 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct The public interest reasons for preparing this draft plan include:

 The development of the subject lands will support the growing residential population within the central sector of the Maitland LGA;  The land has largely exhausted its historical agricultural use and the proposal to develop the land for urban purposes will result in an improved outcome and a higher order use of the land;  Existing environmentally sensitive areas on the site will be protected and enhanced;  The end urban environment may include community and public facilities for the growing population of the Gillieston Heights area including adjoining and surrounding residential areas.

The implications of not proceeding with the planning proposal include:

 The availability of urban land for population growth addressed in the HRP 2036 and GNMP 2036 will not be achieved;  The desired future outcomes of Council’s long-term strategic plans (LSPS and MUSS 2012) for this area will not be achieved;  The potential for a higher order land use within the subject lands would be lost, as the land is not large enough to support sustainable agricultural practices;  The potential for improvements to the existing public infrastructure would be limited;  Opportunities to improve and enhance the linkages between established and developing residential areas of Gillieston Heights, Cliftleigh, and Hydro’s proposed Central Residential Precinct will be denied if the proposal is not supported.

SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy?

Hunter Regional Plan (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) 2036

The HRP 2036 is a 20-year blueprint for the future of the Hunter. Its vision is to create a leading regional economy in Australia, with a vibrant metropolitan city at the heart. This vision will be delivered through four goals, as follows:

• a leading regional economy in Australia; • a biodiversity–rich natural environment; • thriving communities; and • greater housing choice and jobs.

It is estimated that an additional 12,550 dwellings will be needed in Maitland by 2036. The plan focuses on providing land and infrastructure to meet this requirement and by supporting infill development opportunity in established areas and greenfield sites. The plan provides directions for housing opportunities to be located in areas with established services and infrastructure and which are close to existing towns and villages.

p 9 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct The subject site is identified by the HRP 2036 as a growth area demarked for both residential and employment uses.

The proposal assists in meeting the objectives of the HRP 2036 as it will contribute approximately 70ha of additional residential zoned land, in close proximity to existing services and infrastructure and local employment centres.

Figure 3 – Extract from Hunter Regional Plan 2036

Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) 2036

The GNMP 2036 sets out the strategies and actions that will drive sustainable growth across the five (5) Local Government Areas of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle City, Port Stephens and Maitland, which make up Greater Newcastle. The Plan aims to achieve the vision set out in the HRP 2036 – for the Hunter to be the leading regional economy in Australia with a vibrant new metropolitan city at its heart.

The subject land is identified in the GNMP 2036 as a housing release area, adjacent to the existing Gillieston Heights URA.

This proposal will assist in meeting the objectives of the GNMP 2036. The proposal is consistent with the strategies and actions in the GNMP 2036, as it will provide additional housing opportunities in close proximity to existing jobs and services. p 10 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Figure 4 – Extract from Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan 2036

5. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?

Maitland +10 (Community Strategic Plan)

Council has prepared and adopted the Maitland +10 Community Strategic Plan (CSP) in line with the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation and guidelines. The CSP was last reviewed in 2018. The planning proposal is considered consistent with the vision and objectives of the CSP as it provides opportunities for urban growth within the city to meet the needs of a growing population.

Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy 2012

The subject land is currently zoned RU2 - Rural Landscape in the Maitland LEP 2011 and is identified in the HRP 2036 as an area of investigation for urban purposes. The land occupies approximately 69.4 hectares and is identified in the MUSS 2012 for urban expansion consistent with the sequencing and release of urban land for the Gillieston Heights locality. The land forms part of the remaining developable land in the Gillieston Heights locality.

p 11 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct 6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?

An assessment of the planning proposal against the relevant SEPPs is provided in the table below.

Table 1: Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.

RELEVANCE CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS SEPP (PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT) 2019 Consistent

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the The site is not identified as State significant orderly, economic use and development of land and only a small part of the Hydro Land rural lands, reduce land use conflicts and to could be considered as suitable for identify and protect State significant agriculture. This land is classified 3, 4, and 5 agricultural land. by the former NSW Department of Agriculture. Under these classifications the land is suitable for “cropping but not continuous cultivation” (3), “grazing but not cultivation” (4) or “not suitable for agriculture or only light grazing” (5), respectively.

SEPP (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007 Consistent

Provides a consistent planning regime for Nothing in this planning proposal affects the infrastructure and the provision of services aims and provisions of this SEPP. The across NSW, along with providing for proposal considers future development consultation with relevant public authorities adjacent to the South Maitland Rail corridor during the assessment process. The SEPP and Main Road 195 (Cessnock Road). supports greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities along with improved regulatory certainty and efficiency.

SEPP (KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION) 2019 Consistent

This Policy aims to encourage the The proponent intends to apply for conservation and management of natural biodiversity certification of the subject land vegetation that provide habitat for Koalas to under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 in support a permanent free-living population parallel with the rezoning process and is and reverse the current trend of Koala currently finalising a Biodiversity population decline. Conservation Assessment Report (BCAR) encompassing the entire Hydro site. The BCAR will include details of how it is proposed to mitigate any impacts of clearing for the purposes of residential development. These mitigation measures may include the creation and ongoing maintenance of a large “biodiversity stewardship” site over much of the adjoining areas of significant conservation land.

p 12 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct RELEVANCE CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS As the Koala is identified as a threatened species under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the BCAR will need to consider any impacts of the proposal on the Koala and/or its habitat. Notwithstanding, the vegetated areas of the site are proposed to be contained within the existing RU2 Rural Landscape zone.

SEPP (MINING, PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Consistent AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) 2007

The SEPP aims to provide for the proper Nothing in this Planning Proposal affects the management of mineral, petroleum and aims and provisions of this SEPP. extractive material resources and ESD. Council has undertaken preliminary consultation with the NSW DPIE – Resources and Geoscience. No resource concerns were raised. However, should biodiversity offsets become considered, the Division has requested to be consulted in relation to the proposed location of any offsite biodiversity offset areas, or any supplementary biodiversity measures (should they be required), to ensure there is no consequent reduction in access to prospective land for mineral exploration, or potential for sterilisation of mineral or extractive resources.

SEPP NO. 55 - REMEDIATION OF LAND N/A

Provides state-wide planning controls for the This SEPP no longer applies at the planning remediation of contaminated land. The policy proposal stage. Rather the requirements of states that land must not be developed if it is the SEPP are to be considered at the unsuitable for a proposed use because it is Development Application (DA) stage. contaminated. If the land is unsuitable, Ministerial Direction 2.6 – Remediation of remediation must take place before the land Contaminated Land applies to planning is developed. proposals and is discussed in the next section of this planning proposal.

7. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions for Local Plan making?

p 13 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Table 2: Section 9.1 Directions.

S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS

1. EMPLOYMENT AND RESOURCES 1.1Business and Industrial Zones Not Applicable

1.2 Rural Zones Inconsistent The objective of this direction is to protect the The planning proposal is inconsistent with the agricultural production value of rural land. objectives of this direction as it proposes to rezone RU2 Rural Landscape zoned land for urban purposes. However, the inconsistency is considered justified because the subject land proposed for urban purposes is identified in the MUSS 2012 and in the GNMP 2036 as a housing release area and is therefore considered appropriate for urban development.

1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Consistent Extractive Industries

The objective of this direction is to ensure The proposed residential zoning would have that the future extraction of State or the effect of prohibiting the mining of coal regionally significant reserves coal, other and other minerals, production of petroleum minerals, petroleum and extractive materials and winning/obtaining of extractive materials are not compromised by inappropriate from the site. development. The Planning Proposal does not cover any areas known to have existing resources. Notwithstanding, the planning proposal has been referred to NSW DPIE - Resources and Geoscience for comment. DPI -Resources and Geoscience raised no concerns. However, should biodiversity offsets become considered, the Division has requested to be consulted in relation to the proposed location of any offsite biodiversity offset areas, or any supplementary biodiversity measures (should they be required), to ensure there is no consequent reduction in access to prospective land for mineral exploration, or potential for sterilisation of mineral or extractive resources.

1.4 Oyster Aquaculture Not Applicable

1.5 Rural Lands Inconsistent

p 14 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS The objectives of this direction are to protect The planning proposal is inconsistent with the the agricultural production value of rural land objectives of this direction as it proposes to and to facilitate the orderly and economic rezone RU2 Rural Landscape zoned land for development of rural lands for rural and urban purposes. However, the inconsistency related purposes. is considered justified because the subject land proposed for urban purposes is identified in the MUSS 2012 and in the GNMP as a housing release area and is therefore considered appropriate for urban development.

2. ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE 2.1 Environment Protection Zones Consistent The objective of this direction is to protect The planning proposal is consistent with the and conserve environmentally sensitive objectives of this direction as it proposes to areas. retain the existing RU2 Rural Landscape zone over that part of the subject land that is According to the direction, a planning subject to environmental constraints, proposal must include provisions that including mine subsidence, EECs and facilitate the protection and conservation of threatened species. environmentally sensitive areas. Once the outcomes of the BCAR are known and Council is able to determine whether there is any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats will be adversely affected by the proposal, Council will be able to determine whether an Environmental zone should be applied over this area.

2.2 Coastal Protection Not Applicable

2.3 Heritage Conservation Inconsistent The objective of this direction is to conserve An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment items, areas, objects and places of was undertaken by AECOM in 2014, which environmental heritage significance and identified one recorded artefact site and two indigenous heritage significance. (2) areas of high archaeological sensitivity in the area that may be impacted by the proposed development and require further archaeological investigation. Council has undertaken preliminary consultation with Heritage NSW who have advised that the consultation with the registered Aboriginal parties (RAPs) has lapsed over the last six years. In order to p 15 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS determine the planning proposal’s consistency with Direction 2.3, additional consultation with the RAPs is required to update them regarding the current status of the planning proposal.

2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas Not applicable

2.5 Application of E2 & E3 Zones and Not applicable Environmental Overlays in Far North coast LEPs

2.6 Remediation of Contaminated Land Inconsistent The objective of this direction is to reduce the The proponent has completed a Phase 2 risk of harm to human health and the Environmental Site Assessment, Remedial environment by ensuring that contamination Action Plan, Validation Report, Site Audit and remediation are considered by planning Report and a Site Audit Statement in respect proposal authorities. of the subject land. Council officers have reviewed the above documents and raised concerns in relation to the adequacy of sampling carried out across the proposed residential land. The proponent has been advised further soil sampling is required to address the requirements of this direction. The sampling is to be undertaken in accordance with the EPA’s sampling guidelines across the site, with laboratory analysis for all potential contaminants, including those that would normally be associated with previous rural/agricultural uses of the site, coal mining and the existence of the coal train line. This is to satisfy Council that the land proposed to be rezoned is suitable for all uses permitted in the R1 General Residential zone. The results of the additional sampling will need to be provided, in order to satisfy Council that the land proposed to be rezoned to R1 General Residential is suitable for all uses permitted in the zone, prior to finalisation of the planning proposal.

3. HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Residential Zones Consistent The objectives of this direction are to The proposed rezoning to R1 General encourage a variety and choice of housing, Residential will enable residential p 16 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS minimise the impact of residential development across most of the site. The development on the environmental and land proposed for urban purposes is resource lands and make efficient use of identified as an urban release area in the infrastructure and services. GNMP and as Category 1 Residential land in the MUSS 2012. The planning proposal is therefore considered consistent with this direction.

3.2 Caravan Parks & Manufactured Home Estates Not Applicable

3.3 Home Occupations Consistent To encourage the carrying out of low-impact The proposed R1 General Residential zone small businesses in dwelling houses. will permit home occupations without consent. The proposal is therefore consistent with this direction.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport Consistent The objectives of this direction relate to the The planning proposal proposes to establish location of urban land and its proximity to an urban environment with local and regional public transport infrastructure and road connectivity through design and location of networks, and improving access to housing, road networks, including provision for public employment and services by methods other transport services. The planning proposal is than private vehicles. considered consistent with the objectives of this direction.

3.5 Development Near Regulated Airports and Defence Airfields Not Applicable

3.6 Shooting Ranges Not Applicable 3.7 Reduction in non-hosted short term rental accommodation period Not Applicable

4. HAZARD and RISK 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils Consistent The objective of this direction is to avoid The Maitland LEP 2011 indicates a potential significant adverse environmental impacts Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soils risk affecting the from the use of land that has a probability of subject land. Further development associated containing acid sulfate soils. with the subject land will, in accordance with Clause 7.1 of the Maitland LEP 2011, be required to include an Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan as a condition of development consent. The proposal is consistent with this direction.

4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land Consistent

p 17 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS The objective of this direction is to prevent Part of the subject land has been identified as damage to life, property and the environment containing shallow underground mine on land identified as unstable or potentially workings and is located within a Proclaimed subject to mine subsidence. Mine Subsidence District (MSD). Development within a MSD requires approval from Subsidence Advisory (SA) NSW.

Council has undertaken preliminary consultation with SA NSW and SA NSW has advised that the mine subsidence risk must be effectively eliminated prior to any subdivision/development of the affected land. This may involve further consultation with SA NSW, further detailed geotechnical investigations and/or remediation (e.g. grouting of the mine voids) to be undertaken prior to subdivision/development of the site.

NB: It is not proposed to rezone the area of the site impacted by mine subsidence. It will retain the existing RU2 Rural Landscape zoning.

4.3 Flood Prone Land Consistent The objectives of this direction are: The subject land is not affected by flooding. (a) to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Development of the site for urban purposes, Government’s Flood Prone Land in conjunction with the development of the Policy and the principles of the rest of Hydro’s landholdings within the Floodplain Development Manual Cessnock LGA in accordance with the Hydro 2005, and Kurri Kurri Rezoning Masterplan, will facilitate (b) (b) to ensure that the provisions of an access for Gillieston Heights that is above the LEP on flood prone land is 1:100 ARI flood event. commensurate with flood hazard and includes consideration of the The planning proposal is considered potential flood impacts both on and consistent with the objectives of this off the subject land. direction.

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection Consistent The objectives of this direction are: Council has undertaken preliminary (a) to protect life, property and the consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service environment from bush fire hazards, (RFS) in accordance with the requirements of by discouraging the establishment of the original Gateway determination. The RFS incompatible land uses in bush fire has identified the need for the existing prone areas, and bushfire threat assessment report to be (b) to encourage sound management of updated/revised to consider the new bush fire prone areas. requirements under Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019. The updated report should p 18 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS be submitted prior to public exhibition of the According to this direction, in preparing a planning proposal, in accordance with the planning proposal, Council must consult with requirements set out in the direction. the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service following receipt of a Gateway Further consultation with the RFS in respect determination, and prior to undertaking of an updated/revised bushfire threat community consultation in satisfaction of assessment report is anticipated to be a Schedule 1, clause 4 of the Act, and take into condition of the new Gateway determination account any comments so made. and will most likely occur concurrently with public exhibition of the planning proposal. It is also a requirement of the direction that a planning proposal must have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

5. REGIONAL PLANNING

5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Not Applicable

5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Not Applicable Significance on the NSW Far North Coast

5.4 Commercial & Retail Development Not Applicable along the Pacific Highway, North Coast

5.9 North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy Not Applicable

5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans Consistent The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, goals, The proposal is consistent with the HRP 2036 directions and actions contained in Regional and GNMP 2036 and implements key goals Plans. and directions of these strategies.

5.11 Development of Aboriginal Land Council Land Not Applicable

6. LOCAL PLAN MAKING

6.1 Approval and Referral Consistent The direction aims to ensure that LEP The planning proposal does not propose to provisions encourage the efficient and include provisions in the LEP that require appropriate assessment of development. concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority and does not identify development as designated development.

6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes Consistent The direction aims to facilitate (i) the The planning proposal does not propose to provision of public services and facilities by reserve any land, or remove any reservations reserving land for public purposes; and (ii) of land, for public purposes and is considered removal of reservations of land for public consistent with this direction. p 19 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct S9.1 DIRECTION CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS purposes where land is no longer required for acquisition.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions Consistent The objective of this direction is to discourage The planning proposal does not include any unnecessarily restrictive site-specific planning site-specific planning controls and is therefore controls. considered consistent with this direction.

7 METROPOLITAN PLANNING

7.1 Implementation of a Plan for Growing Not Applicable Sydney

7.3 Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Not Applicable Transformation Strategy

7.4 Implementation of North West Priority Not Applicable Growth Area Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan

7.5 Implementation of Greater Parramatta Not Applicable Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan

7.6 Implementation of Wilton Priority Not Applicable Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan

7.7 Implementation of Glenfield to Not Applicable Macarthur Urban Renewal Corridor

7.8 Implementation of the Western Sydney Not Applicable Aerotropolis Plan

7.9 Implementation of Bayside West Not Applicable Precincts 2036 Plan

7.10 Implementation of Planning Principles Not Applicable for the Cooks Cove Precinct

7.11 Implementation of St Leonards and Not Applicable Crows Nest 2036 Plan

7.12 Implementation of Greater Macarthur Not Applicable 2040

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

8. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

p 20 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct The proponent intends to apply for biodiversity certification of the site under the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 in parallel with the rezoning process. A Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR) is currently being finalised to accompany a standard biodiversity certification application to the Biodiversity and Conservation Division (BCD) of the Department.

The proponent has previously submitted a letter report prepared by Ecological Australia in March 2015, which provided a summary only of results of preliminary flora and fauna surveys carried out within the portion of biodiversity certification assessment area that falls within the Maitland LGA. These surveys identified four (4) endangered ecological communities (EECs) within the Maitland LGA, as well as a number of threatened fauna species, two of which (i.e. the Squirrel Glider and East-coast Freetail Bat) were located in the area east of the SMR, which is the area proposed for urban purposes.

Further detailed assessment of biodiversity constraints and potential biodiversity impacts of the development, following completion of Hydro’s biodiversity study encompassing the entire Hydro site (currently being undertaken as part of the biodiversity certification process) will be required, following the issue of a new Gateway determination. In the absence of this information, Council is unable to determine whether there is any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal.

At its meeting of 23 August 2016, Council resolved to endorse the application of the biodiversity certification process and align the standard biodiversity certification application and the BCAR with the planning proposal process wherever possible. BCD, in their response to Council’s preliminary agency consultation, have also indicated their preference to review the planning proposal and the standard biodiversity certification application concurrently, to ensure a consistent approach for conservation and development outcomes over the site. However, the biodiversity certification application has not yet been lodged with BCD. It is expected that BCD will provide detailed comment on the revised Planning Proposal (Western Precinct) when Council undertakes further agency consultation, as a requirement of the new Gateway determination.

Council will not be in a position to finalise the planning proposal until such time as the biodiversity certification application has been determined by the Minister for the Environment.

9. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

The proponent has undertaken a detailed environmental assessment across the full extent of the Hydro site. A suite of specialist technical reports has been prepared to justify the preparation of amendments to the Maitland and Cessnock LEPs, including:

 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment  Bushfire Impact Assessment  Contamination Assessment  Servicing Strategy  Stormwater Impact Assessment p 21 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct  Geotechnical Assessment  Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment  Socio-economic Impact Assessment  Traffic and Transport Study  Visual Impact Assessment  European Heritage Impact Assessment  Agricultural Land Suitability and Capability Study  Flood Study

In resolving the complex issues associated with the site, the planning proposal has experienced delays in progressing through the planning process, due to multiple site constraints, various developers being involved in the planning over time, issues raised by various Government agencies and legislative amendments. The planning proposal has required (and in some cases, requires further) consideration of agency and stakeholder input, including Transport for NSW (TfNSW), BCD, and private landowner, South Maitland Railways Pty Ltd, whose land traverses the Hydro site.

Council has identified a number of matters, during the initial assessment of the rezoning proposal, requiring further clarification by the proponent, in order to adequately address the environmental impacts of the proposal and the conditions of the existing and altered Gateway determination. A summary of the key issues and current status of matters requiring further consideration is provided below.

Flooding

A detailed investigation of flooding was required in order to adequately address conditions 1(a) and 1(b) of the original Gateway determination. In the absence of accurate baseline data, a comprehensive flood study, outlining the full range of flood behaviour and associated consequences within the study area, was required. Maitland City Council (in partnership with Cessnock City Council) commissioned the work using grant funding obtained through the State Floodplain Management program managed by the former Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and engaged WMA to undertake the Wallis and Swamp-Fishery Creek Flood Study in March 2017.

The study took approximately two (2) years to complete and involved extensive hydrologic and hydraulic modelling across three (3) catchments to define flood behaviour for a range of design flood events including the 1% AEP. The flood study was publicly exhibited in October 2018 and was formally adopted by Council on 26 March 2019. The findings of the study address the original Gateway determination conditions in relation to flooding impacts and the provision of a flood free access strategy for the proposed residential development and have informed the preparation of the Hydro Masterplan and this revised planning proposal. The proponents have prepared a Flood Free Access Strategy Map detailing an alternate access route between Kurri Kurri and Maitland

p 22 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct above the 1% AEP flood level, to satisfy Gateway condition 1(b). This map will be incorporated into a future Development Control Plan for the site.

Contamination

Given the nature of the former Hydro industrial land use, potential contamination has been an issue in determining the suitability of the site for its intended residential development. Council should be satisfied the level of investigation is adequate to fulfill the statutory requirements under Ministerial Direction 2.6 – Remediation of Contaminated Land. The work completed to date has included a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Remedial Action Plan, Validation Report, Site Audit Report and Site Audit Statement.

The results of this additional sampling will need to be provided, in order to satisfy Council that the land proposed to be rezoned to R1 General Residential is suitable for all uses permitted in the zone, prior to finalisation of the planning proposal.

Traffic and Transport

Condition 1(i) of the altered Gateway determination required agreement from TfNSW for proposed intersections and upgrades to Cessnock/Main Road (MR 195) between the New England Highway and the Hunter Expressway, including staging and development thresholds for upgrades and funding mechanisms to deliver the agreed upgrades.

In issuing the altered Gateway determination, the Department acknowledged that TfNSW is currently undertaking a Corridor Strategy for this section of MR 195, the purpose of which is to:

 Identify the timing for duplication of MR 195; and  Assess location points for future connections and/or restrictions or upgrades to existing intersections, including identifying the type of intersection controls to meet the needs of residential growth within the corridor over the next twenty (20) years.

The Department and TfNSW have acknowledged that the outcomes/findings of the Corridor Strategy will largely address the requirements of Gateway condition 1(i) and in an effort to minimise the overlap in the scope of works between the TfNSW Corridor Strategy and the TIA p 23 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct being prepared by the proponent, TfNSW have offered to share the results of their microsimulation modelling and other relevant traffic data with the proponent and Council, if required.

Work associated with the Strategy commenced in November 2019, with finalisation of the Strategy scheduled for August 2020 but for various reasons, including the impact of Covid 19, the project has been significantly delayed and is now not expected to be finalised until late December 2020. This has meant that the proponent has been unable to undertake the required TIA or finalise various aspects of their master-planning for the site. Despite this, TfNSW recently advised the Department there is no objection to the revised planning proposal proceeding to public exhibition. The Department subsequently wrote to Council on the 6 November 2020 to confirm that the Department is satisfied the planning proposal should proceed to public exhibition.

It is expected that the new Gateway determination will require the planning proposal to be consistent with the findings and recommendations of the impending MR 195 Corridor Strategy.

Bushfire

Portions of the subject land are identified on Council’s Bushfire Prone Land map as being bushfire prone, including portions of the land proposed for residential purposes. Accordingly, a bushfire threat assessment for the site was carried out in February 2015. Council forwarded a copy of the report to the RFS for comment in February 2020, as part of the agency consultation process.

In their response, the RFS advised that the bushfire threat assessment report should be updated to reflect the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019. In addition, emphasis should be placed on the deficiencies around access and egress identified in the report. The revised assessment should be undertaken in conjunction with the comprehensive traffic impact assessment requested by Council.

The updated report should be submitted to Council prior to public exhibition of the planning proposal, in accordance with the requirements set out in Ministerial Direction 4.4 – Planning for Bushfire Protection.

Further consultation with the RFS in respect of an updated/revised bushfire threat assessment report is anticipated to be a condition of the new Gateway determination and will most likely occur concurrently with public exhibition of the planning proposal

Noise

Given the proposal to develop land in close proximity to both the South Maitland Railway and Cessnock Road, Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd (Vipac) were commissioned to undertake a noise impact assessment for the Hydro site in March 2015. The assessment was based on traffic count data presented in the Traffic & Transport Study prepared for the site by Hyder in February 2015. However, significant development has occurred in the Gillieston Heights and Cliftleigh urban release areas since 2015. Accordingly, Council has requested a revised noise and vibration impact assessment based upon the amended subdivision masterplan and most up-to-date traffic data being prepared by TfNSW as part of the MR 195 Corridor Strategy. Once this traffic data is p 24 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct available, a revised noise and vibration impact assessment will need to be prepared and submitted to Council for consideration, prior to finalisation of the planning proposal. The recommendations of the revised acoustic report will be incorporated into a future DCP for the site, in the form of appropriate development controls.

Mine Subsidence

A preliminary geotechnical assessment of the subject land was undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd in March 2015. The assessment found that mine subsidence risks are likely to present the most significant geotechnical constraint to development and that the site is generally suitable for the proposed residential development, subject to a more detailed investigation being undertaken at the appropriate stage of project planning and design.

Part of the site is within a proclaimed Mine Subsidence District (MSD). Subsidence Advisory NSW (SA NSW) records indicate part of the proposal is undermined by one or two steeply dipping coal seams ranging from shallow (<10m below surface at the western extent of workings) to relatively deep (>220m below surface at the eastern extent of workings). There are also mine entries near the western boundary of mine workings.

SA NSW has advised that if un-remediated, the entries and mine workings towards the western extents of mining represent a high risk of mine subsidence, including sinkhole (pothole) formation. Where a credible risk of sinkhole formation is identified, SA NSW requires the risk to be effectively eliminated prior to subdivision of the lot. Grouting of the mine voids may be required.

SA NSW records indicate those areas of the site outside of the MSD are not undermined. It is not proposed to rezone any land located within the MSD. This area will retain the existing RU2 Rural Landscape zoning.

10. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

The planning proposal provides increased housing opportunities within the central sector of the Maitland LGA including the possibility for a diverse range of housing choice. Any increase in supply of housing will increase the need for the provision of open space and recreational services including community facilities, passive and active open space areas either within or utilising existing facilities in the immediate areas. This will be considered in the preparation of the infrastructure plan.

The proponent has submitted a socio-economic impact assessment for the entire Hydro site. It is reasonable to extrapolate the findings of the social impact assessment to provide a general understanding of impacts for the Maitland LGA.

The report identifies a range of relevant issues for the local community, including the need for quality public transport, and the need to encourage connectivity and access to surrounding residential and employment areas. The report also concludes that additional demand generated by the new community on existing community facilities may generate the need for new community infrastructure. It should be noted that these issues will be addressed in the preparation of a Section 7.11 Plan. p 25 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Development of the Hydro site will increase the availability of housing stock, providing a contribution towards regional population growth targets identified in the HRP 2036. The report notes that a diversity of lot sizes and housing styles would contribute to diversity across the community in terms of household types and income groups.

In addition, the report notes that employment opportunities will be generated by the industrial and commercial precincts that form the southern extent of the Hydro Masterplan. Strong connectivity between the proposed urban area and the Maitland CBD should also be considered as notable in this regard.

SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS

11. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

As part of their site suitability assessment, the proponent has prepared a Servicing Strategy for the entire Hydro site outlining general principles for the supply of water, sewer infrastructure, electricity, gas and communications networks. The strategy includes a staging plan that is largely determined by the provision of lead-in infrastructure. Key elements of the Servicing Strategy are outlined below.

Water

The report notes that the supply of potable water to the development would be instigated at the developer’s expense based on a staging that provides security of supply in the short-term and adequate main sizes to accommodate the ultimate growth of the development. On completion of the rezoning process, further investigation will be undertaken through the preparation of a developer funded Water Servicing Strategy to Hunter Water Corporation standards. The Water Servicing Strategy will identify the means of supplying potable water to the high-level area in the north-east corner of the residential precinct and ensure security of supply for the ultimate growth of the Hydro site.

Sewer

Sewer services are proposed to be supplied via conventional gravity mains draining to a series of wastewater pump stations. Each wastewater pump will direct flows to an adjacent catchment and ultimately to the Kurri Kurri Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW). The report states that on completion of the rezoning process, further investigation will be performed through the preparation of a developer funded Sewer Servicing Strategy to Hunter Water Corporation standards. This will identify the means of supplying sewer to the development and reducing the number of pump stations where possible.

Electricity

Electricity is proposed to be delivered to the development through underground cable located in common shared trenching through the road reserves. The report states that underground cabling will extend the Ausgrid feeder network at higher voltages to a series of above-ground kiosk substations that distribute the electricity in the low-voltage network. On completion of the rezoning process, further investigation will be performed through Ausgrid’s preparation of a p 26 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct developer funded Identification of Needs Masterplan. This will identify the means of supplying electricity to the development, including refined estimates of ultimate demand.

Gas

The report notes that connection to the gas network will be available and determined on a staging basis, with an assessment of the connection methods determined by Jemena Gas Networks once the first application is made.

Communications

Communications connections are proposed to be made available and determined by the National Broadband Network (NBN Co) once the first application is made.

The Strategy states that the provision of essential lead-in infrastructure services and the attached cost will have a substantial impact on the construction staging. The entire residential development is proposed to drain to Kurri Kurri WWTW, due to capacity and access constraints in the Farley WWTW catchment. The planning, design, construction and commissioning of Wastewater Pump Stations are likely to dominate the staging sequence, as the sewer network is largely governed by topography. Therefore, staging is presumed to be governed by the sewer catchment boundaries.

12. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway Determination?

Council undertook preliminary consultation with relevant Government agencies in February 2020. The issues raised by Government agencies and Council’s comments are summarised in Table 1, attached as Appendix C.

Given Council is seeking a new Gateway determination, it is expected that the Department will determine which Government agencies will need to be re-consulted in relation to the revised planning proposal, pursuant to section 3.34(2)(d) of the EP&A Act.

p 27 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct PART 4: MAPPING

The following maps support the proposal:

MAP 1 – EXISTING ZONING MAP

MAP 2 - PROPOSED ZONING MAP

MAP 3 – EXISTING MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP

MAP 4 - PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP

MAP 5 – PROPOSED URBAN RELEASE AREA MAP

p 28 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Map 1 – Existing Zoning Map

p 29 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Map 2 – Proposed Zoning Map

p 30 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Map 3 – Existing Minimum Lot Size Map

p 31 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Map 4 – Proposed Minimum Lot Size Map

p 32 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct Map 5 – Proposed Urban Release Area Map

p 33 | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South – Western Maitland City Council Precinct PART 5: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

In accordance with Schedule 1, Clause 4 of the EP&A Act, community consultation must be undertaken by the local authority prior to approval of the planning proposal.

In accordance with Council’s adopted Community Engagement Strategy (March 2009), consultation on the proposed rezoning will be undertaken to inform and receive feedback from interested stakeholders. To engage the local community the following will be undertaken:

 A public exhibition period of 28 days  Notice in The Lower Hunter Star  Exhibition material and relevant consultation documents to be made available at all Council Libraries and Council’s Administration Building;  Consultation documents to be made available on Council’s website;  Notices published on Council’s social media applications, for public comment.  Consultation with any relevant committee or reference groups

At the close of the consultation process, Council officers will consider all submissions received and present a report to Council for their endorsement of the planning proposal before proceeding to finalisation of the amendment.

The consultation process, as outlined above, does not prevent any additional consultation measures that may be determined appropriate as part of the Gateway Determination process.

p34 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

PART 6: PROJECT TIMELINE

PROJECT TIMELINE DATE

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination) December 2020

Anticipated timeframe for the completion of required studies January 2021

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway Determination) (21 days) February 2021

Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period February – March 2021

Dates for public hearing (if required) N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions March 2021

Report to Council – consideration of submissions April 2021

Anticipated date RPA will forward the plan to the department to be made (if not delegated) May 2021

Anticipated date RPA will make the plan (if delegated) N/A

Anticipated date RPA will forward to the department for notification (if delegated) N/A

p35 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct Maitland City Council

Appendix A: Gateway Determination

To be inserted

p36 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct Maitland City Council

Appendix B- Alteration of Gateway Determination

To be inserted

p37 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct Maitland City Council

Appendix C: Summary of Agency Consultation

p38 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct Maitland City Council

Table 1: Government Agency Comments – Gillieston Heights South - Western Precinct

Agency Response Council’s Comment NSW Rural Fire Service The bushfire threat assessment prepared by Kleinfelder Council has requested a revised bushfire report which should be updated to reflect Planning for Bushfire considers the new requirements under Planning for Protection 2019. Emphasis should be placed on the Bushfire Protection 2019. The updated report should be deficiencies around access and egress identified in the submitted prior to public exhibition of the planning Kleinfelder report. The assessment should be proposal, in accordance with the requirements set out in undertaken in conjunction with the comprehensive Ministerial Direction 4.4 – Planning for Bushfire Protection. traffic impact assessment requested by Council.

BCD - Biodiversity BCD understands the proponent intends to apply for The proponent intends to lodge a Biodiversity biodiversity certification over the site in parallel with Certification application with BCD either during or post the rezoning process. BCD’s preference is to review the public exhibition of the planning proposal. Council will planning proposal and the Biodiversity Certification be afforded an opportunity to comment on the BCAR as application concurrently, to ensure a consistency of part of the legislative process. approach for conservation and development outcomes over the site. Therefore, BCD will not be providing BCD will have another opportunity to provide comment comments on the planning proposal until the on the planning proposal when it is considered in Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR) is conjunction with the BCAR for the site. This is submitted formally. anticipated to be a condition of the new Gateway determination and most likely will occur after public exhibition of the planning proposal.

BCD – Water, Floodplains & No response. BCD will have further opportunity to comment on the Coast planning proposal. This is anticipated to be a condition of the new Gateway determination and most likely will occur after public exhibition of the planning proposal.

TfNSW Within the Maitland LGA, the proposal has the potential Council has requested the proponent to specifically to generate approximately 500 peak hour trips address the impacts of the development upon local connecting directly to MR195. In addition, the Cessnock roads. In this regard and in accordance with the altered Gateway determination condition 1(i), a revised/updated Traffic Impact Assessment, incorporating the most up-to- date RMS traffic data is required. The revised TIA should p39 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

Hydro planning proposal could generate some 1,500 incorporate the results of the traffic microsimulation trips from the proposed residential lands. modelling being undertaken by TfNSW as part of the MR 195 Corridor Strategy. In accordance with the advice It is noted that a MR195 Corridor Strategy is currently from TfNSW, Council requested that this information be progressing and will identify cumulative impacts on the submitted prior to public exhibition of the planning classified road network stemming from growth proposal. throughout the corridor (including this planning

proposal) and associated mitigations. Of particular However, in light of recent correspondence from the note is the location and nature of a future intersection Department, advising that they are satisfied that the with MR195 providing access to the proposal. planning proposal should proceed to public exhibition, Prior to finalisation of the planning proposal, the despite the MR 195 Corridor Strategy not being finalised, MR195 Corridor Strategy will need to be completed for it is assumed that this information can now be provided TfNSW to understand the traffic and transport post-exhibition but prior to finalisation of the planning implications of the residential component of the proposal. planning proposal. Council should ensure that any required infrastructure identified within the MR195 corridor strategy is provided for within a Section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan or VPA and is fully scoped and estimated including appropriate contingencies and delivery triggers. Council is to provide evidence that it has addressed condition 1(i) in the Gateway determination prior to public exhibition, noting the outcomes of the ongoing Cessnock Road Corridor Strategy will provide much of this evidence.

DPI - NSW Agriculture No issues/concerns raised. No comment.

Mindaribba LALC No response. It is Council’s understanding Mindaribba LALC participated in the consultation process for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACH)

p40 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

undertaken by AECOM in 2014, however, did not provide comment on the draft ACH report. Mindaribba LALC will have further opportunity to comment on the planning proposal. This ted to is anticipabe a condition of the new Gateway determination and most likely will occur after public exhibition of the planning proposal.

Subsidence Advisory NSW Part of the area is in a mine subsidence district (MSD). The DCP will detail measures to manage mine Development within a MSD requires approval from SA subsidence risk, in accordance with the requirements of NSW. SA NSW. SA NSW records indicate part of the proposal is The DCP will need to clearly identify all land within the undermined by one or two steeply dipping coal seams Mine Subsidence District and set out the relevant SA ranging from shallow (<10m below surface at the NSW guidelines that are required to be complied with by western extent of workings) to relatively deep (>220m property owners and developers when developing a below surface at the eastern extent of workings). There property within the MSD. are also mine entries near the western boundary of It is recommended that the proponent undertake further mine workings. consultation with SA NSW during preparation of the draft If un-remediated, the entries and mine workings DCP to ensure the risk is adequately mitigated. It should towards the western extents of mining represent a high be noted that this may involve further detailed risk of mine subsidence, including sinkhole (pothole) geotechnical investigations and/or remediation (e.g. formation. Where a credible risk of sinkhole formation grouting of the mine voids) to be undertaken prior to is identified, SA NSW requires the risk to be effectively subdivision. eliminated prior to subdivision of the lot. Grouting of the mine voids may be required. SA NSW records indicate that identified in the proposal outside of MSDs are not undermined.

Hunter Water Corporation Hunter Water has no objections to the proposed No comment. rezoning and has commenced consultation with the Developer regarding the provision of water, dual

p41 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

reticulation water and wastewater services to the development.

South Maitland Railways Acoustic Impacts – To appropriately manage potential The 2015 Vipac assessment was based on traffic count noise & vibration impacts arising from the SMR active data presented in the Traffic & Transport Study prepared rail corridor, SMR require that a comprehensive Noise for the site by Hyder in February 2015. However, & Vibration assessment be completed prior to significant development has occurred in the Gillieston determination of the planning proposal, to establish Heights and Cliftleigh urban release areas since 2015. appropriate development parameters for future lot Accordingly, Council has requested an amended/updated layouts & dwelling design and inform the final zoning acoustic assessment based upon the amended layer. subdivision masterplan and most up-to-date traffic data being prepared by TfNSW as part of the Cessnock/Main Public Safety – To appropriately manage risk to public Road Corridor Strategy, to be submitted prior to public safety, SMR require installation of security fencing exhibition of the planning proposal. The along the full length of the rail corridor within the recommendations of the revised acoustic report will planning proposal area. Responsibility for the need to be incorporated into the DCP via appropriate installation and ongoing maintenance should not development controls. burden SMR, now or into the future. Boundary fencing can be addressed in the DCP. Ongoing Operational Security of Rail Corridor – The planning proposal and any resulting development must Agreed. The inclusion of SMR’s rail corridors as APZs is not compromise or diminish the ability to utilise the not supported. corridor to its fullest extent, now or into the future. Agreed. The proponent will need to secure the Installation of Railway Level Crossings – SMR will not be agreement of SMR for any proposal to access land via responsible for any costs associated with the Wangara Bridge. However, this does not preclude installation or ongoing maintenance of any new railway rezoning of the land. level crossings. Relevant regulatory approvals must be obtained prior to installation of any new level crossings. Managing Bushfire Threat – a revised bushfire assessment should be carried out that gives consideration to the proposal’s compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019. The inclusion of any of SMR’s rail corridors as Asset Protection Zones p42 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

(APZs) is not supported unless a separate agreement is reached with the developer. Wangara Bridge – Lot 4 DP456946 benefits from a right of way over the Wangara Bridge.  Clarification is requested to confirm the future use of land located on the western side of the rail corridor that is currently accessed via the Wangara Bridge;  Use of the bridge to cross the operational rail corridor is not supported at this point in time, unless appropriate agreement can be reached relating to its use, upgrade and ongoing maintenance;  The planning proposal must not result in an increase in traffic movements across Wangara Bridge. This includes construction related traffic; Any lots created as a result of the future subdivision of Lot 4 DP456946 that would be facilitated by the planning proposal, must not benefit from a right of way over the Wangara Bridge.

Cessnock City Council Council raises no objection to the planning proposal. No comment.

NSW State Emergency No response. No comment. Service DPIE – Resources & No resource concerns to raise. Should biodiversity The proponent intends to lodge a Biodiversity Geoscience offsets become considered, the Division requests to be Certification application with BCD under the provisions consulted in relation to the proposed location of any of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. It is offsite biodiversity offset areas, or any supplementary understood that as part of the assessment process, BCD biodiversity measures (should they be required), to will consult directly with DPIE – Resources & Geoscience ensure there is no consequent reduction in access to regarding any potential conflict between proposed p43 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

prospective land for mineral exploration, or potential biodiversity offset areas and mineral/extractive for sterilization of mineral or extractive resources. resources.

Heritage NSW No response. Heritage NSW didn’t provide a response to Council’s first round of consultation, in relation to the western precinct. However, they did provide a response during the 2nd round of consultation, in relation to the eastern precinct. In that response, they made the following comments regarding the land within the western precinct: - “There is one recorded artefact site and two (2) areas of high archaeological sensitivity in the area to the west of Cessnock Road, within the Maitland LGA, that may be impacted by the proposed development and require further archaeological investigation. Consultation with the registered Aboriginal parties (RAPs) has lapsed over the last six years. Additional consultation with the RAPs is required to update them regarding the current status of the Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct planning proposal.”

p44 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights Southern Precinct Maitland City Council

Planning Proposal

AMENDMENT TO THE MAITLAND LEP 2011

Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Version 1.0 16/11/2020 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PART 1: OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES ...... 4

PART 2: EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS...... 4

PART 3: JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED REZONING ...... 5

SECTION A – NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL ...... 5

SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 6

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ...... 15

SECTION D – STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS ...... 18

PART 4: MAPPING ...... 22

MAP 1 – EXISTING ZONING MAP ...... 22

MAP 2 - PROPOSED ZONING MAP ...... 22

MAP 3 – EXISTING MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP ...... 22

MAP 4 - PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAP ...... 22

MAP 5 - PROPOSED URBAN RELEASE AREA MAP ...... 22

PART 5: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...... 28

PART 6: TIMEFRAMES ...... 29

Version 1.0 – 18/11/2020 (For Section 3.3 Council Report)

Tables

Table 1: Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies...... 7 Table 2: Section 9.1 Directions...... 8 Table 3: Government Agency Comments……………………………………………………………………………………18

Appendices

Appendix A: Gateway Determination 34

Appendix B: Alteration to Gateway Determination 35

p i | Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

INTRODUCTION

This planning proposal has been prepared in accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It explains the intended effect of, and justification for, the proposed amendment to Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Maitland LEP 2011) with regard to land in the Gillieston Heights South area, referred to as the “Eastern Precinct”, as detailed below.

Lot Area Owner

Lot 1 DP302745 2.4ha M Sewell

Lot 2 DP302745 2.5ha R & VS Reynolds

Lot 1 DP601226 2.1ha CA Warby

Lot 2 DP601226 35.7ha VC Warby

Lot 1 DP311179 0.85ha M Curtis & I Roesler

TOTAL 43.55ha

The purpose of the planning proposal is to amend the Maitland LEP 2011 to provide for development of the subject land for residential purposes. The subject lands are identified with the Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy (MUSS) 2012 for future urban development consistent with the sequencing and release of urban land in Gillieston Heights. A locality plan of the lands subject is provided as Figure 1.

In September 2017 site studies for the eastern precinct were received from consultants PCB which address a proposed zone and subdivision outcome for the site. The submission requested Council to amend the Maitland LEP 2011 by rezoning RU2 Rural Landscape land to R1 Residential to enable residential lots to be developed on the site consistent with the draft subdivision plan (refer to figure 2). The existing E2 – Environmental Conservation zone will remain unchanged. The existing and proposed zone layout is detailed within Part 4 of this report (refer to Maps 1& 2)

Progression of the draft LEP will allow for the completion of the urban area for the Gillieston Heights urban release area. A review has been undertaken of the proponents rezoning submission and supporting preliminary site studies which address site characteristics and their

p1 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

suitability for urban development. In addition, a preliminary desktop review has also been conducted for the subject lands.

The preliminary review has identified there is no impediment to progress with the preparation of a draft local environmental plan. In accordance with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure Guidelines, additional detailed studies will be required following the issue of a Gateway determination and pre-exhibition.

Figure 2 - Conceptual Subdivision Layout

p2 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

p3 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

PART 1: OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES

The objectives of the proposal are;

1. Identify a new urban release area, Gillieston Heights South URA, to encompass the subject lands.

2. Enable residential development.

3. Protect and manage areas with environmental constraints.

4. Ensure that future residents have access to adequate local and regional infrastructure.

PART 2: EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS

The objectives of this planning proposal are intended to be achieved through amending the Maitland LEP 2011.

It is proposed to amend the Maitland LEP 2011 to provide for the development of the subject lands east of Cessnock Road for urban and environmental purposes. It is anticipated that subject lands east of Cessnock Road will incorporate R1 – General Residential, E2 – Environmental Conservation and E3 – Environmental Management zones. It is anticipated that the rezoning will involve changes to the following map series.

Land Zone Maps LZN 004B & 005 Minimum Lot Size Maps LSZ 004B & 005 Urban Release Area Maps URA 004B & 005

The proposed zoning map and minimum lot size map amendments are detailed in Part 4 of this planning proposal (refer to Maps 2 and 4). The proposed URA map is detailed in Part 4 of this planning proposal (refer to Maps 5).

As the site is to be identified as an Urban Release Area, it will be captured under the provisions of Part 6 of the Maitland LEP 2011. Subsequently, and consistent with other green field urban release areas, this ensures that satisfactory arrangements for the provision of designated state public infrastructure are met prior to the development of the subject site.

p4 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

PART 3: JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED REZONING

In accordance with the Department of Planning’s ‘Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals’, this section provides a response to the following issues:

SECTION A – NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

Yes. The subject lands are identified within a local endorsed strategy (MUSS 2012) suitable for consideration for urban purposes, consistent with the sequencing and release of land as identified in the endorsed MUSS 2012.

2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

It is considered that an amendment to the Maitland LEP 2011 through the Gateway process and preparation of this planning proposal is the most effective and timely method to achieve the vision and objectives of the Hunter Regional Plan (HRP) 2036, Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan (GNMP) 2036 and Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy (MUSS) 2012.

The current land zoning does not permit residential development or supporting community and public infrastructure for the development of a future urban area. The rezoning will be supported by an infrastructure funding strategy and development control plan to achieve the objectives outlined in this planning proposal.

3. Is there a net community benefit?

No net community benefit test has been undertaken as part of this proposal. However, Council envisages that this planning proposal will result in a net community benefit.

Specifically, the subject lands are considered as part of the adopted policy position for urban investigation sites identified within Council’s MUSS 2012.

p5 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

The public interest reasons for preparing this draft plan include:

The implications of not proceeding with the planning proposal include:

 The availability of urban land for population growth addressed in the HRP 2036 and GNMP 2036 will not be achieved;  The desired future outcomes of Council’s long-term strategic plans (MUSS 2012) for this area will not be achieved;  The potential for a higher order land use within the subject lands would be lost, as the land is not large enough to support sustainable agricultural practices;  The potential for improvements to the existing public infrastructure would be limited;  Opportunities to improve and enhance the linkages between established and developing residential areas of Gillieston Heights, Cliftleigh, and Hydro’s proposed Central Residential Precinct will be denied if the proposal is not supported.

SECTION B – RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy?

Hunter Regional Plan (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) 2036

The Hunter Regional Plan 2036 (HRP 2036) is a 20-year blueprint for the future of the Hunter. Its vision is to create a leading regional economy in Australia, with a vibrant metropolitan city at the heart. This vision will be delivered through four goals, as follows:

• a leading regional economy in Australia;

• a biodiversity–rich natural environment;

• thriving communities; and

• greater housing choice and jobs.

which are close to existing towns and villages. The planning proposal identifies approximately 43ha of land to contribute residential housing towards the implied demand of 12,550 dwellings by 2036.

The subject site is identified by the Hunter Regional Plan (HRP) 2036 as a growth area demarked for both residential and employment uses.

The proposal assists in meeting the objectives of the HRP as it proposes to provide additional housing opportunity located close to existing services and infrastructure and is proximate to local employment centres.

Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) 2036

The Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan 2036 (GNMP) sets out the strategies and actions that will drive sustainable growth across the five (5) Local Government Areas of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle City, Port Stephens and Maitland, which make up Greater Newcastle. The Plan aims to achieve the vision set out in the Hunter Regional Plan 2036 – for the Hunter to be the leading regional economy in Australia with a vibrant new metropolitan city at its heart.

The subject land is identified by the Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan (GNMP) as a housing release area, adjacent to the existing Gillieston Heights release area.

This proposal will assist in meeting the objectives of the GNMP. The proposal is consistent with the strategies and actions in the GNMP, as it will provide additional housing opportunities within an existing urban release area, and in proximity to existing jobs and services. p7 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

5. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?

Maitland +10 (Community Strategic Plan)

Maitland Urban Settlement Strategy (MUSS) 2012

The subject land is currently zoned RU2 - Rural Landscape in the Maitland LEP 2011 and is identified in the HRP 2036 as an area of investigation for urban purposes. The land occupies approximately 43.5ha and is identified in the MUSS 2012 for urban expansion consistent with the sequencing and release of urban land for the Gillieston Heights locality. The subject land forms part of the remaining developable land in the Gillieston Heights locality.

p8 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?

An assessment of the planning proposal against the relevant SEPPs is provided in the table below.

Table 1: Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.

RELEVANCE CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS

SEPP (RURAL LANDS) 2008 Inconsistent The aim of this policy is to facilitate the The planning proposal is inconsistent with the orderly and economic use and development Rural Lands SEPP (2008) as it proposes for of rural lands for rural and related purposes. RU2 Rural Landscape zoned land to be rezoned for urban purposes. Therefore, the proposal is not facilitating the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural related purposes. However, the inconsistency with the aims of the Rural Lands SEPP 2008 is considered justified as the subject land proposed for urban purposes is identified within an endorsed local strategy (MUSS 2012) and is therefore appropriate for urban development. SEPP (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007 Consistent

Provides a consistent planning regime for Nothing in this planning proposal affects the infrastructure and the provision of services aims and provisions of this SEPP. across NSW, along with providing for consultation with relevant public authorities during the assessment process. The SEPP supports greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities along with improved regulatory certainty and efficiency. SEPP NO. 55 - REMEDIATION OF LAND Consistent

Provides state-wide planning controls for the A Preliminary Contamination Investigation remediation of contaminated land. The policy has been conducted over the site. The states that land must not be developed if it is investigations identified six Areas of unsuitable for a proposed use because it is Environmental Concern (AEC) and relate to contaminated. If the land is unsuitable, former commercial poultry farm and remediation must take place before the land potential burial pits; weathering of hazardous is developed. materials in former and current buildings; septic tanks and associated soak-aways and trenches; storage of waste materials and farm materials; fill of unknown quality and origin; and potential storage of mine material. Further contamination investigations will need to occur for sites identified as having potential contamination. This may result in p9 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

RELEVANCE CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS the need for a phase 2 contamination report and a subsequent remediation action plan (RAP). SEPP – (KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION) 2019 Consistent

This Policy aims to encourage the proper That area supporting trees on site is conservation and management of areas of proposed to be zoned E3 – Environmental natural vegetation that provide habitat for Management. The remainder of the subject Koalas to ensure a permanent free-living lands do not support vegetation suitable for population over their present range and Koala habitat. reverse the current trend of Koala population decline.

7. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions for Local Plan making?

Table 2: s9.1 Directions.

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS

1. EMPLOYMENT AND RESOURCES 1.2 Rural Zones Inconsistent The objective of this direction is to protect the The planning proposal is inconsistent with the agricultural production value of rural land. objectives of this direction as it proposes for RU2 Rural Landscape zoned land to be rezoned for urban purposes. However, the inconsistency is considered justified as the subject land proposed for urban purposes is identified within a local (MUSS) and regional (GNMP) growth strategy and is therefore considered appropriate for investigation for urban development. 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Not Applicable Extractive Industries 1.4 Oyster Aquaculture Not Applicable

1.5 Rural Lands Inconsistent The objectives of this direction are to protect The planning proposal is inconsistent with the the agricultural production value of rural land objectives of this direction as it proposes for and to facilitate the orderly and economic RU2 Rural Landscape zoned land to be development of rural lands for rural and rezoned for urban purposes. However, the related purposes. inconsistency is considered justified as the subject land proposed for urban purposes is identified within a local (MUSS) and regional p10 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS (GNMP) growth strategy and is therefore considered appropriate for investigation for urban development.

2.3 Heritage Conservation Consistent The objective of this direction is to conserve An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence items, areas, objects and places of Assessment has been undertaken for the environmental heritage significance and subject lands. A search of the AHIMS indigenous heritage significance. identified no aboriginal objects or places are within the project area.

Comments from Heritage NSW identify that a Due Diligence Report is not sufficient to assess the impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage of Planning Proposals and is not consistent with Ministerial Directions under 9.1 of the EP&A Act 1979. Heritage NSW request that an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report be prepared for the subject lands in consultation with relevant Aboriginal parties, in accordance with:  Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NW (DECCW,2011)  Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010 (DECCW,2010)  Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (OEH,2010)

An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report is to be prepared prior to exhibition of the PP. 2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas Not Applicable p11 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS

2.5 Application of E2 & E3 Zones and Not applicable Environmental Overlays in Far North coast LEPs

3. HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Residential Zones Consistent Encourage a variety and choice of housing, The planning proposal is applicable to this minimise the impact of residential direction as it is proposing an amendment to development on the environmental and the Maitland LEP 2011 for rezoning of lands resource lands and make efficient use of for urban purposes. infrastructure and services. The proposed rezoning will result in a change of land use to enable future residential development of the site. The land proposed for urban purposes is identified as Category 1 Residential in the MUSS 2012.

The proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of this direction. 3.2 Caravan Parks & Manufactured Home Not Applicable Estates 3.3 Home Occupations Consistent To encourage the carrying out of low-impact The planning proposal is applicable to this small businesses in dwelling houses. direction as it is proposing an amendment to the Maitland LEP 2011 for rezoning of lands for urban purposes.

The proposed rezoning will result in a change of land use to enable future residential development of the site. The land proposed for urban purposes is identified as Category 1 Residential in the MUSS 2012. Therefore, the planning proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of this direction. 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport Consistent The objectives relate to the location of urban The planning proposal proposes to establish land and its proximity to public transport an urban environment with local and regional infrastructure and road networks, and connectivity through design and location of improving access to housing, employment road networks including provision for public and services by methods other than private transport services. The planning proposal is vehicles. considered consistent with the objectives of this direction. 3.5 Development Near Licensed Not Applicable Aerodromes

p12 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS

3.6 Shooting ranges Not Applicable

4. HAZARD and RISK 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils Consistent The objective of this direction is to avoid The Maitland LEP 2011 indicates a potential significant adverse environmental impacts Class 1, 2, and 5 Acid Sulphate Soils risk from the use of land that has a probability of affecting the subject land. It is not proposed containing acid sulfate soils. to rezone land for urban purposes which contain Classes 1 and 2 Acid Sulfate Soils. These classes have been identified on flood affect land and adjoining slopes.

The proposal is consistent with this direction. 4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land Consistent The objective of this direction is to prevent The subject land is not identified within a damage to life, property and the environment Mines Subsidence District. The subject land on land identified as unstable or potentially does not support known shallow mine subject to mine subsidence. workings in the area. 4.3 Flood Prone Land Consistent The objectives of this direction are: A small area of land in the east and south (a) to ensure that development of flood portion of the subject land is affected by prone land is consistent with the NSW inundation during a 1:100 ARI flood event. It Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy is not proposed to zone flood affected land and the principles of the Floodplain for urban purposes. Development Manual 2005, and (b) (b) to ensure that the provisions of an Development of the proposed urban area in LEP on flood prone land is conjunction with the development of Hydro’s commensurate with flood hazard and Central Residential Precinct, to the west of includes consideration of the potential Cessnock Rd, will facilitate access for flood impacts both on and off the Gillieston Heights that is above the 1:100 ARI subject land. flood event.

The planning proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of this direction. 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection Consistent The objectives of this direction are: This direction applies as part of the subject (a) to protect life, property and the site is identified as bushfire prone. No environment from bush fire hazards, bushfire threat assessment has been carried by discouraging the establishment of out for the subject lands. A desktop review of incompatible land uses in bush fire Council’s Bushfire Map identifies a small prone areas, and portion of the subject land to the east as (b) to encourage sound management of being bushfire prone. It is not proposed to bush fire prone areas. zone this portion of land for urban purposes. p13 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS It is considered the site is suitable for urban development and that measures to mitigate bushfire threat can be achieved and addressed through the development assessment process, where approval from the RFS will be required. 5. REGIONAL PLANNING

5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies Not applicable

5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Not Applicable 5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Not Applicable Significance on the NSW Far North Coast 5.4 Commercial and Retail Development Not Applicable along the Pacific Highway, North Coast 5.8 Second Sydney Airport: Badgery’s Creek Not Applicable

5.9 North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy Not Applicable Consistent 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans The objective of this direction is to give legal The proposal is consistent with the HRP 2036 effect to the vision, land use strategy, goals, and GNMP 2036 and implements key goals directions and actions contained in Regional and directions of these strategies. Plans. 5.11 Development of Aboriginal Land Not Applicable Council Land

6. LOCAL PLAN MAKING

6.1 Approval and Referral Consistent The direction aims to ensure that LEP The planning proposal does not affect the provisions encourage the efficient and objectives of this direction and will be appropriate assessment of development. consistent with this requirement. 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes The direction aims to facilitate (i) the provision The proposal is considered consistent with of public services and facilities by reserving this direction. land for public purposes; and (ii) removal of reservations of land for public purposes where land is no longer required for acquisition. 6.3 Site Specific Provisions The objective of this direction is to discourage The proposal is considered consistent with unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning this direction. controls. 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING p14 |Planning Proposal – Gillieston Heights South - Eastern Precinct Maitland City Council

S9.1 DIRECTIONS CONSISTENCY AND IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Not Applicable Plan for Sydney 2036 7.3 Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Not Applicable Transformation Strategy 7.4 Implementation of North West Priority Not Applicable Growth Area Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan