616
5 March 2014
David Butler 99 Seventh Avenue Katoomba NSW 2780
Ph. 02 4782 5489 [email protected]
General Manager ) Blue Mountains City Council Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba, NSW 2780 [email protected]
F08616 'Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013'
Dear Sir
I live in North Katoomba adjacent to the Minnehaha Falls reserve. I have lived here for the last twenty four years and was actively involved in the rehabilitation of degraded bushland in this area over many years as a founding member of the Minnehaha Falls Landcare and Bushcare goups. This has been remarkably successful and the natural environment in the Minnehaha Falls area is in significantly better condition than it was when we moved here twenty four years ago. I also spent a lot of time making submissions to LEP's 2001 and 2005 which were developed over many years with overwhelming community input and support. I have a strong affinity with the Blue mountains in general and a particularly strong attachment to the locality in which I live. The streams in the SubmissionNorth Katoomba/North Leura area are of special significance 321due to their ability to flow consistently during the most severe drought periods. The perennial nature of these streams, especially Yosemite and Govetts Creeks is entirely due to substantial swamps in the headwaters of these streams. I believe that Blue Mountains Swamps should receive maximum protection in the proposed LEP 2013.
The Blue Mountains environment has been recognised internationally through declaration of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Conserving our environment is vital to ensuring the ongoing viability of our visitation and tourism economy. I believe that the Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Government must ensure that we have a strong and legally defensible Local Environmental Plan (LEP) which protects the environment while facilitating ecologically sustainable development.
I therefore strongly support the Blue Mountains Draft LEP 2013 (BM LEP 2013) currently on public exhibition. I believe the plan will protect the Blue Mountains environment because of the numerous localised provisions included in the draft LEP which were specifically developed for the Blue Mountains. The local provisions in draft BM LEP 2013 also reflect current LEP provisions.
The following comments address any concerns I have regarding the efficacy of the proposed MB LEP 2013. I urge you to consider these issues and include them in LEP 2013.
I support the Aims of the Plan but believe that the the Aims should be amended to include the definition, principles and practices of Ecologically Sustainable Development as currently outlined in the Blue Mountains LEP 2005. The Aims should also be prioritised as follows: 1. Aim (b) To provide a clear framework for the development of land that is consistent with and promotes the principles and practices of ecologically sustainable development; 2. Aim (d) To conserve and enhance, for current and future generations, the ecological integrity, environmental heritage and environmental significance of the Blue Mountains; 3. Aim (f) To preserve and enhance watercourses, riparian habitats, wetlands and water quality within the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury−Nepean River catchment and Sydney's drinking water catchments. I support Clauses 1.2A and 2.3A which includes the legally defensible requirement that new development 'complies with' the Aims and zone objectives within the plan. I support the proposed land use zones and objectives in the draft LEP, as well as what new developments are allowed or prohibited in each of the zones. I support the inclusion of the new zone R6 Residential Character Conservation as the appropriate replacement for the LEP 2005 Living Conservation zone, especially for the large lot leafy residential areas of our villages. However, the zone objectives should be amended to include protection of nearby bushland areas from the impact of invasive species. I believe Clause 3.3 should include additional areas that should be excluded from the state−wide exempt and complying development code. These additional areas should include 'environmentally constrained lands' as defined in the Dictionary to the draft LEP. I believe that a 40 ha minimum lot size should be applied to all land E2 zoned areas on private property to prevent unsuitable and unsustainable subdivision proposals on these highly environmentally sensitive areas. I believe the draft LEP should be amended to place the largest minimum lot size possible on all crown lands and reserves. I support Clauses 4.1D 'Subdivision in the recreation zones for a public purpose' and 4.1E 'Subdivision of land in Environmental Protection zones'. These clauses retain current limits to subdivision on environmentally sensitive land. I support Clauses 4.1F 'Cluster Housing within certain environmental protection zones' and 4.1G 'Lot consolidation within certain environmental protection zones'. These clauses retain current provisions limiting the impact of housing development in environmentally sensitive areas. I support Clauses 4.3A 'Flexibility in the height of buildings' and 4.4A 'Site coverage'. These clauses help ensure that new development in the Blue Mountains does not result in hard surfaces such as concrete over entire sites or take development above the tree line in visually sensitive areas. I support sub−Clauses (8)(d), (8)(e), (8)(f) to Clause 4.6 'Exceptions to development standards'. These subclausesSubmissionstop development standards (e.g. building height and setback)321being varied in E3 and E4 land use zones, and control the development of major supermarkets and drive−through fast food outlets in the Blue Mountains. I support Clause 5.9 'Preservation of trees or vegetation' and subclause (9) under it because it prevents the clearing of trees and native vegetation in environmental zones that would otherwise be permitted through exemptions for rural activities under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. I would seek that the mapping of Protected Areas be applied to all land covered by the draft plan, including lands zoned for environmental protection (E2). I strongly support the inclusion of ALL of the Part 6 Local Provisions clauses and the supporting mapping, which have been specifically designed to protect and conserve our unique environment. I would like to see the following amendments made: o Clause 6.1 (2) be amended to read "Consent shall not be granted to development proposed on any land adjacent to, or nearby, the Blue Mountains National Park, unless the consent authority ..." and that Clause 6.1 (5) be amended to add "(f) the Blue Mountains National Park". o The existing Blue Mountains Swamps mapping be overlaid onto the Groundwater Vulnerability map, and these swamp areas be designated high groundwater vulnerability. o Clause 6.33 be amended to specifically prohibit hoofed animals, regardless of stocking rates, from all E2 zoned land and environmentally sensitive areas (mapped or defined as Protected Areas). I strongly support that Schedule 6 Significant Vegetation Communities be included in the new LEP. I support the inclusion of 'environmentally constrained land', 'notional development area', 'rare species of flora' and 'Scenic and Landscape Values Map' in the DLEP 2013 Dictionary, and for the addition of a definition of 'invasive species' with a reference to Schedule F2 "Weeds List" in the Better Living Development Control Plan. I recognise considerable effort has been made by Council to translate all the existing land use zones and special environmental provisions into the draft BM LEP 2013. I understand that after the public exhibition period, Council staff will review all submissions before preparing a report and a finalised plan for approval by Councillors. The plan will then go to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for review and then to the Minister for Planning for final adoption. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure can make major changes to the plan, with no guarantee of further public exhibition, and the final plan adopted by the Planning Minister could look very different to the draft plan. I am very concerned that there is a risk at any stage after the public exhibition that the draft BM LEP 2013 could be watered down and changed. I ask that if major changes are made to the draft Plan post exhibition, that the draft LEP is re−exhibited.
Yours sincerely
David Butler '−7
Submission 321
TO: General Manager Blue Mountains City Council Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba, NSW 2780 [email protected] 03/03/2014
Re - ‘Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013’
Dear Sir / Madam
I live in Woodford in the Blue Mountains. One of the main reasons I moved to the Blue Mountains was because of the unique environment, including the beautiful bushland and the native flora and fauna. Woodford is especially important to me because it lends itself to enable local residents to have a reasonable distance commute to Sydney, whilst residing within a natural environment and a small built locality.
The Blue Mountains environment has been recognised internationally through declaration of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Conserving our environment is vital to ensuring the ongoing viability of our visitation and tourism economy. I believe that the Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Government must ensure that we have a strong and legally defensible Local Environmental Plan (LEP) which protects the environment while facilitating ecologically sustainable development.
I therefore broadly support the Blue Mountains Draft LEP 2013 (BM LEP 2013) currently on public exhibition. I would anticipate the plan will protect the Blue Mountains environment because of the numerous localised provisions included in the draft LEP which were specifically developed for the Blue Mountains.
I have the following general comments on the draft BM LEP 2013. • I support the Aims of the Plan but believe that the the Aims should be amended to include the definition, principles and practices of Ecologically Sustainable Development as currently outlined in the Blue Mountains LEP 2005. The Aims should also be prioritised as follows: 1. Aim (b) To provide a clear framework for the development of land that is consistent with and promotes the principles and practices of ecologically sustainable development; 2. Aim (d) To conserve and enhance, for current and future generations, the ecological integrity, environmental heritage and environmental significance of the Blue Mountains; 3. Aim (f) To preserveSubmission and enhance watercourses, riparian habitats, wetlands 322 and water quality within the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment and Sydney’s drinking water catchments. • I support Clauses 1.2A and 2.3A which includes the legally defensible requirement that new development ‘complies with’ the Aims and zone objectives within the plan. • I broadly support the proposed land use zones and objectives in the draft LEP, as well as what new developments are allowed or prohibited in each of the zones. • I support the inclusion of the new zone R6 Residential Character Conservation as the appropriate replacement for the LEP 2005 Living Conservation zone, especially for the large lot leafy residential areas of our villages. However, the zone objectives should be amended to include protection of nearby bushland areas from the impact of invasive species. • I believe Clause 3.3 should include additional areas that should be excluded from the state-wide exempt and complying development code. These additional areas should include ‘environmentally constrained lands’ as defined in the Dictionary to the draft LEP. • I believe that a 40 ha minimum lot size should be applied to all land E2 zoned areas on private property to prevent unsuitable and unsustainable subdivision proposals on these highly environmentally sensitive areas. • I believe the draft LEP should be amended to place the largest minimum lot size possible on all crown lands and reserves. • I am uncomfortable with Clauses 4.1D ‘Subdivision in the recreation zones for a public purpose’ and 4.1E ‘Subdivision of land in Environmental Protection zones’. These clauses retain current limits to subdivision on environmentally sensitive land. • I am uncomfortable with Clauses 4.1F ‘Cluster Housing within certain environmental protection zones’ and 4.1G ‘Lot consolidation within certain environmental protection zones’. These clauses retain current provisions limiting the impact of housing development in environmentally sensitive areas. • I support Clauses 4.3A ‘Flexibility in the height of buildings’ and 4.4A ‘Site coverage’. These clauses help ensure that new development in the Blue Mountains does not result in hard surfaces such as concrete over entire sites or take development above the tree line in visually sensitive areas.
1
• I support sub-Clauses (8)(d), (8)(e), (8)(f) to Clause 4.6 ‘Exceptions to development standards’. These subclauses stop development standards (e.g. building height and setback) being varied in E3 and E4 land use zones, and control the development of major supermarkets and drive-through fast food outlets in the Blue Mountains. • I support Clause 5.9 ‘Preservation of trees or vegetation’ and subclause (9) under it because it prevents the clearing of trees and native vegetation in environmental zones that would otherwise be permitted through exemptions for rural activities under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. • I would seek that the mapping of Protected Areas be applied to all land covered by the draft plan, including lands zoned for environmental protection (E2). • I strongly support the inclusion of ALL of the Part 6 Local Provisions clauses and the supporting mapping, which have been specifically designed to protect and conserve our unique environment. I would like to see the following amendments made: o Clause 6.1 (2) be amended to read “Consent shall not be granted to development proposed on any land adjacent to, or nearby, the Blue Mountains National Park, unless the consent authority …” and that Clause 6.1 (5) be amended to add “(f) the Blue Mountains National Park”. o The existing Blue Mountains Swamps mapping be overlaid onto the Groundwater Vulnerability map, and these swamp areas be designated high groundwater vulnerability. o Clause 6.33 be amended to specifically prohibit hoofed animals, regardless of stocking rates, from all E2 zoned land and environmentally sensitive areas (mapped or defined as Protected Areas). • I strongly support that Schedule 6 Significant Vegetation Communities be included in the new LEP. • I support the inclusion of ‘environmentally constrained land’, ‘notional development area’, ‘rare species of flora’ and ‘Scenic and Landscape Values Map’ in the DLEP 2013 Dictionary, and for the addition of a definition of ‘invasive species’ with a reference to Schedule F2 “Weeds List” in the Better Living Development Control Plan. • I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that roads and car parks are permitted with consent on E2 zones. And would expect that Council Planners have the LEP tools to be able to constrain such developments, to consequently restrict unabated further excessive development into adjacent E4 (etc) zonings.
I recognise considerable effort has been made by Council to translate all the existing land use zones and special environmental provisions into the draft BM LEP 2013. I understand that after the public exhibition period, Council staff will review all submissions before preparing a report and a finalised plan for approval by Councillors. The plan will then go to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for review and then to the Minister for Planning for final adoption. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure can make major changes to the plan, with no guarantee of further public exhibition, and the final plan adopted by the Planning Minister could look very different to the draft plan. I am very concerned that there is a risk at any stage after the public exhibition that the draft BM LEP 2013 could be watered down and changed. I ask that if major changes are made to the draft Plan poSubmissionst exhibition, that the draft LEP is re-exhibited. 322
Finally I have some specific local area concerns related to Woodford where I reside (refer Addendum III, IV & V) as follows:-
1. A large percentage of the area shown in the following Woodford map is to be zoned E4 (Env. Living) under the proposed DLEP 2013.. It seems incongruous that areas now zoned Living - Bushland Conservation (LEP 2005) have been homogenised together with areas currently zoned RES/BC (LEP 1991) (with much remaining bush canopy). This broad- brush approach seems only likely to have a significant deleterious effect on the remaining bush land areas. With precedents having already been set within the older style LBC lots (many pre-date WW2), it seems likely that bush land eradication can be expected to (at least) the same degree as within the old LEP 1991 areas. [refer DELP2013_LZN- LandZoning.pdf (a BMCC document page 37 that covers this area of Woodford)]. 2. Having already experienced almost 20 years of RES/BC (8/ha) local outcomes. I now have less confidence that DLEP 2013 will afford any more protection to the remaining E4 bush land areas in our vicinity (previously indicated). A prior sub-division (1995) has already eliminated at least 50% (my estimate) of native tree canopy and under-storey in these areas. Additionally this has led to an expansion in predation by domestic pets and exotic plant and weed invasion. 3. Some local slope constraints from the prior LEP 1991 do not seem to have mapped all Protected Area - Slope Constraint Area (s) accurately in the immediate vicinity. 4. A recent development in Appian Way, the southern entrance to Woodford is quite large and dominating, and seems to represent a ‘Glenmore Park’ scale of building which could change Woodford if allowed to promulgate widely throughout the neighborhood.
Yours sincerely,
2
Addendum:
I. I have read and agree with Council’s Privacy Statement but with the conditions that my personal information cannot be used publically without my consent. Specifically- as per - OAIC 10.1(a). As some ambiguity can be applied to whole OAIC document ‘Information Privacy Principles’. II. Please note that I dropped into BMCC Katoomba office and attended Lawson Library to meet with planners whilst preparing my submission. III. Woodford Mapping - approximate area commented on
IV. Typical Woodford Living Bushland Conservation area photos – note many weeds, exotics, 1 dead eucalypt (large native trees in area are rarities) Submission 322
V. Current RES/BC(8/ha) areas as yet undeveloped – native bushland, much flora (few weed outbreaks), some fauna (domestic pet threatened)
3
Page 1 of 3
General Manager,
Blue Mountains City Council,
Katoomba, NSW 2780
28-2-2014
Submission for Blue Mountains Draft Local Environment Plan 2013 (F08616)
Fitzgeralds Creek Catchment Map References: - 005G & 6D/DA (East Warrimoo) and 005E & 5EA (West Springwood)
I am a member of Long Angle Landcare, Cross Street Bushcare and the Fizgeralds Catchment Group and have lived in the Blue Mountains for most of my 56 years. I am a Bushland Regenerator and have worked in the Blue Mountains Bushland for the past 15 years.
I strongly support anySubmission changes to planning policies that protect the local323 environment from harm and in particular, preserve the ecology of the Fitzgeralds Creek Catchment.
The DLEP includes many provisions that are crucial to maintaining and protecting the local environmental. I support the Draft provided the ‘local’ provisions are retained in the final LEP. These provisions are highlighted in red and green in the draft document.
113 -121 Long Angle Road Yellow Rock
My Family own and have lived on this property since the late seventies, when we purchase and developed this land it was then zoned rural.
In 1991 with changes to the LEP the zoning of our property/home was changed to a split zoning, which consisted of part BC part EP but the zoning mapped on our property did not match the then current land use. The developed area (House, sheds, Animal yards etc.) being mapped EP and an undisturbed area mapped BC, which was landlocked to the north and otherwise inaccessible due to topography. We did raise this issue at the time and again in the 2005 LEP
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 2 of 3
I propose the zoning of our property be re-evaluated and bought into line with the existing land use. E4 Environmental Living around the existing developed area and E2 Environmental Conservation for the rest of the block
Environmental Protection
I support the inclusion of a schedule of Significant Vegetation Communities in the new LEP as in previous LEPs
I support the continuing strong provisions in the draft LEP Protecting the World Heritage National Parks from impacts of urban development, such as stormwater quality and discharge
I would like to see the definition, principles, practices and ecologically sustainable development, as outlined in the LEP 2005, included in the new plan
I also support the Blue Mountains Conservation Society recommended amendments to the draft Plan
If major changes are Submissionmade to the draft Plan post exhibition I request that 323 the draft LEP be re-exhibited and a public hearing held
Karleen Waldron
Residential Address
113-121 Long Angle road
Yellow Rock
Postal Address
36 Long Angle Gully
Via Rickard road
Warrimoo 2774
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 3 of 3
Phone
0247536636
Mobile
0428512305
Submission 323
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 General Manager BMCC.
Submission relating to Lot 100 DP 838046 41-47 Mount Hay Road Leura NSW 2780
I feel there is a case for a change in the minimum lot size and dwelling capability in relation to part of this property. I purchased this property in 1988 and during the past 26 years have developed an intimate knowledge of this property and it's environs, of the topography and vegetation. The property of 42,013.68 square metres stretches from a relatively flat area (of 0 - 20% and 20 - 30% slope) along the Mount Hay Rd frontage down to the east to another flat area, down again to Wentworth Creek, then up the eastern bank of the creek to another relatively flat area of 0 - 20% slope to the Myall Ave frontage of the property. When I bought the property there was an existing fire trail from Mount Hay Road down to a grassy knoll (which became my house site) and beyond. As part of my DA this fire trail was upgraded and concreted to provide access for the RFS to the property. This access was much appreciated by the RFS during the 2002 fire in helping reduce the impact of a fire threatening neighbouring properties and Leura Primary School. There were occasional instances of rubbish dumping along the Mount Hay Rd frontage but this has come to an end with the construction of a fence. There has been more of an issue of rubbish dumping at the Myall Ave end of the property. The erection of a fence along this Myall Ave frontage has largely stopped dumping of building and household rubbish. The GWH and adjoining properties along Myall Ave drain into the property and hence into Wentworth Creek, bringing rubbish and weeds. I have worked with the Council to keep weeds along the creek under control and facilitated the construction by CouncilSubmission on the property of a storm water drain and basin324 to address storm water issues on Myall Ave. Sydney Water has since laid a sewer main along the Mount Hay Rd frontage and for some time used the Myall Ave end of the property to drill a sewer main through to the main under the highway. This drilling site required a considerable area cleared and fenced. A large house site in this area has long seemed logical. There is a considerable flat area (2 - 3 times the area of adjoining properties) with a gate to Myall Ave 100+ metres from Wentworth Creek. The property has water, sewerage and all services to both Mount Hay Rd and Myall Ave frontages. There is a considerable area of this previous Sydney Water work site at the Myall Ave end of the property that could provide a house site without impacting on existing sewer and storm water facilities. I feel that upon assessing the existing and draft LEP, the current and proposed zonings of adjoining properties, the relatively flat areas along Mount Hay Rd and the former Sydney Water site at the Myall Ave frontage, there is a case for a change in the minimum lot size from the 10 hectares shown in the DLEP, and an environmental zoning that would permit the development of a dwelling on a large block. This could be done by zoning a section to E4, same as along the Mount Hay Road frontage. Using the information from the supporting documentation for the DLEP and current photographs I have prepared the following to support my case.
Aerial view of site in context Submission 324
Detailed Aerial view of existing house area
Detailed aerial view of eastern end of property showing suitable house area General
Information: Subject Parcel Address : 41-47 Mount Hay Road
LEURA NSW 2780
Subject Lot/Sec/DP : L 100 DP 838046
Approx Area m2 : 42013.68
Parcel Count 1 of : 1 Property Key : 210690
Submission 324 LEP Zoning Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
LepZone LEP RBCNS RES-BC (No Subdivision) 41.81 17564.65 1991
LepZone LEP EP Environmental Protection 58.19 24448.07 1991
LEP Protected Areas Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
LepArea ECA PA - Environmental Constraint 31.94 13420.25
LepArea LBT PA - Land Between Towns 92.95 39052.26
Environmental Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
Emp2002EBAsv EBASV Ecological Buffer Area - 36.83 15473.42 Significant Vegetation
Emp2002VegSch 54 2M Eucalyptus radiata ssp. 10.78 4528.98 radiata û E. piperita Open Forest
Emp2002VegSch 11 5A Blue Mountains Heath and 0.13 55.26 Scrub
Emp2002VegSch 8 5B Blue Mountains Swamps 40.96 17207.63
DLEP 2013 Zoning Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
Zoning E2 Environmental Conservation 58.19 24448.36
Zoning E4 Environmental Living 41.81 17565.33
DLEP 2013 Develop Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
Height Buildings I Height Building 8m 100 42013.68
Lot Size AB1 Lot Size 10 ha 100 42013.68
DLEP 2013 Environment Info:
Info table Code Description % of Lot Approx Area m2
Groundwater M Vulnerability - Moderate 100 42013.68
Biodiversity VCA Protected Area - Vegetation 32.93 13835.16 Constraint Area
Biodiversity EBA Protected Area - Ecological 24.29 10204.39 Buffer Area
Land SCA Protected Area - Slope 38.97 16372.08 Constraint Area
Scenic Values LBT Protected Area - Land Between 34.76 14603.99 Towns
Riparian Water WRC Protected Area - Watercourse 0 0
While these figures show a major part of the property has significant constraints, there have been significant changesSubmission since the initial information capture for these figures 324 which is best described in conjunction with the relevant mapping. Current LEP Zoning Information: • RBCNS RES-BC, (No Subdivision): 41.81% • EP, Environmental Protection: 58.19% • ECA, PA - Environmental Constraint: 31.94% • LBT, PA - Land Between Towns: 92.95%
Figure 1: Zoning map SubmissionLEP 20051 324
Figure 2: Protected areas map LEP 20052
1http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 Comment: The zoning map shows the land near the road being the pink section to the west as potentially developable land, zoned as RES-BC Residential Bushland Conservation. This zoning ensures development is compliant with the natural character and environmental features of the land including vegetation and watercourses and water management. The narrow diagonal lines over the RES-BC zone represent the ECA Environmental Constraint zone. The larger eastern part for the block shown in yellow is zoned EP Environmental Protection. Both of these zones are very similar in that they both concerned with protection of the environment, scenic value and restricting development on land that is inappropriate by reason of physical characteristics or high bushfire hazard. The spaced diagonal lines represent LBT Land Between Towns zone which takes up most of the lot. This zone focuses on conservation, minimising the visibility of development as well as the removal of vegetation. From the recent aerial photo a large section of the land has been cleared. It also appears to be regenerating mainly with introduced weeds such as coreopsis.
Cleared area Submission 324
Coreopsis groundcover
2http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 Environmental Information from the 2002 study • EBASV, Ecological Buffer Area - Significant Vegetation: 36.83% • 54, 2M Eucalyptus radiata ssp. radiata - E. piperita Open Forest: 10.78% • 11, 5A Blue Mountains Heath and Scrub: 0.13% • 8, 5B Blue Mountains Swamps: 40.96%
Submission 324
Environmental map LEP 20053
Comment: The land near the Mount Hay Rd street frontage is developable but the balance of the land is not, this is reflected in the maps. The land has different types of vegetation. The land to the east it is covered by a combination of EBASV Buffer to Significant Vegetation and 5A Blue Mountains Heath and Scrub. A smaller section in the lot in the south east is shown as 2M Eucalyptus radiata ssp. radiata - E. piperita Open Forest. This map shows some areas are less affected than others by the constraints of vegetation. This is less of an issue to the similar surrounding land. This calls into question the land at the end of Myall Avenue as the land is far more conducive to residential development due to the current environmental characteristics different to the mapping with the DLEP. The current state of the land is not reflected in the maps however as they are over a decade old. The aerial photo and those below shows the eastern end has been significantly disturbed by Sydney Water at their former drilling site, which supplied the much needed sewerage infrastructure for the area.
3http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525
View across lot from the south showing mixed regrowth
Submission 324
View to Myall Avenue
Regrowth Submission 324
Storm water basin to the left of photo and regrowth The stormwater basin could remain and possibly be upgraded in a condition of subdivision.
Boundary trees with current removal of understorey for fire protection Submission 324
Rubbish dumped on the land from Myall avenue possibly causing fire and vernin problems
The dumping and vermin issues would be substantially resolved by having a dwelling on the block. Proposed DLEP zoning • E2 Environmental Conservation: 58.19% • E4 Environmental Living: 41.81%
Figure 3: Zoning map DLEP 20134 Comment: The land is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living on the western side and E2 Environmental Conservation to the east. The western end has a gentle slope and access from the public road. The E4 EnvironmentalSubmission Living zone acts as an additional buffer to the 324creek roughly in the centre of the lot as the zone objectives require resolution of environmental issues with any development.
4http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 Development Information • I, Height Building 8m: 100% • AB1, Lot Size 10 ha: 100%
Figure 4: Buildings Height map DLEP 20135 Comment: This Height of Buildings shows the land to be I Height Building 8m, this indicates that a new dwelling would easily accommodated by my suggested zoning. Submission 324
Figure 5: Development lot size map DLEP 20136 Comment: The map shows the site is zoned AB1, Lot Size 10 ha. It seems incongruous that the surrounding lots allowed to the north are 1 ha even though they have the same or much greater constraints, and the lots to the south are required to be 1200m2. I feel this mapping should be rationalised rather than having such diverse requirements over virtually the same land.
5http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 6http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525
Figure 6: Groundwater map DLEP 20137
Submission 324
Figure 7: Environment biodiversity DLEP 20138 In terms of groundwater there is no difference across the whole area. I am unclear over the buffer areas, apparently to the creek but do not extend into my property. However even if they did they would still be covered by the requirements of DLEP2013 on “environmentally constrained land”, which ensures Council can control any development in that type of location to ensure a satisfactory environmental outcome.
7http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 8http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525
Figure 8: Environment land map DLEP 20139 Submission 324
Figure 9: Environment riparian water map DLEP 201310
9http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%2520 Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525
Environment scenic values DLEP 201311 This mapping has been refined from the rather blanket approach shown in the earlier mapping and shows that the land at the end of Myall avenue is not as high scenic or environmental value as earlier considered under LEP 2005. Proposed LEP based on 2002 study Submission 324
Slope map (DLEP based on 2002 study)12
10http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%252 0Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 11http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%252 0Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525 The slope map shows no significant slope constraint to that end of the property. This is also seen in the photographs.
Submission 324
12http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=65562&search=address%252C%252541%252D47%2520Mount%252 0Hay%2525%252CLEURA%2525
Bushfire map current When the property is examined in detail, there appears to be a far larger cleared area on the site than would seem from the bushfire mapping. This would provide greater opportunity for a dwelling to be constructed. A major advantageSubmission to the use of the land for a dwelling is that the land324 can be maintained as a suitable firebreak to the houses of Myall Avenue. Under the current ownership the land is likely to regenerate, but likely with weed growth and a potential fire problem. On a larger lot than those in Myall Avenue, it would be simple to design access through for fire trucks in case of bushfire.
Summary There could even be a case mounted for the zoning of Myall Avenue continued northward and allowing for dwellings on 1200m2 lots as my land in that area has almost the same characteristics as the existing lots. Personally I would prefer that the 1 hectare lot size on the northern land could be provided to the eastern end of the property. This would need the zoning maps amended in a minor manner as shown I expect. Please understand that is not a scaled drawing and is meant to show a lot on the eastern side of the creek at least a hectare in size to comply with the subdivision requirements.
Submission 324
I would be more than happy to discuss this proposal with Council officers to clarify any concerns. Regards, DW Forbes. Page 1 of 5
Submission for Blue Mountains Draft Local Environment Plan 2014 (F08616)
The Long Angle Gully Landcare Group regularly under takes work to protect the ecology of Sun Valley, Fitzgeralds, Long Angle and Cripple Creeks. We are well aware of the importance of having appropriate land use controls to minimise threats to these sites and the catchment they drain into. We therefore strongly support changes to planning policies that protect the local environment from harm.
The DLEP includes many provisions that are crucial to maintaining and protecting the local environmental. We support the Draft provided the ‘settled/model’ and ‘local’ provisions are retained in the final LEP. These provisions are highlighted in red and green in the draft document.
General Comments
The language in Clause 1.2A and 2.3A of the template does not clearly state the standard that any development must satisfy. Wording that is imprecise is difficult to interpret and enforce as it does not clearly state the standard that must be satisfied.
We recommend that the wording be changed to require that any development must comply with the aims of the plan and with the zone objectives. Submission 325 In view of the highly sensitive nature of the Blue Mountains environment, all sensitive areas including the ‘environmentally constrained lands’ (as defined in the Dictionary) should be excluded from exempt or complying development under Clause 3.3.
The R6 Residential Character Conservation Zone includes provisions to continue current controls on large lot garden character residential sites. These controls aim at prohibiting inappropriate development to maintain the streetscape. They also limit the potential to subdivide these large lots and encourage the retention of vegetation coverage of residential sites. Typically, soil erosion of sites and sedimentation of waterways results from the disturbance and removal of vegetation during construction works and some uses of sites. Appropriate land use controls are therefore needed to encourage the existing conditions on sites and to minimise disturbance to the soil. We therefore support the zoning provided the risk of invasive plant species entering nearby bushland is minimised.
Environmental Protection
We strongly support the following provisions of the draft:
Clauses 4.1D 'Subdivision in the recreation zones for public purpose' and 4.1E 'Subdivision of land in Environmental Protection zones' as these clauses retain current
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 2 of 5
limits to subdivision on environmentally sensitive land. Council's added subclauses (8)(d), (8)(e), (8)(f) to Clause 4.6 'Exceptions to development standards' as these subclauses prevent development standards (e.g. building height and setback) being varied in E3 and E4 land use zones and control the development of major developments. All of the Part 6 Local Provisions such as, Clause 6.7 'Protected Area - Riparian land and watercourses' as this clause provides a similar level of protection to watercourses and their buffers as that provided by the current LEPs.
Exempt and Complying Development
In view of the highly sensitive nature of the Blue Mountains environment, all sensitive areas including the ‘environmentally constrained lands’ (as defined in the Dictionary) should be excluded from exempt or complying development under Clause 3.3.
Fitzgeralds Creek Catchment
This area includes Fitzgeralds, Long Angle, Valley Heights and Cripple Creeks. The DLEP proposes an E2 zoning around creeklines and extending upslope and this is supported.
This catchment is being managed by the Long Angle Landcare Group, the Deanei Bushcare and the Cross Street Bushcare Groups and coordinated through a Coordinating Working Group with Council support. Submission 325 The catchment has a combination of iconic terrain, flora and fauna and is surrounded by development that so far, has not posed threats to preservation of the area. Maintenance of these conditions is dependent on continuance of the E2 zoning and preventing intensification of landuse by adopting appropriate subdivision controls.
We strongly support specific subdivision controls and therefore support the use of a lot size overlay to achieve this. However as the subdivision controls are vulnerable to change by the State government, the MLS should be able to stand alone to prevent further subdivision.
The minimum lot sizes should be interlinked with the landuse zoning. Therefore all land within the catchment should have the following MLS linked with the highest zoning that is designated for any part of the property: E2 zoning should be designated as AD 2 or preferably a new size of 195 ha established (the largest lot is approx. 390 ha) all RU2 and E3 zones should be designated AB 3 (30 ha) E4 should be AB2 (20 ha)
Specific sites
163 - 193 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo
This is Crown land located on the southern side of the road and zoned RE 1 in the DLEP. We oppose this land being zoned RE1 and propose it be zoned E2 to be compatible with the zoning of the surrounding bushland.
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 3 of 5
Whilst this land includes some relatively flat areas, more intensive use would increase the risk of soil erosion and the introduction of weeds into the E2 zoned land. The Cross Street Bushcare group has for almost 5 years battled with removing weeds from the area surrounding the Warrimoo Oval. We therefore are well aware of the weed invasion risk posed by locating recreational facilities in viable bushland. Also, this land is not needed for recreation as there is ample surplus space zoned RE1 in close proximity at Warrimoo Oval.
122 – 148 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo
The relatively flat portion of this land is zoned RE1 to accommodate Warrimoo Oval. The remainder is zoned E2. We support the E2 zone. The section zoned RE 1 contains ample space for future expansion of recreational activities.
The Cross Street Bushcare group has been working in the E2 zoned area for almost 5 years and have removed Wisteria and other invasive weeds that have spread from the oval. The bushland is on a steep slope and drains to the local creeks. The weeds seeds carried down this slope spread throughout the catchment.
To protect this area, it is strongly recommended that the RE1 zoned area be included as ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ in recognition of its proximity to the E2 zoned land and the significant fall and runoff to the Fitzgeralds Creek. The Department of Planning suggests that in recognising land as belonging to a riparian corridor, the influence that the land has on the native vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic habitats and ecosystems, bank stability and water quality should be considered. The RE1 land is surrounded by the bushland, runoff would transport invasive species into the bushland and the flow and volume of water could create erosion and sedimentationSubmission of the creek as well as threatening bank 325 stability. The connection between the landuse of the RE1 zoned land and the water quality, habitat and ecosystem of Fitzgeralds Creek is clearly evident and justifies its inclusion as protected riparian land.
28 – 30 Attunga Rd., Blaxland
This is the Waste Management Facility which has an extensive area to the north zoned as RE1. This northern site is highly constrained by a significant slope and a watercourse. It would be appropriate to zone the whole area as E2 to provide a substantial buffer between the Waste Management Facility and the creeks, bushland and various Significant Vegetation Communities contained in the catchment. Also, the groundwater vulnerability of the site is 'moderately high'. A public recreation use is inappropriate as it promotes weed invasion into the bushland, requires infrastructure creating soil disturbance and is likely to result in siltation of local creeks and their tributaries.
Buckland’s Retirement Village (Hawkesbury Rd)
The proposed application of the E2 zone to this site is supported, as this is an important site at the head of the catchment.
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 4 of 5
Crown Reserve 195-225 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo
This property which is unreserved Crown land is 390 ha. In order for it to remain intact for catchment protection there should be a MLS of 195 ha. Properties south of Singles Ridge Road with Y2 Minimum Lot Size (MLS)
The MLS for all the lots larger than 2 ha (total area) should be reviewed and given a higher MLS This will ensure that these lots which all are environmentally constrained land cannot be subdivided to reduce the development potential and provide environmental protection.
Relevant LEP General Provisions
Keeping of Hoofed Animals
There are many horses and other hoofed animals in the catchment. It is important that these animals do not graze in creek lines because of the damage they do to banks and also, increase the risk of introducing nutrients and weed seeds in the water.
There has never been a clause in any Blue Mountains LEP which specifically prohibits hoofed animals from being in creeks, riparian buffers or any significant vegetation communities. The clause in DLEP2013 only requires the submission of a development application if a specified stocking rate is exceeded.
This is an opportunity to have some clarity, and prohibit these animals from sensitive areas regardless of how manySubmission animals or the size of the property. 325 We recommend that Clause 6.33 is amended to specifically prohibit hoofed animals from all watercourses and other environmentally constrained areas (whether they are mapped or fall within the definition of a 'constrained' land)
Karleen Waldron,
Co-ordinator,
Long Angle Gully Landcare Group
Residential Address
113-121 Long Angle road Yellow Rock
Postal Address
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 Page 5 of 5
36 Long Angle Gully
Via Rickard road
Warrimoo 2774
Phone
0247536636
Mobile
0428512305
25th February 2014
Submission 325
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014
cityscapeplanning+projects
Submission 326
SUBMISSION TO BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL
4 TURELLA ST, GLENBROOK
REVIEW OF DRAFT LEP 2013
FEBRUARY 2014
cityscape planning + projects
abn: 37 089 650 386
phone: 4739 3374 fax: 4739 3408
mobile: 0408 866913
email: [email protected]
www.cityscape.net.au
post: PO Box 127
Glenbrook NSW 2773
Submission 326
Vince Hardy (BTP, MPIA, CPP)
Urban Planning Consultant
© cityscape planning + projects, 2014
This report is provided to the client exclusively. No liability is extended for any other use or to any other party. Whilst the report is derived in part from our knowledge and expertise, it is based on the conditions prevailing at the time of the Report and upon the information provided by the client.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 IN T R O D U C T IO N ...... 1
2.0 TH E SU BJECT SITE ...... 2
3.0 EXISTIN G PLAN N IN G FR A M E W O R K ...... 4
4.0 TH E DRAFT LEP ...... 4
5.0 KE Y P L A NNING IS S UE ...... 7
6.0 CO N CLU SIO N ...... 17 Submission 326
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 1 4 Turella St, Blaxland
1. 0 IN T R O D U C T IO N
Cityscape Planning + Projects has been engaged by the owner of the subject site to prepare a submission that responds to the exhibition of Draft LEP 2013, by Blue Mountains City Council.
The report identifies the subject site, which is the focus of this submission, analyses key planning issues that arise from the draft LEP and makes recommendations for changes to the draft planning framework that should be made prior to its finalisation.
The report has been compiled through research, analysis and discussions with Council officers. Submission 326
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 2 4 Turella St, Blaxland
2 .0 TH E SU BJ ECT SI TE
The subject site is a large irregular parcel of land located on the western northern side of Turella St, approximately 50m north of its intersection with Explorers Rd.
The site is known as 4 Turella St, Glenbrook but has the following real property description.
Lot: 12 DP: 255826
The site has an area of 6408.27m2 and currently accommodates a single detached dwelling house and associated garage and garden sheds etc.
SubmissionFigure 1 provides images that show the cadastral326 arrangements of the site and Figure 2 provides an aerial image of the site.
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 3 4 Turella St, Blaxland
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF SITE
SubmissionFIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTO OF SITE 326
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 4 4 Turella St, Blaxland
3 . 0 E XI STI N G PL AN N I N G FR A M E W O R K
The site is zoned Living – Bushland Conservation pursuant to Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005. An extract of the relevant zone map is provided at Figure 3.
4. 0 TH E DRAF T L EP
4.1 1 DRAF T ZO N I N G
The exhibited Draft LEP seeks to zone the site as follows:
Submission 326 • Part E2 – Environmental Conservation • Part E4 – Environmental Living
An extract of the relevant draft zoning plan is provided below at Figure 4 and the proportion of site given to each proposed zone is represented in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1: ZONED AREAS
ZONE AREA(m2) % Environmental Conservation 4173.83 65.13% Environmental Living 2234.47 34.87%
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 5 4 Turella St, Blaxland
FIGURE 3: EXTRACT OF ZONING MAP
Submission 326
FIGURE 4: EXTRACT OF ZONING MAP
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 6 4 Turella St, Blaxland
4.2 2 DRAF T MI N I MU M L O T S I Z E
The exhibited Draft LEP seeks to provide a minimum lot size of 1200m2. An extract of the relevant draft plan map is provided below at Figure 5.
FIGURE 5: DRAFT BUILDING HEIGHT
Submission 326
4.3 3 LO T A V E R A G I N G – CL U STER HOUS I NG
The lot averaging provisions related to Clause 4.1F of the LEP allow a maximum density of 8 lots per ha of unconstrained land zoned E4 – Environmental Living. However, the site does not provide sufficient appropriately zoned land to allow this development outcome.
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 7 4 Turella St, Blaxland
5. 0 KE Y P L A NNI NG I S S U ES
The key planning issue that emerges form the Draft LEP is the extent of E2 Conservation Zone that is proposed to be applied over the subject site. The following point are raised in this regard:
5.1 1 DL EP 2 0 1 3 I S M EAN T TO BE A TRAN SL ATI O N O F EXI STI N G STATU TO RY CO N TRO L S
The Planning Proposal that accompanies DLEP 2013 identifies a set of key principles that have been developed to guide the development of BM DLEP 2013. An assessment of the proposed zoning against those Submissionprinciples is provided in Table 2 and reveals326 that the draft LEP’s response for the subject site does satisfy Councils own key principles as outlined in the Planning Proposal.
5.2 2 IN C O R R E C T T R A N S L A T IO N O F PREVI O U S STU DY
Council’s written advice on 23 Feb 2013 states that the application of Environmental Conservation zone on the subject site is primarily a result of detailed vegetation mapping that became known as part of previous Land and Environment Court proceedings in 2012.
As part of those proceedings a joint experts report was prepared and a plan tabled as evidence that identified areas on site of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of good, moderate and poor quality. An extract of that plan is provided at Figure 6.
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 8 4 Turella St, Blaxland
TABLE 2: CONSISTENCY OF ZONING WITH KEY PRINCIPLES
No: Principle Consistency Comment 1 Apply the same planning No The subject site has had a more stringent approach across the LGA application of E2 then any other site within the locality or LGA. There is no discussion
or explanation of why this action was taken as part of the Planning Proposal.
2 Translate where possible No Existing zonings have not been translated using the standard into the standard template format. If they instrument format had the entire site would be proposed to be zoned E4 – Environmental Living
3 Use best-fit to achieve Yes NA current planning results
4 IntroduceSubmission new policy only No The application 326 of the E2 zone has not when appropriate occurred as part of any background study undertaken as part of the preparation of DLEP 2013
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 9 4 Turella St, Blaxland
The Draft LEP would appear to have utilised that plan to map all those areas identified as good, moderate and poor quality forest, as E2 Environmental Conservation and only excluded the cleared areas of the site.
Such an outcome was not contemplated or even proposed by the experts when drafting that plan. Therefore, to construe that outcome from that plan is an incorrect translation of the experts map and the purposes for which it was prepared.
To provide further detail on this issue the relevant court expert has once more been engaged to review the application of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone by the DLEP 2013.
That report accompanies this submission but states as follows:
Submission“Very poor to poor areas of forest are326 included in the E2 zone, while some better quality forest on and adjoining the subject land are not included in the E2 zone. There appears to be no consistency in the delineation of the E2 zone.”
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 10 4 Turella St, Blaxland
FIGURE 6: EXTRACT OF EXPERTS REPORT FROM COURT
Submission 326
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 11 4 Turella St, Blaxland
5.3 3 IN C O N S IS T E N T W IT H Z O N E OB J E C T I V E S
The allocation of the E2 Zone is also inconsistent with the actual zone objectives as provided by DLEP 2013. An extract of the relevant zone objectives is provided below:
1 Objectives of zone
• To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values. • To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values. • To encourage land restoration works on disturbed bushland areas. • To restrict development of private land that is inappropriate Submissionby reason of physical characteristics 326 or high bush fire hazard, but only where less restricted development is allowed by this plan elsewhere on the land due to its different zoning. • To contribute to the maintenance of bio-diversity in the Blue Mountains.
The zone objectives clearly state that the zone should be applied on areas of ‘high ecological, cultural or aesthetic values’. However, as previously identified, the Draft E2 zone has actually been applied to area of the site with low, poor or even non-existent ecological values.
This is further demonstrated by the photos of the site provided at Figure 7 which shows that the E2 Zone has been applied to grassland areas that provide no ecological or even aesthetic values. Similarly, the
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 12 4 Turella St, Blaxland
handle section of the site, located at its eastern extent, provides high conservation values but has not been zoned E2 Conservation.
We would therefore firmly state that there is clearly a mapping error that has occurred as part of the preparing the DLEP maps.
FIGURE 7: IMAGES OF PROPOSED E2 PARTS OF SITE
Submission 326
NB. The red arrow shows the location and viewing angle of photo
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 13 4 Turella St, Blaxland
5.5 5 CH AN G ED SI TE CO N DI TI O N S
Since the previous court case, site condition have further changed as a consequence of the simple, lawful enjoyment of the site by the owner and pervious tenant. Standard residential activities such as child play, grass mowing and domestic pet usage have resulted in impacts to the previously mapped SSTF areas.
Accordingly, the extent of SSTF areas has further diminished from that mapped by the experts as part of the court case. Importantly, this has only occurred in poor to moderate areas and not in the good quality conservation areas.
Further, the owner of the site has lodged a Development Application for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling inclusive of a landscaped area over the poor and degraded areas of SSTF. Submission 326
Whilst that DA has not yet been determined, the case for its approval is strongly supported by appropriate reports and studies. Therefore the application of an E2 Zone over lands that are likely to be approved for redevelopment will have no material effect other than to cause ongoing challenges for both Council and the owner in their efforts to implement, and maintain that development.
In our view, the resolution of the draft zone boundary should be delayed until that Development Application is determined.
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 14 4 Turella St, Blaxland
5.6 6 PRO PO SED CH AN G E PRO VI DES A BETTER CO N SERVATI O N OUT C OM E
It is therefore proposed to rectify the mapping errors that have occurred as part of the preparation of the DLEP 2013 Zone map, by replacing the draft Zone map with a new map that better reflects both the zone objectives and existing site conditions.
This map actually proposed modified zoning plan is provided at Figure 9 and shows that the shape provides a more balanced and sensible zoning outcome, yet still provides a commensurate and appropriate level of E2 Environmental Conservation Zoned land.
The inclusion of the handle area as E2 zoned land also provides a more contiguous shaped conservation area, which should achieve a better Submissionconservation outcome than the exhibited 326 Draft LEP. This is demonstrated at Figure 10.
Importantly, this map is consistent with the high value ecological mapping prepared by the courts expert as demonstrated by the accompanying report.
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 15 4 Turella St, Blaxland
FIGURE 8: CURRENT DRAFT ZONE PLAN
E2 area = 2 4173m
FIGURE 9: PROPOSED MODIFIED DRAFT ZONE PLAN
Submission 326
E2 area = 2 3000m
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 16 4 Turella St, Blaxland
FIGURE 10: IMPROVED CONSERVATION OUTCOME FROM PROPOSED MODIFIED PLAN
Improved connectivity of high value vegetation between Crown Land and public reserve
Submission 326
Maintain existing urban land interface
New and improved conservation zoning at interface with public reserve
cityscapeplanning+projects
Draft LEP 2013 Submission page 17 4 Turella St, Blaxland
6 .0 CO N CL U SI O N
The Draft LEP 2013 provides a statutory planning framework for the subject site that is inconsistent with key principles outlined in the accompanying Planning Policy.
The basis for this inconsistency appears to rely upon a plan that was utilised as part of previous Land and Environment Court proceedings. Such an outcome was not contemplated or even proposed by the experts when drafting that plan. Therefore, to construe that outcome from that plan is an incorrect translation of the court expert’s map and the purposes for which it was prepared.
SubmissionFurther, the area to be mapped E2 Environment 326 Conservation under the Draft LEP is actually inconsistent with the Zone objectives of the E2 Zone, which will prove to be problematic for both the site owner and Council when trying to manage future development and site management issues on the subject site.
An alternative mapped area has been provided as part of this report. This modified plan provides a commensurate area of E2 Zone land is a more contiguous bushland interface arrangement that also better reflects the zone objectives as provided by DLEP 2013.
Accordingly we would recommend that the proposed Draft LEP map be amended in the manner as outlined in this submission prior to being forwarded to the Department of Planning.
cityscapeplanning+projects Review of land use re-zoning proposal 4 Turella Street, Glenbrook, City of the Blue Mountains
Kevin Mills & Associates Pty Limited 3 March 2014
1. Introduction
Kevin Mills & Associates was engaged by the owners of 4 Turella Street, Glenbrook to comment upon a proposal to rezone the land at 4 Turella Street, Glenbrook in the City of the Blue Mountains (the subject land). The current land use zone covering the subject land under LEP 2005 is Living – Bushland Conservation. The proposal under Draft LEP 2013 is to rezone this land to part E2 - Environmental Conservation and part E4 - Environmental Living. The relevant plan is shown below (Plan 2).
The current LEP 2005 shows an overlay indicating an ‘ecological buffer area’ above the creek at the rear of the property; this overlaps the subject land as shown on the plan below (Plan 1). Plan 1 also shows a slope constraint; this area is wholly contained within the above ecological buffer area.
2. Description of the Land
The forest on and around the subject land is consistent with the description of the endangered ecologicalSubmission community under the Threatened 326 Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) known as Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF). In this forest, the tree species and the shrubby understorey indicate a shale influence on the apparently predominantly sandstone soil. We designate the forest as SSTF rather than Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest because of the presence of trees and understorey species more typical of sandstone soils. These communities are quite close floristically and both are listed as endangered.
The extent of the largely natural forest was delineated in 2011 by KMA. A later map prepared by Eco Logical Australia as part of the court case (attached to Joint Statement by the Ecologists in 2012) identified a similar line that encompassed “good” condition forest at that time. On the 2012 map, the remainder of the treed areas on the subject land were mapped as either “moderate” or “poor” condition forest. The eastern and southern limit of this forest on the subject land as shown on both of the above maps is further upslope than the ecological buffer area delineated in Council’s LEP 2005.
Our recent inspection (January 2014) determined that the original KMA forest boundary and that on the 2012 map are still substantially correct. The E2 zone on the draft LEP 2013 map does not match either boundary.
1
The recent inspection also found that the area outside the forest enclosed by the KMA boundary of 2011 is in a very poor to poor condition. Native trees are not contiguous and there is no tree or shrub regeneration. The ground cover is largely bare ground, with some exotic grasses that are mown and occasional scattered native plants. In the far south- western corner of the property weeds completely dominate the vegetation.
3. Environmental Evaluation
The proposal is to rezone most of the subject land as E2. The area around the existing house and along the edge of Turrella Street is proposed to be zoned E4.
The boundary of the E2 zone on the subject land does not match any of the following boundaries: - The ‘ecological buffer area’ as mapped in LEP 2005; - The forest boundary by KMA in 2011; - The ‘good quality’ forest in the joint report in 2012 (see Plan 3). - The limit of reasonably intact forest as observed on site in January 2014.
The forest on the ‘handle’ of the subject land along Turella Street is excluded from the E2 zone, yet it is in an almost natural condition and more significant than the areas to the south of the existing house that are included in the proposed E2 zone. This area is important as a habitat link between the forests on the local council reserves. It is incongruous thatSubmission the E2 zone be extended into the very poor326 areas of vegetation on the subject land while good quality forest delineated under the LEP 2005 as ecological buffer area and other local forest are excluded. We do not know why Council arrived at the above anonymous situation.
4. Conclusion
We presume that the purpose of the E2 zone on the subject land is to encompass the better quality forest, given the following objectives of this zone. “Objectives of zone • To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values. • To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values. • To encourage land restoration works on disturbed bushland areas. • To restrict development of private land that is inappropriate by reason of physical characteristics or high bush fire hazard, but only where less restricted development is allowed by this plan elsewhere on the land due to its different zoning. • To contribute to the maintenance of bio-diversity in the Blue Mountains.”
It is understandable to exclude the existing house and highly degraded forest that has no chance of rehabilitation to a semi-natural forest. Other parts of the subject land are in a
2 similar condition, but are included in the E2 zone. The proposed configuration of the E2 zone under Draft LEP 2013 does not do satisfactorily address the current conditions on the subject land..
Very poor to poor areas of forest are included in the E2 zone, while some better quality forest on and adjoining the subject land are not included in the E2 zone. There appears to be no consistency in the delineation of the E2 zone.
We recommend that Council reconsider the configuration of the E2 zone on and around the subject land to more accurately reflect the condition of the EEC forest as it is on the ground. Most particularly, the upslope limit of the E2 zone should be reinvestigated based on the current condition of the vegetation, including the ‘handle’ on the subject land and the adjoining land which supports good quality forest currently outside the E2 zone.
We would support the proposed changes to the draft zoning plan, as shown on Plan 4 in this report. The extent of the E2 zone covers the relatively good quality forest on the subject land and is generally consistent with the map produced by the ecological experts in the court case in 2012, allowing for some changes since then.
Submission 326
3
Submission 326
Plan 1. Exiting zoning under LEP 2005. Green line and hatching indicate ‘ecological buffer area’. Pink colour indicates slope constraint Blue line shows boundary of subject land.
4
SubmissionPlan 2. Turella Street, Glenbrook. Extract 326from LEP 2013. The boundary of the subject land can be seen as a light grey line.
5
Plan 3. Map from Joint Agreement in February 2012. SubmissionDark blue area was identified as ‘good quality 326’ forest in 2012.
6
Submission 326 Plan 4. Modification to zoning map as proposed by the owner of 4 Turella Street. Subject land is outlined by red lines.
7
Submission on the Blue Mountains Draft Local Environment Plan 2013
Submission 327
Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc. March 2014
Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc ABN 38 686 119 087 PO Box 29 Wentworth Falls NSW 2782 Phone: (02) 4757 1872 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.bluemountains.org.au Nature Conservation Saves for Tomorrow
The General Manager March 3, 2014 Blue Mountains City Council Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba NSW 2780
Reference no. F08616. Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013
Dear Sir, The Blue Mountains Conservation Society is pleased to present its submission on the Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013. The Society strongly supports Council’s approach to the current draft LEP and commends its efforts to transfer existing environmental protections into the restrictive Standard Instrument template. The Blue Mountains is a city located in World Heritage listed national parks and requires stringent environmental protections to minimize the impact of urban development on the surrounding Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA)Submission and Sydney’s drinking water catchment. 327 A key consideration in the development of the Blue Mountains LEP 2005 was the World Heritage Area Committee’s concerns about the ongoing viability and integrity of the GBMWHA given the urban development on the surrounding ridge tops. The GBMWHA Strategic Plan 2009 identifies the critical role that local planning instruments play in reducing the negative impacts from land use adjacent to the GBMWHA. The continued listing of the GBMWHA depends on maintaining and even strengthening current environmental protections in the new LEP for the Blue Mountains. Although the Society strongly supports the current DLEP 2013, we have some concerns relating to minimum lot sizes and Protected Area mapping in Environmental Conservation (E2) zoned lands, as well as some other provisions in the DLEP 2013. Accordingly, we have recommended certain amendments. We are particularly concerned that the definition, principles and practices of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), outlined in LEP 2005, have not been retained in DLEP 2013. The inclusion of ESD as a central planning principle in LEP 2005 was based on international agreements made by Australia arising from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and is still referenced in NSW environmental and planning legislation. The Society is aware that the Part 6 Local Provisions (which transfer the required stringent environmental protections across from previous LEPs), Schedule 6 ‘Significant Vegetation Communities’ and the new R6 Residential Character Conservation zone are particularly at risk of being disallowed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister. Given the imperative to prevent the environmental degradation of the City of Blue Mountains and conserve the surrounding GBMWHA, any watering down or removal of the environmental provisions in the current DLEP is unacceptable. If this occurs, the Society strongly urges Council to request a re-exhibition of the DLEP and call a public hearing. Although we are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the DLEP 2013, the Society still wishes to register its concern about its public exhibition. The BMCS’s position has consistently been that the timing of
2 the exhibition, December 4th 2013 to March 5th 2014, was less than ideal, even with the one month extension to the original 2 month exhibition. Apart from the difficulties of engaging the community in strategic planning during the busy lead-up to Christmas, and then the Christmas-New Year and January holiday period, the priority of many Blue Mountains residents and the Council itself during this time was dealing with the aftermath of the terrible bushfires of October 2013. The BMCS therefore requested that the exhibition of the DLEP 2013 be delayed until January 2014. We are concerned that, given these circumstances, public consultation and opportunity for community scrutiny of and input into DLEP 2013 has not been as comprehensive as it could have been. We understand that this timing was not under the control of Blue Mountains City Council but of the government of NSW.
If you have any queries in relation to this submission please contact Tara Cameron, the Society’s Senior Vice President, on 0419 824 974 or [email protected]. Yours Sincerely,
Peter Ridgeway President, Blue Mountains Conservation Society
Submission 327
3
Blue Mountains Conservation Society Submission on the Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013
Introduction
Since its establishment in the 1960s, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) has worked to protect the natural environment of the Blue Mountains. The BMCS is the key environmental organization in the Blue Mountains with more than 900 members and many more supporters.
The overarching mechanism for protecting the Blue Mountains natural environment from the adverse impacts of development is the local environmental plan (LEP). The Blue Mountains LEPs 2005 and 1991 contain well-established planning and development controls that have resulted in impacts on the natural environment largely being contained and minimized. The approach taken in these LEPs has helped to protect the highly sensitive Blue Mountains bushland, waterways, World Heritage listed national parks and Sydney’s drinking water from the adverse impacts of development and activities occurring along and out from the towns and villages on its main ridge tops and in its settled valleys.
The importance of LEPs 1991 and 2005 in protecting the Blue Mountains environment cannot be overstated. Consequently, BMCS has a long history of participating in each new LEP revision to encourage the retention and improvement of existing environmental protection provisions. The BMCS was heavily involved in the process that led to the final 2005 LEP and prior to then the 1991 LEP. The BMCS has also participated in the formation of associated development control plans (DCPs), and commented on many LEP amendments and development proposals that could impact on the environment.
The aim for the BMCS in its participation in the land use planning process is to ensure the integrity of the Blue Mountains naturalSubmission environment and surrounding Greater Blue Mountains 327 World Heritage Area, and the mechanisms that protect that environment, remain as intact as possible. The BMCS is therefore pleased to have the opportunity to provide its input to the new Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 (draft LEP).
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA)
The impact of any Blue Mountains LEP extends well beyond the boundaries of this Local Government Area (LGA). The Blue Mountains is a unique LGA in NSW, being surrounded by the Blue Mountains National Park which is the largest component of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA). The GBMWHA supports outstanding biodiversity values of international significance. The GBMWHA attracts a large and growing number of local and overseas visitors, contributing significantly to the economy of the Blue Mountains LGA where tourism and visitation is the largest economic sector.
However, at the time of the listing of the GBMWHA in 2000, the World Heritage Area Committee expressed concerns about the ongoing viability and integrity of the GBMWHA given the urban development on the surrounding ridge tops. The conservation of the GBMWHA was a key consideration in the development of Blue Mountains LEP 2005 and the GBMWHA Strategic Plan (2009). This Plan was jointly developed by the NSW and Commonwealth governments to guide management of the GBMWHA, including key threats and a number of management strategies to address them. Adjacent land uses—including increasing urbanization and associated infrastructure in the Blue Mountains LGA—can significantly impact on the values of the GBMWHA.
4
The management strategies to reduce the negative impacts from adjacent land uses, as outlined in the Strategic Plan, include:
Providing ongoing and proactive input to the establishment and implementation of effective local government planning and land management controls for land adjacent to the GBMWHA. Ensuring that environmental impact assessments for proposals that may affect the GBMWHA (whether or not on the reserves themselves) adequately address potential and existing impacts on World Heritage values. Working with local councils to develop suitable local planning instruments (e.g. Local Environment Plans) for areas adjacent to the GBMWHA. Where there is doubt about the potential impacts of development on World Heritage values the precautionary principle shall be applied. Ensuring that the impact of new developments within and adjacent to the GBMWHA on the area’s scenic and aesthetic values are considered. Working with local government authorities to introduce appropriate development controls for lands adjoining and within, scenery catchments of the GBMWHA.
The Society believes that the Blue Mountains City Council has largely fulfilled its obligation to conserve the GBMWHA through developing a draft Local Environmental Plan consistent with these management strategies. Strong controls on development in the Blue Mountains LGA are critical to maintaining the biodiversity values of the GBMWHA. Any threat to the continued listing of the GBMWHA through inappropriate development activity in adjacent areas, similar to recent events in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, would also have significant economic consequences for the Blue Mountains. This additional responsibility to consider the impacts of development activity in the LGA on the adjoining GBMWHA will always make Blue Mountains LEPs unique in NSW. This uniqueness must be recognized by the NSW government in consideringSubmission approval for the new Blue Mountains LEP. 327
BMCS support for the Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013
The BMCS strongly supports Council’s approach to the current draft LEP. The BMCS considers the draft LEP represents to the greatest extent possible the outcomes that exist in the current 2005 and 1991 LEPs. Most importantly, this exhibited draft version retains most of the existing environmental protection provisions which are essential for ensuring that urban and rural development does not have an adverse impact on the adjacent World Heritage national parks. It is critical that the local environmental protection provisions are retained in the new LEP.
The BMCS has suggested amendments to some clauses and has raised concerns with lot size and the lack of Protected Area mapping on Environmental Conservation (E2) zoned lands as detailed below. Generally, however, it is highly supportive of the draft LEP in its current form.
The BMCS urges Council to strongly argue the case with the NSW Government to retain the local provisions (in green print) that are in the current exhibited draft. The Blue Mountains environment is too fragile and at risk of degradation from inappropriate development for its existing local planning and development controls to be removed or downgraded in the LEP revision process. The impact of a downgraded LEP, and its impact on the surrounding GBMWHA, would not only be of local significance but also of international significance.
5
Recommendation
If the draft LEP is amended significantly by the NSW Government post exhibition—for example, if the local (green print) provisions that protect the natural environment and GBMWHA are removed or significantly watered down, or if Schedule 6 is removed—BMCS recommends that Council strongly request that the altered draft LEP is re-exhibited and a public hearing held.
Organisation of submission
The submission is in several parts:
Summary of recommendations Analysis of written instrument and justification for recommendations Comments on Schedule 6 ‘Significant Vegetation Communities’ Comments and recommendations relating to DLEP 2013 mapping in Natural Resources – Biodiversity map sheets Comments on Residential Development Strategy 2010
Attachments:
o Attachment ‘A’ Map Series – local site-specific issues relating to mapping. See separate document.
o Attachment ‘B’ – case study illustrating several of the Society’s concerns and recommendations relating to minimum lot sizes, minimum lot size applying to E2 zones and mappingSubmission of Protected Areas in E2 zones. 327
o Attachment ‘C’ Cemetery Management – justification for recommendation relating to buffer area to cemeteries.
6
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
General
If the draft LEP is amended significantly by the NSW Government post exhibition—for example, if the local (green print) provisions that protect the natural environment and GBMWHA are removed or significantly watered down, or if Schedule 6 removed—BMCS recommends that Council strongly request that the altered draft LEP is re-exhibited and a public hearing held.
1.2. Aims of Plan
The BMCS recommends that the overarching environmental protection aims – (b), (d), and (f) are made the first three aims in that order under clause 1.2.
The BMCS recommends that ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is translated fully, with its principles included, (as it is under cl 11 in BMLEP 2005) and either made a stand-alone aim after clause 1.2(2)(b), or with the translation and principles placed in a Note attached to the Aims of Plan clause.
2.1. Land Use Zones
The BMCS recommends that the rezoning of areas of LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation to EP/E2 recommended in the Rural Lands Planning Study Bushland Conservation Zone Report be applied in full.
The BMCS recommendsSubmission that the third objective under the R6 zone327 is amended as follows:
To ensure development retains the prominence of landscape elements and garden settings [while protecting nearby bushland areas from the impact of invasive species]
It is recommended that a Note is added to the R6 clause that defines “invasive species” with reference to the Schedule F2 Weeds List in the Better Living DCP, or equivalent list in the yet to be exhibited new Blue Mountains DCP.
3.3. Environmentally sensitive areas excluded [from exempt and complying development]
The BMCS strongly recommends that Council adds to the list under clause 3.3 the local “environmentally constrained lands” as defined in the draft LEP Dictionary but with the additions under (c), (d) and (e) as shown below.
a) zoned E2 Environmental Conservation, or b) that is designated ‘Protected area – Slope constraint area’ on the Natural Resources – Land Map, or c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area – Watercourse’ or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map], or
7
d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or f) comprising any significant geological feature, such as rock outcrops and escarpments, which in the opinion of the consent authority is worthy of conservation.
4.1. Minimum subdivision lot size
The BMCS strongly recommends that the standard minimum lot size applied to private and public E2 zoned land is 40ha or higher. Where the area of E2 zoning is larger than 80ha, the largest minimum lot sizes available in the draft LEP should be applied (100 or 130 ha).
A 100 or 130ha minimum lot size should be applied to all E2 zoned land in the areas largely zoned for rural purposes to the west and north of the LGA to be compatible with surrounding lot sizes.
The BMCS strongly recommends that the largest minimum lot size available is applied to the Recreation RE1 and RE2 lands.
Part 6 LOCAL PROVISIONS
The BMCS strongly recommends that the Protected Area mapping is applied to all lands in the LEP under Council’s jurisdiction, including land zoned E2. The Protected Area mapping to be extended to all E2 zoned lands that currently has not been applied in the draft LEP is listed below. Natural ResourcesSubmission – Biodiversity Map (Map series 4) 327 o Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area o Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area Natural Resources – Land Map (Map series 4) o Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area Riparian lands and watercourses (Map series 3) o Protected Area – Riparian Land Scenic and Landscape Values map (Map series 3) o Protected Area – Escarpment o Protected Area – Land Between Towns
6.1. Impact on environmentally constrained land
The definition of “environmentally constrained land” should be amended as follows:
c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area – Watercourse’ or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map], or d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or
8
e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or
The BMCS recommends that if “environmentally constrained land” is not supported at State level as an additional local term in the Dictionary, its definition should be included as a Note under cl 6.1 and all other clauses in which it is used.
6.1 (5). Other development
The BMCS recommends that Blue Mountains National Park is added to this clause as one of the natural features that should be taken into consideration in terms of avoiding adverse environmental impacts when building works and asset protection zones are designed and sited.
6.5. Protected Area - Vegetation Constraint Area
The BMCS strongly recommends that Clause 6.5 (2) (b) should be amended as follows:
6.5(2)(b) that is the site of a significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] or [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)]
6.8. Groundwater vulnerability
The BMCS recommends that in view of its threatened status, the Blue Mountains Swamps should be mapped as “highSubmission groundwater vulnerability” on the Groundwater 327 Vulnerability Map The BMCS recommends that all areas from Woodford to Mt Victoria (and also The Mounts) be mapped as “moderate groundwater vulnerability” unless there is detailed information to alter that status.
6.9. Stormwater management
The BMCS recommends that the stormwater clause should be amended as follows under cl 6.9(3):
6.9(3). Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development: etc etc
6.14. Earthworks
The BMCS recommends that the words "environmentally constrained land" be added to clause 6.14 (3) (i).
6.24. Essential services
The BMCS recommends that clause 6.24(3) references the relevant DCP that should contain the requirements for a geotechnical report and water balance report and that further clarifies the factors for a measure of ‘adverse impact on the environment’ under this clause.
9
6.26. Development Ancillary to a Dwelling House
The BMCS strongly recommends that clause 6.26 be deleted.
6.32. Horticulture within certain Environment Protection zones
The BMCS strongly recommends that an additional provision is added to this clause to prevent horticulture on environmentally constrained land as follows:
6.32(4) Consent will not be granted to development for the purpose of horticulture if it is on any land that is zoned E2, is environmentally constrained land, or is land that contains Protected Areas.
6.33. Keeping of hoofed animals
The BMCS recommends that clause 6.33 is amended to prohibit the keeping of hoofed animals, regardless of stocking rates, on any land that is zoned E2, is environmentally constrained land, or is land that contains Protected Areas.
Dictionary
The BMCS recommends that the term “environmentally constrained land” be amended as follows:
c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area – Watercourse’Submission or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian 327 Lands and Watercourses Map], or d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or
The BMCS recommends that a definition of “rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or its habitats” should replace “rare species of flora” in the Dictionary.
The BMCS recommends that a definition of “Ecological Buffer Area” be included in the Dictionary.
The BMCS strongly recommends that a definition of “Fauna Biocorridors” be included in the Dictionary.
The BMCS also recommends that should these additional local terms not be permitted in the Dictionary post exhibition, they are inserted as Notes under all clauses in which the term is used in the body of the draft LEP.
Other recommendations
The BMCS recommends that the background studies be made available for public comment in the interest of validating and refining the accuracy of mapping.
10
The BMCS recommends that all cemeteries have a buffer area of at least 25m wide on the downslope side, contained within the lot, for the protection of groundwater. In cemeteries located within 100m of a swamp or watercourse this buffer width should be increased (similar to buffer widths required around effluent disposal areas as stated in Better Living DCP, clause D1.9.11). This buffer should be zoned E2 - Environmental Protection. See Attachment ‘C’.
Submission 327
11
ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENT Part 1: PRELIMINARY
1.2. Aims of Plan
The BMCS strongly supports the local additional aims of the draft LEP, particularly those that protect the Blue Mountains natural environment.
Ecologically Sustainable Development LEP 2005 contains a detailed definition of “ecologically sustainable development” (ESD) as a central planning principal. This was based on international agreements made by Australia arising from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and is referenced in NSW environmental and planning legislation. A definition which includes the principles is not included in this clause of DLEP 2103. Instead the DLEP refers to the weaker definition of ‘sustainable development’ as proposed by the NSW Government under its new draft Planning legislation. It is imperative that the definition of ESD in LEP 2005, be retained in DLEP 2013 to provide strength to this important principle.
Recommendations
The BMCS recommends that the overarching environmental protection aims – (b), (d), and (f) are made the first three aims in that order under clause 1.2.
The BMCS recommends that ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is translated fully, with its principles included, (as it is under cl 11 in BMLEP 2005) and either made a stand-alone aim after clause 1.2(2)(b), or with the translation and principles placed in a Note attached to the Aims of Plan clause. Submission 327
1.2A. Considerations before development consent
The BMCS strongly supports the inclusion of local clause 1.2A after the aims, in particular the requirement to “comply”. A similar clause (9) exists under LEP 2005 and this should be retained in the translation into Standard Instrument format to ensure there is no downgrading of environmental assessment and determination processes under the new draft LEP. This clause provides strength to the aims of the draft LEP by linking them to its substantive provisions.
Part 2: PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Land Use Zones The BMCS strongly supports Council’s translation of current LEP 2005 and 1991 land use zones into Standard Instrument format. The BMCS considers the chosen zones, and the objectives and permitted and prohibited land uses inserted under each zone have, to the greatest extent possible, transferred the existing protections and rights under land use zones in LEPs 1991 and 2005 into the revised draft LEP.
Most importantly, the environmental protection zones under the current Blue Mountains LEPs have been transferred into the equivalent environmental protection standard instrument zone - E2 Environmental Conservation - with equivalent uses permitted. This is strongly supported. The additional application of E2 to some new areas of mapped significant vegetation is also supported. However, not all areas of the LEP 1991
12
Bushland Conservation zone recommended for rezoning to EP in the Rural Lands Planning Study Bushland Conservation Zone Report have been rezoned E2 in DLEP 2103. The BMCS believes that the rezoning of areas of LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation to EP/E2 recommended in the Rural Lands Planning Study Bushland Conservation Zone Report should be applied in full.
The Society would like to suggest that an additional prohibited use be included for the E2 zone: hoofed animals. This issue is discussed in 6.33.
The new R6 Residential Character Conservation zone is supported as an appropriate local zone to replace the existing “Living Conservation” zone in LEP 2005, but with the following amendment to address incursion of invasive species into bushland from such lands and to remove the vague term “traditional”.
Recommendations
The BMCS recommends that the rezoning of areas of LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation to EP/E2 recommended in the Rural Lands Planning Study Bushland Conservation Zone Report be applied in full.
The BMCS recommends that the third objective under the R6 zone is amended as follows:
To ensure development retains the prominence of landscape elements and garden settings [while protecting nearby bushland areas from the impact of invasive species]
It is recommended that a Note is added to the R6 clause that defines “invasive species” with reference to the Schedule F2 weeds list in the Better Living DCP, or equivalent list in the yet to be exhibited new Blue Mountains DCP. Submission 327 2.3A. Consideration of zone objectives
The BMCS supports the inclusion of local clause 2.3A that links the zone objectives to the substantive provisions in the draft LEP, ensuring in the assessment of development applications there is 'compliance'.
Part 3: EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT
The compulsory Standard Instrument clause 3.3: “Environmentally sensitive areas excluded”, under Part 3 of the draft LEP includes a Direction that allows additional areas to be added to the Standard Instrument list of environmentally sensitive areas from which exempt or complying development is excluded.
A number of local Councils have successfully made amendments to the Standard Instrument to ensure Exempt and Complying development does not apply in environmentally sensitive areas within their LGAs. This includes the Wingecaribee LEP 2010 (Clause 3.3) where land identified as riparian land and land mapped as a “Regional Wildlife Habitat Corridor” were deemed environmentally sensitive areas for the purposes of Exempt and Complying development. Similarly, under the Wollongong LEP 2009 (Clause 3.3) land identified as containing an endangered ecological community and land mapped as the Illawarra Escarpment Conservation Area were deemed environmentally sensitive areas within the LGA for the purposes of Exempt and Complying development. Ensuring that the statewide Exempt and Complying Development Code does not apply to environmentally constrained and sensitive land within the Blue Mountains is especially important given the recent announcement by the NSW Government to extend the reach of the Code, in
13 terms of the type and amount of development covered, in order to bring into force many of the planning reforms which the NSW Government have been unsuccessful in achieving through legislation.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that Council follows this Direction and adds to the list under clause 3.3 the local “environmentally constrained lands” as defined in the draft LEP Dictionary but with the additions under (c), (d) and (e) as shown below.
a) zoned E2 Environmental Conservation, or b) that is designated ‘Protected area – Slope constraint area’ on the Natural Resources – Land Map, or c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area Watercourse’ or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map], or d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or f) comprising any significant geological feature, such as rock outcrops and escarpments, which in the opinion of the consent authority is worthy of conservation. These amendments require additions to be made to the Dictionary – see later.
Part 4: PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENTSubmission STANDARDS 327
4.1. Minimum subdivision lot size
The BMCS supports the inclusion of the optional clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size in the draft LEP and of the associated Lot Size Maps. The BMCS considers the lot sizes applied in the draft LEP largely duplicate to the greatest extent possible the lot sizes under LEPs 2005 and 1991. However the BMCS has significant concerns with the minimum lot sizes applied to E2 lands.
Minimum lot size over E2 Environmental Conservation Lands
The BMCS has significant concerns with the minimum lot sizes applied to land zoned E2 on the Lot Size Maps which show highly variable sizes based on the minimum lot size of the developable part of a lot. For example, if there is a large parcel of 100 ha that is mostly zoned E2 but with one small part zoned E4 with a 1200 square metre (m2) lot size to duplicate previous rights over that land, the entire lot, including the E2 area, is given a minimum lot size of 1200 m2. The BMCS does not support this approach.
The BMCS urges Council to apply the same large minimum lot size to all private and public owned E2 zoned land rather than the lot size applied to the developable part of a lot or no MLS at all. The BMCS has recommended (below) a 40ha or higher MLS is applied to all E2 zoned land, as used by other NSW councils1, and to differentiate it from the 30ha applied to E3 zoned land. Where the area of E2 zoning is 80 ha or larger,
1 For example see Wollongong LEP 2009, or Gosford LEP 2012.
14 the largest minimum lot size available should be used (100 ha or 130 ha). The BMCS provides the following reasons for making this recommendation:
Council is relying on local (green print) provisions that have largely been transferred from LEPs 1991 and 2005 to limit or prevent subdivision in the new E2 zones. Should the local (green print) provisions be weakened or removed from the LEP by State Government post exhibition, many E2 lands would be left vulnerable with such small minimum lot sizes. The application of one large minimum lot size to E2 lands gives a clear message to members of the public or developers and landowners that the land has very limited, if any, subdivision and development potential because it is highly constrained. As a “picture paints a thousand words” the visual representation of a large minimum lot size over the E2 lands would be similar to the existing limiting subdivision local provisions under current LEPs. Should the small lot sizes remain the public and landowners would (understandably) assume that the land could be subdivided into 1200 sqm, 900 sqm or any other size lots shown on the map regardless of other constraints. The draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 which encompasses the Blue Mountains and under which the new LEP will operate, and new draft planning legislation, clearly state that economic growth through high levels of land release and development is the purpose and priority for planning in NSW over the next 20 years. Many areas of land in the Blue Mountains that are currently zoned for environmental protection and that will become E2 in the draft LEP have been identified as “future urban growth” in the Metrostrategy. With such State level encouragement, owners of E2 zoned are more likely to lodge a planning proposal to rezone their land for residential development. Even if Council refuses the rezoning application, the proponent is now able to seek a review of Council’s decision by the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) and Council’s refusal could be overturned (see Planning Circular PS12-006). Should a rezoning application be lodged over E2 land with, for example, a 1200 sqm MLS, it might be difficult for Council to increase that lot size to gain the protectionsSubmission the land would lose through a change of zone. 327 It would be far more sensible to have the lot size limitations in place in the first instance, putting the onus on the applicant to argue for a smaller MLS with their rezoning application, rather than Council seeking to upsize the lot in a retrospective attempt to protect the land.
Minimum lot size over Public and Private Recreation, RE1 and RE2 lands
The BMCS strongly recommends that the largest lot size available is applied to the Recreation RE1 and RE2 lands. This would strengthen and back up clause 4.1D which does not allow subdivision except for a public purpose. It would also be a safety net should clause 4.1D be removed or watered down at State level.
Recommendations
The BMCS strongly recommends that the standard minimum lot size applied to private and public E2 zoned land is 40ha or higher. Where the area of E2 zoning is larger than 80ha, the largest minimum lot size available in the draft LEP should be applied (100 or 130 ha).
A 100 or 130ha minimum lot size should also be applied to all E2 zoned land in the areas largely zoned for rural purposes to the west and north of the LGA to be compatible with surrounding lot sizes.
The BMCS strongly recommends that the largest minimum lot size available is applied to the Recreation RE1 and RE2 lands.
15
4.1D, 4.1E. Subdivision in the recreation zones for a public purpose, Subdivision in the Environmental Protection zones.
The BMCS strongly supports these local clauses as they transfer similar provisions limiting subdivision in recreation and environmental zones from the current LEPs 1991 and 2005, ensuring the same protections remain.
4.1F, 4.1G, 4.3A, 4.4A. Cluster Housing within certain environmental protection zones, Consolidation within certain environmental protection zones, Flexibility in the height of buildings, Site Coverage.
The BMCS supports these local clauses that bring existing LEP controls into the draft LEP. In particular, BMCS strongly supports clauses 4.1G which ensures consolidation and hence protection of environmentally constrained land.
Clause 4.1F contains subclauses that refer to “development excluded land” which appears to be an oversight as this term is not in the Dictionary. BMCS recommends that this is replaced with the term “environmentally constrained land” and Protected Areas.
4.6. Exceptions to development standards
The BMCS supports the addition of local exclusions under this compulsory clause in accordance with the clause’s Direction.
Part 5: MISCELLANEOUSSubmission PROVISIONS 327 5.1. Acquisition issues
BMCS supports the acquisition of lands zoned E2 for the purposes of conservation. Some of these shown on the Land Reservation Acquisition Maps have been specifically commented on in Attachment ‘A’ which outlines specific local area issues.
5.9. Preservation of trees or vegetation
The BMCS supports the inclusion of this optional clause in the draft LEP. The BMCS also supports the inclusion of subclause (9) under 5.9 that will prevent the clearing of trees and native vegetation in environmental zones that would otherwise be permitted through exemptions under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, such as for routine agricultural management activities.
Part 6: ADDITIONAL LOCAL PROVISIONS
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society strongly supports those Part 6 Local Provisions in green print related to the protection of the Blue Mountains natural environment but objects to clause 6.26 which does the reverse. The local provisions ensure the protections existing under the current LEPs for Protected Areas such as significant vegetation, areas with steep slopes and escarpment, and riparian land and watercourses are continued under the new LEP. The BMCS also supports the addition of settled clauses that address groundwater vulnerability, areas at risk of landslide and fauna corridors.
16
The BMCS is very concerned, however, that the Protected Area mapping Series 3 and 4 has not been applied to E2 lands. Any rezoning, development or subdivision in E2 land would subsequently not be subject to the controls contained in the relevant Protected Area clauses under Part 6.
It is highly unlikely that the State Government would support retrospective amendment of the natural resources maps to extend or add Protected Areas in the event of a rezoning or development proposal over E2 lands. If Council applied the protected area mapping to E2 lands now, it would provide a complete, consistent and continuous picture of where the Protected Areas are located in the Blue Mountains, be consistent with current LEP approaches, acceptable at State level under the Standard Instrument process, and be similar to the approaches taken by other local councils in NSW. It would also mean that at least the settled Protected Area clauses would be a safety net in the event of other local (green print) provisions being removed or weakened at State level.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that the Protected Area mapping is applied to all lands in the LEP under Council’s jurisdiction, including land zoned E2. The Protected Area mapping to be extended to all E2 zoned lands which currently has not been applied in the draft LEP, is listed below.
Natural Resources – Biodiversity Map (Map series 4) o Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area o Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area Natural Resources – Land Map (Map series 4) o Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area Riparian lands and watercourses (Map series 3) o ProtectedSubmission Area – Riparian Land 327 Scenic and Landscape Values map (Map series 3) o Protected Area – Escarpment o Protected Area – Land Between Towns
6.1. Impact on environmentally constrained land
The BMCS supports clause 6.1 as it duplicates a range of provisions under the current LEPs 1991 and 2005 that protect environmentally constrained land, including significant vegetation that might not be identified in mapping.
The term “environmentally constrained land” is defined in the Dictionary and this is supported with the slight amendment recommended below and with a recommendation that the definition be added as a Note if it is removed from the Dictionary at State level.
Recommendations
The definition of “environmentally constrained land” should be amended as follows:
(c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area – Watercourse’ or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map], or
17
(d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or (e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or
These amendments require additions to be made to the Dictionary – see later.
The BMCS recommends that if “environmentally constrained land” is not supported at State level as an additional local term in the Dictionary, its definition should be included as a Note under cl 6.1 and all other clauses in which it is used.
6.1(2). Impact on the National Park
The BMCS supports this important clause that highlights the need to ensure the Blue Mountains World Heritage listed national parks are not adversely impacted by adjoining development.
6.1(5). Other development
The BMCS supports this clause but with the slight amendment below.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommends that Blue Mountains National Park is added to this clause as one of the natural features that should be taken into consideration in terms of avoiding adverse environmental impacts when building works and asset protection zones are designed and sited. Submission 327 6.2, 6.4, 6.11. Fauna Corridors, Landslide Risk, Floodplain risk management.
The BMCS supports the inclusion of these settled clauses in the draft LEP.
6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.12. Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area, Vegetation Constraint Area, Ecological Buffer Area, Escarpment.
The BMCS strongly supports these local clauses that bring the protections contained under current LEPs 1991 and 2005 into the new draft LEP. These should be retained verbatim (apart from 6.5(2)(b) – see below) and as noted above should be extended to E2 lands through extension of the mapping series to which they refer.
However, the BMCS strongly recommends that Clause 6.5 (2) (b) be expanded to also include “rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats”.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that Clause 6.5 (2) (b) should be amended as follows:
6.5(2)(b) that is the site of a significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] or [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats]
18
6.7. Protected Area – Riparian land and watercourses
The BMCS strongly supports the incorporation into this settled clause of local provisions that ensure protection for buffer zones along watercourses.
As noted above, the BMCS strongly urges council to expand the mapping of riparian land and watercourses attached to this clause, on to E2 land in the Protected Area – Riparian Land and Watercourses maps.
6.8. Groundwater vulnerability
The BMCS supports the inclusion in the draft LEP of this settled clause.
The BMCS recommends that the associated Groundwater Vulnerability mapping incorporates the existing Blue Mountains Swamps mapping completed by Council and endorsed by State and Federal governments.
The Blue Mountains Swamps are listed as a vulnerable ecological community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 19952, and as an endangered ecological community under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 19983.
No detailed mapping of the whole mountains has occurred to identify the depth of aquifers. However, the presence of swamps as a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem indicates how widespread "highly vulnerable" groundwater is between Woodford and Mt Victoria. Therefore it can only be assumed that no areas should be excluded from at least the lowest level of vulnerability. There are patches excluded from this mapping which should definitely be included e.g. an area south of the Katoomba Airfield (Medlow Bath) and an area to the north and west of Lemartine Ave, Wentworth Falls.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommendsSubmission that in view of its threatened status, the 327 Blue Mountains Swamps should be mapped as “high groundwater vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map
The BMCS recommends that areas from Woodford to Mt Victoria (and also The Mounts) be mapped as “moderate groundwater vulnerability” unless there is detailed information to alter that status.
6.9. Stormwater management
The BMCS strongly supports the incorporation into this settled clause of local provisions. The local provisions provide this clause with strength and direction, and transfer existing LEP controls into the new draft LEP. The local provisions in this clause also help to protect the highly vulnerable network of rivers, creeks, watercourses, waterfalls and hanging swamps, which are an integral part of the Blue Mountains environment, from the impact of upstream development. The provisions also help to protect water quality in the World Heritage national parks and the Sydney drinking water catchment which encompasses part of the LGA.
Most development in the Blue Mountains is along the top of the main and outlying ridge tops, with the potential to adversely impact downstream aquatic environments and water quality. It is vital therefore that meaningful and substantive stormwater provisions are retained in the statutory LEP. The BMCS would not support these provisions being relegated to a lesser status by incorporation in the DCP rather than LEP. The BMCS has suggested an amendment (below) to the local provision wording based on wording used in similar
2 Listed as Blue Mountains Swamps in the Sydney Basin Bioregion under the TSC Act (NSW). 3 Listed as part of the endangered Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone under the EPBC Act (Cth).
19 additional local stormwater provisions placed under the Stormwater Management clauses in Shellharbour LEP 2013 and Eurobodalla LEP, for example. The BMCS considers the phrase “development consent must not be granted”, used in those LEPs, is more instructive than the current draft LEP wording.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommends that the stormwater clause should be amended as follows under cl 6.9(3): 6.9(3). Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development: …. etc etc
6.14. Earthworks
The BMCS strongly supports the inclusion in this settled clause of local provision cl 6.14(3)(d) that addresses cut and fill. This is an important addition as the Blue Mountains topography means many developments require cut and fill works, and in carrying out these works the highly vulnerable aquatic and terrestrial environment downslope or adjacent to the subject site can be significantly impacted.
However there is still the loophole of building materials, sediment, pollutants etc entering environmentally constrained land that is on the property of the building site. Ideally the requirement should be that none of this material should move off the development footprint.
Recommendation
The BMCC recommends that the words "environmentally constrained land" be added to clause 6.14 (3) (i).
6.15. Bush rock removalSubmission 327 Bush rock is vital habitat for many species found in the Blue Mountains including listed threatened flora and fauna species such as Acacia gordonii, Acacia bynoeana and Melaleuca deanei and the Spotted-tailed Quoll, Red-crowned Toadlet and Broad-headed Snake. The removal of bushrock from rock outcrops or areas of native vegetation is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The inclusion of this clause does not completely prevent the removal or damage to bushrock from development but at least requires a proposal to avoid areas containing bushrock, or the minimization or mitigation of bushrock impacts, before consent can be granted. This approach is strongly supported by the BMCS.
6.17. Principal Development Area
This clause, brought over from current LEPs, is supported by BMCS as it minimizes the extent of impervious surface on large lot sites and therefore reduces the level of impact from development on surrounding sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
6.22. Sustainable resource management
Although this clause only requires the consent authority to consider how it can “encourage” the sustainable use of resources, the BMCS supports its inclusion as a means of bringing the ecologically sustainable development reference in clause 1.2(b) into consideration at the development stage.
20
6.24. Essential services
The BMCS supports the incorporation into this settled clause of local provisions that regulate development on land that is not connected to the reticulated sewer. In view of the sensitivity of the Blue Mountains environment, the need to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and the quality of water in the drinking water catchment, these local inclusions are vital.
Many development sites are highly unsuitable for on-site systems. Existing problems with unsewered sites that have limited capacity for such systems illustrate the need for development proposed on unsewered land to be carefully controlled. The Blue Mountains City Council for example found in a 2009/2010 inspection of such sites that 50% were failing to meet operational requirements, with failed systems leading to weed infestations and falling water quality4.
The BMCS strongly supports the local provisions in this clause that prevent subdivision unless the subject land will be connected to reticulated sewerage, and that require a development site to be capable of the disposal of effluent without adversely affecting the environment where there is no sewer.
BMCS recommends that clause 6.24(3) include reference to the DCP that should contain the requirements for a geotechnical report and water balance report and that further clarifies the factors for a measure of 'adverse impact on the environment'.
The BMCS also supports the limits on pump out systems and the requirement for multi-occupied accommodation such as bed and breakfasts and boarding houses to be connected to reticulated sewerage with the capacity to accommodate the loads generated.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommends that clause 6.24(3) references the relevant DCP that should contain the requirementsSubmission for a geotechnical report and water balance report 327 and that further clarifies the factors for a measure of 'adverse impact on the environment’ under this clause.
6.26. Development Ancillary to a Dwelling House
The BMCS strongly objects to this clause and recommends it be deleted for the reasons given below.
A very limited number of uses are permitted in E2 zoned land because of the general environmental sensitivity of that land. Ancillary or incidental development was not permitted on environmentally protected land under LEP 1991 which encompassed most of the areas containing such land. It is recognized that this anomaly existed in LEP 2005, so there is now the opportunity to rectify the situation and create something enforceable to properly protect E2 zoned lands. The clearing of native vegetation or any other development should not occur in E2 zones under DLEP 2013. The clause is worded so openly it could, as is the case now under LEP 2005, lead to degradation and damage of environmentally sensitive areas such as creek lines and hanging swamps.
Small scale cumulative impacts are currently a major source of degradation of EP land in the Blue Mountains, rather than large developments. There should not be the ability for development to be permitted on E2 zoned land that can have relatively high cumulative impacts, such as garden sheds, barbeque areas, storage areas, clothes lines etc. These are the developments that are multiplying along many private E2 lands and are causing gradual but significant degradation. Car parks and sewerage systems have obvious immediate
4 http://www.sustainablebluemountains.net.au/imagesDB/resources/On-sitesewagesystems.pdf Sustainable Blue Mountains data sheet 2010.
21 impacts. There is already flexibility under cl 5.3 allowing for some incursion into E2 zoned land. The DLEP should not open up all E2 zoned lands to inappropriate development.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that clause 6.26 be deleted.
6.32. Horticulture within certain Environment Protection zones
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that an additional provision is added to this clause to prevent horticulture on environmentally constrained land as follows:
6.32(4) Consent will not be granted to development for the purpose of horticulture if it is on any land that is zoned E2, is environmentally constrained land, or is land that contains Protected Areas.
6.33. Keeping of hoofed animals
The current LEPs do not contain an enforceable clause to prevent damage being done by goats and horses along creeklines and in swamps.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommends that clause 6.33 is amended to prohibit the keeping of hoofed animals, regardless of stocking rates, on any land that is zoned E2, is environmentally constrained land, or is land that contains Protected Areas. Submission 327 DICTIONARY
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society supports the inclusion in the draft LEP Dictionary of local terms not otherwise defined in the Standard Instrument Dictionary such as “environmentally constrained land”, “notional development area”, and “rare species of flora” (though see following).
Recommendations
The BMCS recommends that the term “environmentally constrained land” be amended as follows:
(c) that is designated [‘Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area’] and ‘Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area’ on the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Map or that comprises a watercourse, together with any buffers required to protect the watercourse, [or designated ‘Protected Area – Watercourse’ or ‘Protected Area – Riparian Land’ on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map], or (d) on which any significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] is located, together with any buffers required to protect that community, or (e) on which any [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats (as defined in the Dictionary)] is located, together with any buffers required by the consent authority to protect that flora [and fauna or habitats], or
22
The BMCS recommends that a definition of “rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or its habitats” should replace “rare species of flora” in the Dictionary.
The BMCS recommends that a definition of “Ecological Buffer Area” be included in the Dictionary.
The BMCS strongly recommends that a definition of “Fauna Biocorridors” be included in the Dictionary.
The BMCS also recommends that should these additional local terms not be permitted in the Dictionary post exhibition, they are inserted as Notes under all clauses in which the term is used in the body of the draft LEP.
Submission 327
23
SCHEDULE 6: SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
General comments
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society strongly supports the inclusion of the Significant Vegetation Communities as a Schedule to the LEP rather than be in the DCP. The Blue Mountains LGA has a large amount of vegetation that is critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable at national, state and/or regional level and this vegetation requires particular protection.
This Schedule transfers the current LEP provisions protecting these communities into the new draft LEP. The inclusion of this Schedule, which links to any clause referencing “environmentally constrained land” in the draft LEP, also enables the protection of significant vegetation that is not mapped in the Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Map.
The BMCS would urge Council, however, to ensure that all mapped significant vegetation is incorporated into the Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Map as this provides a stronger and more certain attachment to the additional local provisions in Part 6 that contain the development controls. The vegetation should be mapped across the whole LGA, including E2 areas.
If this Schedule is disallowed by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure or Minister then the Blue Mountains City Council needs to press for re-exhibition, particularly as the background vegetation mapping behind the vegetation constraint mapping has not been exhibited or made available. The vegetation constraint mapping exhibited is not complete as it does not cover all lands, and the community has not able to ascertain the accuracy of the background vegetation mapping.
In Schedule 6, where the communities are listed as Endangered or Vulnerable Ecological Communities under the NSW Threatened SubmissionSpecies Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), this is noted 327 within the community description. This is supported. However, Schedule 6 communities that are listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) should also be noted in the community description.
Specific comments and corrections
Page 171
The Note states that bold italics are used to denote rare, endangered or dominant species.
The word “endangered” should be replaced by “threatened” which includes vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered and extinct species. Bold italics are missing for rare and threatened species in the species list for each community.
Page 174
In the community description Toona australis should be Toona ciliata.
Page 175
(2A) Moist Basalt Cap Forest is not listed under the TSC Act but it is listed as an endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act as ‘Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’. Davesia ulicifolia should be Daviesia ulicifolia.
24
Page 176
(2B) Blue Mountains Shale Cap Forest is also listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. It is specifically included in the nationally listed and critically endangered community Turpentine-Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion.
Remove “The form of Blue Mountains Shale Cap Forest that occurs within the City is distinguished from the closely related Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest by the presence of E. notabilis (Mountain Mahogany)” – this statement is not correct as demonstrated by the inclusion of Eucalyptus notabilis in the species lists for both (2B) and (2C).
Page 177
(2C) Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act.
Page 178
(2C) Sydney Turpentine –Ironbark Forest also occurs on the fringes of the volcanic diatreme at Sun Valley and on the shale-influenced soils in gullies and sheltered sites along the eastern escarpment of the Blue Mountains.
Page 178
(2D) Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act.
Page 185
(2I) Sun Valley Cabbage Gum Forest
Add after “on the diatremes at Sun Valley” “There is also a small outlying occurrence near Cripple Creek at Warrimoo”. Submission 327
Page 187
(2K) Blue Gum Riverflat Forest. This community is included in the endangered ecological community ‘River- flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions’ which is listed under the NSW TSC Act. Advice from the NSW Scientific Committee (dated 9 June 2010) in regard to whether Community 2K was included in this TSC Act listing stated:
“While Eucalyptus deanei is now not included as a characteristic species it can still be present in this community and the tall open forests on alluvium soils in the Blue Mountains containing Eucalyptus deanei could still be considered a part of the River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains community provided they contain other components of the listed community”.
Page 198
(4D) Redgum Swamp Woodland. According to Blue Mountains City Council (2002) Native vegetation mapping of the Blue Mountains City 2002, “this very rare community was previously mapped as Cox’s River Swamps by Keith and Benson (1988)”. The Keith and Benson (1988) Cox’s River Swamps are included in the endangered ecological community Montane Peatlands and Swamps of the New England Tableland, NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, South Eastern Corner, South Eastern Highlands and Australian Alps Bioregions which is listed under the TSC Act. Community 4D is thus a part of the listed endangered ecological community.
25
Page 201
(5B) Blue Mountains Swamps
Parts of this community are included in the endangered ecological community Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone that is listed under the EPBC Act.
Page 202
Paragraph 5 refers to “an undescribed shrub Melaleuca sp. Megalong Valley” and also includes this species in the species list. This species was described in 2009 and is now known as Callistemon megalongensis. In May 2013 its status under the TSC Act was changed from vulnerable to critically endangered, being known now from only 8 sites in the Megalong Valley.
Submission 327
26
COMMENTS ON MAPPING CONTAINED IN NATURAL RESOURCES – BIODIVERSITY MAP SHEETS
Map units
Three map units are mapped in the Natural Resources – Biodiversity map sheets: Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Area (green), Protected Area – Ecological Buffer Area (yellow), and Fauna Biocorridor (brown). The Vegetation Constraint Areas comprise a number of vegetation communities that are variously significant at national, state and/or regional level.
Background studies
The background studies which underpin the mapping of the three mapped units have not been made available during the period of exhibition of Draft LEP 2013. Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) has found it difficult to interpret and check the veracity of the mapping provided in the LEP without being able to assess the background mapping studies. BMCS had understood that background mapping studies, including the identification of the vegetation communities which comprise individual Vegetation Constraint Areas, would be exhibited in conjunction with Draft LEP 2013. BMCS recommends that the background studies be made available for public comment in the interest of validating and refining the accuracy of mapping. BMCS recognises that the validation and refinement of mapping is likely to be an on-going process.
Recommendation
The BMCS recommends that the background studies be made available for public comment in the interest of validatingSubmission and refining the accuracy of mapping. 327
Area of mapping
The Natural Resources - Biodiversity mapping has not been applied to all land zonings in the area covered by Draft LEP 2013 and managed by Blue Mountains City Council. Vegetation Constraint and Ecological Buffer Areas appear to have not been mapped on some parcels of land including those zoned E2 and RE1. BMCS believes that the mapping of Vegetation Constraint and Ecological Buffer Areas should be extended as a matter of priority across all lands which are managed by Council. Lands zoned E2 and RE1 are subject to impacts from developments on adjacent lands and also to impacts from developments on the E2 and RE1 zoned land itself. One example of such development on E2/RE1 zoned land is the recent construction of the downhill bike track in Knapsack Park, Glenbrook. BMCS has been long concerned about this development on land zoned E2 or RE1 which contains highly significant vegetation communities, Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (2C) and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (2D), which are listed in Schedule 6 of Draft LEP 2013 and are also significant at state and national area (listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and NSW TSC Act). These areas of significant vegetation are not mapped as Vegetation Constraint Areas in the Draft LEP 2013 mapping. However, the vegetation has still been subject to a development with potential to have an adverse impact on the significant vegetation communities. By restricting the area of mapping it is possible that parcels of land in adjacent areas that should have been mapped will be missed. For example, BMCS is further concerned about a parcel of land adjacent to the above E2/RE1 land, immediately to the south of the Lovers Walk track and north of the oval in Knapsack Park, which is zoned E4 Environmental Living. This parcel of land zoned E4 contains Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest which is an endangered or critically endangered ecological community at state and national level. However, in the Draft LEP 2013 mapping no Vegetation Constraint Area has been mapped on this parcel of E4 zoned land.
27
Clause 6.5 (2)
Clause 6.5 (2) of LEP 2013 states that Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint Areas include both lands that are mapped in the LEP and also all lands that are the site of significant vegetation communities (defined in Schedule 6) and also the site of rare species of flora. BMCS strongly recommends that Clause 6.5 (2) (b) be expanded to also include “rare or threatened species of flora and fauna and their habitats” rather than the given “rare species of flora”. BMCS recognises the difficulty of accurately mapping all areas of significant vegetation (as highlighted by the above example of the E4 parcel of land) and all occurrences of rare or threatened flora and fauna species that occur outside of areas of significant vegetation. BMCS strongly supports the application of Clause 6.5 to areas which are either mapped or are defined as a Vegetation Constraint Area.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that Clause 6.5 (2) (b) should be amended as follows:
6.5(2)(b) that is the site of a significant vegetation community [as listed in Schedule 6] or [rare or threatened species of flora and fauna or their habitats]
Adequacy of Vegetation Constraint Area mapping
BMCS has examined the maps of Vegetation Constraint Areas provided in the DLEP and has noted a number of areas which contain significant vegetation, as highlighted above, that are not included in the Vegetation Constraint Area mapping. An example of one such area is the land in the vicinity of Sun Valley. BMCS has had a particular interest in this area as it contains Sun Valley Cabbage Gum Forest, which is the only vegetation community in the BlueSubmission Mountains LGA that is listed as critically endangered 327 under the NSW TSC Act. The Sun Valley area is also a popular venue for bird watchers and for spotting nocturnal mammals. BMCS is concerned that the Vegetation Constraint Area mapping in Draft LEP 2013 does not include all of the Cabbage Gum Forest that occurs on the lands zoned RU2, including the Cabbage Gum Forest that extends along Rosenthal Lane. Neither does the mapping include a large patch of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (endangered at state level and critically endangered at national level) that occurs on the slopes above the Sun Valley diatreme on land zoned RU2. Such a finding adds further support for the need to include Clause 6.5 (2) and to continue to refine the mapping.
Adequacy of Ecological Buffer Area mapping
As no background studies underpinning the mapping of Ecological Buffer Areas have been made available the BMCS is unable to properly comment on the adequacy of the Ecological Buffer Area mapping and what is being mapped. For example, BMCS does not understand why some Vegetation Constraint Areas outside of the unmapped E2 and RE1 zoned lands are surrounded by an Ecological Buffer Area and why others areas are without a buffer area.
Some examples of unmapped Ecological Buffer Areas outside of E2 and RE1 areas, or inconsistent mapping:
Map sheet 006B - southern side of Woodford. Green patches of significant vegetation on E3 land - room for buffer on E3 land but no buffer mapped. Map sheet 006A - southern Hazelbrook. Significant vegetation patch mapped on E4 land - room for buffer on E4 land but no buffer mapped
28
Map sheet 005G - Yellow Rock - southern side. Significant vegetation patch mapped on E3 but no buffer mapped on adjacent E3. Map sheet 005F – Winmalee. Significant vegetation patch on E3, no buffer on adjacent E4 and E3. Map sheet 005EA – Springwood. Significant vegetation patch is mapped on RE1 to north of Lucinda Ave and east of Prince Rd. A buffer is mapped on RE1 land. However on RE1 land at Knapsack Park Glenbrook there is no significant vegetation or buffers mapped on RE1 land which contains sig veg. The mapping is not consistent. Map sheet 005E. South west of Sun Valley Rd is a large area of mapped significant vegetation on RU2 land but there is no buffer mapped on the adjacent RU2 lands.
Definition of Ecological Buffer Area
“Ecological Buffer Area” does not appear to be defined in the DLEP 2013. The Society notes that the BMCC’s Environmental Management Plan 2002 Planning Study Volume 1: Planning Framework, which was a background study to LEP 2005, contained a section on Protected Area - Ecological Buffer Area (Section 5.2.3). Section 5.2.3 states that:
"the buffer width adjoining Environmental Protection zoned significant vegetation totals 60 metres, and comprises an Ecological Buffer Area 50 metres wide and a buffer ten metres wide which is incorporated within the Environmental Protection zone itself" (p.90).
It goes on to provide a diagram of mapped buffers and how roads that cross buffers were dealt with.
The BMCS suggests that buffers around significant vegetation in DLEP 2013 could be determined as per the description in Section 5.2.3 of Council's Environmental Management Plan 2002 Planning Study Volume 1. Recommendation Submission 327 The BMCS strongly recommends that the term “Ecological Buffer Area” be defined in Draft LEP 2013.
Adequacy of Fauna Biocorridor mapping
The term “Fauna Biocorridors” does not appear to be defined in Draft LEP 2013 and no background studies underpinning the mapping have been made available. BMCS is unable to properly comment on the adequacy of the Fauna Biocorridors mapping when BMCS does not understand what is being mapped.
Recommendation
The BMCS strongly recommends that “Fauna Biocorridors” be defined in Draft LEP 2013.
29
COMMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2010
The Residential Development Strategy 2010 aims to review the original Residential Development Strategy (RDS) developed in 2002 for the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2005. The review also considered changes in NSW Government planning policies, more recent census data, information on development trends including new housing development and other reports and information.
Population data
The Society notes the major findings of the report which are:
the population of the Blue Mountains decreased between 2001(74,323) and 2006 (74,065); the latest population projection (ID 2010) projected a population of 77,926 by 2021 (however, population projections over time increasingly have declined as new census data has been produced); and the population structure of the Blue Mountains is ageing, with young families and children decreasing in number as a proportion of the community.
Undeveloped land
The Society notes the analysis of total undeveloped land in the Blue Mountains, based on the planning policies currently contained in LEPs 2005 and 1991. This analysis indicates:
total number Submissionof undeveloped lots = 4013 327 total additional lots produced after subdivision = 3,206 total lots available = 7,219
The analysis shows that the greatest number of undeveloped parcels is in the Upper Mountains: Blackheath (1,000), Katoomba (966), Leura (603) and Wentworth Falls (838). In the entire Lower Mountains (Faulconbridge to Lapstone) there are only 1,664 undeveloped lots available.
If you look at the existing number of dwelling houses (as at 2006) in the villages with the greatest potential for development as listed above, and assume all the undeveloped lots are developed, then the character and ambience of these towns will change significantly. The potential percentage increase in growth is significant in these key towns and will put considerable strain on Council services and infrastructure such as water, sewage and roads. Greater development on the bushland fringes will also put considerable strain on the environment, including the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. While the study emphasises that not all undeveloped lots will be developed, the analysis does show the expected growth if all development potential is realised. This indicates that even under current planning policies the current allowable future development potential for the Blue Mountain is unsustainable.
Blackheath: existing dwellings 2598; potential increase 1,000; new total 3,598 representing an increase of 38% Katoomba: existing dwellings 4228, potential increase 966; new total 5194 representing an increase of 22% Leura: existing dwellings 2300, potential increase 603; new total 2903 representing an increase of 26% Wentworth Falls existing dwellings 2818, potential increase 838; new total 3656 representing an increase of 29%.
The Study highlights that new development in the Blue Mountains is severely constrained by a wide variety of factors including environmental factors (slope, scenic values, significant vegetation, watercourses, drinking water catchment, threatened flora and fauna species), risk factors (including bushfire and flooding), quality of life factors such as retention of the character and ambience of the villages and, lastly, service and infrastructure factors (such as a lack of mains sewage, water and power). The Study therefore suggests a more realistic number of vacant lots that could be developed, taking into account the constraints listed above, is 4,045. However, there is no detail in regard to how this revised figure was developed, which seems to be based on some large assumptions and guesstimates. This still represents a significant number of new dwellings and it is assumed the largest proportion will be in the villages in the Upper Mountains as this is where the greatest number of undeveloped lots are (although the breakdown by town of the 4,045 figure is not given).
Future development
The large number of undeveloped lots still available in the Blue Mountains contrasts sharply with the average number of new dwellings approved to be built in the Blue Mountains per year. Between 2000 and 2009 the average number of new dwellings approved was 229 per year (the number of new dwellings actually connected to mains water was a lower 151 dwellings per year). Based on this data, the Study estimates—assuming similar numbers of yearly building approvals and the 4,045 figure in terms of the vacant land available—Submissionthat there are enough undeveloped lots in the Blue327 Mountains to meet housing demand until 2030.
Implications of the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney
The Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney (Metro Strategy) was released for comment in 2013 and therefore its implications were not considered or analysed in the RSD 2010. The Metro Strategy has still not been finalised by the NSW Government. The Society made a detailed submission to the draft Strategy, given the huge implications the Strategy proposed for the Blue Mountains in terms of environmental impacts.
The draft Metro Strategy outlined some key population and growth targets for the Blue Mountains. This has significant implications for the City. The outcomes imposed included:
identifying Faulconbridge to Lapstone as an Metropolitan Urban Area, where new residential development will be targeted to occur; imposing a housing target of 39,000 new houses by 2031 (an increase of 30%) to be shared between Blue Mountains, Penrith and Hawkesbury (the target for each LGA was not specified but Hawkesbury, unlike the Blue Mountains and Penrith, did not have a Metropolitan Urban Area identified); and imposing a population target of 416,000 by 2031, an increase of 89,000 or 27% (the target for each LGA was again not specified).
31
The Residential Development Strategy 2010 was completed before the Metro Strategy was released. The evidence and data as outlined in the RSD 2010 as compared to what has been proposed in the Metro Strategy is alarming:
The greatest potential for new development is the Upper Mountains, not the Lower Mountains as proposed in the Metro Strategy. The target of a 27% increase in population across the 3 LGAs by 2031 contrasts with the decrease in population in the Blue Mountains from 2001 to 2006. The target of 39,000 new houses across the 3 LGAs contrasts with the maximum number of undeveloped lots in the Blue Mountains of 7,319 or the more realistic 4,045 lots. Assuming the Blue Mountains would contribute 25% of the 39,000 new dwellings target, this means that 9,750 lots (out of 39,000) would need to be developed for housing in the Blue Mountains. In other words, there is a shortfall of 2,431 lots if we assume that the maximum number of undeveloped lots (7,319) were developed, or a shortfall of 5,705 lots if the more realistic figure of 4,045 undeveloped lots was used. Achieving this level of development would require a major and significant shift in the development pattern and current planning policies for the Blue Mountains, substantially expanding areas where small lot subdivisions could occur and expanding the amount and location of where medium density housing could occur. This would include allowing small lot subdivisions along ridge tops, which are at risk from bushfires, and medium density housing and increased subdivision in established villages where large lot garden character residential areas dominate.
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society would argue that the development potential, assuming all lots under the current planning policies area developed, is unsustainable. The housing and population targets imposed by the Draft Metro Strategy would have immense negative social, environmental and economic impacts for the villagesSubmission of the Blue Mountains and the Greater Blue Mountains 327 World Heritage Area, and are in fact unrealistic and unachievable.
32
Blue Mountains Conservation Society submission to Blue Mountains DLEP 2013 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ – MAP SERIES
As stated previously, the overall concern and request by the BMCS that relates to the maps generally is the application of minimum lot sizes and Protected Area mapping. The application of larger minimum lot sizes to all public and private E2 zoned land, and Recreation RE1 and RE2 zoned land, is strongly recommended. BMCS also strongly recommends that Protected Area mapping be applied to all land under Council’s jurisdiction, including E2.
Attachment ‘A’ consists of a table listing specific issues raised in some of the mapping relating to particular lots or areas. This list has been collated from various individuals and groups and has not been verified by BMCS. We request that Council investigates these further.
SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT FOR ATTACHMENT ‘A’
Submission 327
33
Blue Mountains Conservation Society submission to Blue Mountains DLEP 2013 ATTACHMENT ‘B’ - CASE STUDY
179-199 Valley Rd Hazelbrook (see APPENDIX for aerial photograph)
DLEP 2013 Map 006A, LEP 2005 Map 21
This case study illustrates several of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society’s concerns and subsequent recommendations relating to:
how past planning decisions have led to anomalies in the application of zoning and minimum lot sizes with unsatisfactory environmental outcomes for this property (and probably similar other properties) in DLEP 2013 minimum lot size covering E2 zones mapping of Protected Areas in E2 zones
Site description
This is a 240 acre (97 ha) property adjoining the national park comprising 4 (?) lots/parcels spanning 3 south- running ridges and creeks in south Hazelbrook-Woodford. These creeks and runoff from the site drain into Bedford Creek and ultimately into the Nepean River. The property (and dam on the site) is often visited by birdwatchers and the walking trails are used by local residents.
There are 3 road access points to the property: Valley Rd Hazelbrook, Riches Ave Woodford and Park Rd Woodford. Valley Rd is sealed almost to the entry to the property and all houses on Valley Rd up to the property are serviced.Submission Riches Ave is unsealed for most of its length to the327 property, Park Rd less so but the unsealed section is steeper and rougher. In the case of Riches Ave, the access road becomes unsealed where the sewer stops at the upper section of Riches Ave where the small subdivided blocks end. This can be clearly seen on the LEP 2005 Map 21 Panel J: sewerage. From there down it is a 1 km (approx.) dirt road with 4 houses on large lots (25 acres) until the property is reached. These lots are not connected to the sewer. Riches Ave and Park Rd loop around and meet at the site of the ‘Park Rd dam’ which was used by Elvis the water-bombing helicopter during the 2001-2 bushfires in the area. Only 4WD vehicles can negotiate Riches Ave and Park Rd on this part of the property, and these vehicles have caused serious erosion around the dam area.
There is no development on the site at the Riches Avenue and Park Rd access points. However, some bushland on the site was (illegally) cleared many years ago and slashing of regrowth has been maintained by all owners since. There are old horse stables and a small house/shed at the Valley Rd entrance to the property which has been used as a residence. There are cleared patches at the Valley Rd section of the property on which cattle were grazing until recently. Otherwise, the property is mainly covered by native vegetation.
As far as we are aware, the property has not yet been assessed for Aboriginal significance.
Site history
This site has a long history of subdivision attempts. Long term residents remember that around 20 years ago (it is unclear if this was before or after LEP 1991) there was an application for large scale subdivision on the site which was rejected on many grounds. Apart from lack of water and sewer provision and high bushfire
34 risk, one of the grounds of rejection was the unsuitability of Riches Ave for vehicle access to the site. Apart from being unsealed for most of its length, Riches Ave is very narrow, being 4.6 m wide (gutter to gutter) in the sealed section, meaning that cars have to mount the kerb to pass each other. This creates an unacceptable risk in the event of a bushfire evacuation. In other words, there is no viable access to the site from Riches Ave.
In LEP 1991 much of this property, along with large adjoining properties, was designated the Hazelbrook/Woodford Residential Investigation Area (RES-1). All these Residential Investigation Areas were removed from LEP 1991 and incorporated into LEP 2005. However, it seems that 2 parcels of land on this property at the end of Valley Rd, remained in LEP 1991 and were zoned Bushland Conservation and Environmental Protection.
In the 1997 EMP Stage 2 Local Environment Study, Study Area 3 (p.116), the Hazelbrook/Woodford Residential Investigation Area was deemed to be not suitable for conventional residential development because of the extreme to high fire threat and because of its environmental constraints. These constraints were identified as steep slopes, significant creekline and moist cliffline vegetation communities downstream, and the presence of significant fauna species and significant fauna/flora habitats. Accordingly, the study recommended that the environmental constraint areas be zoned Environmental Protection and ‘Bushland Conservation’ (as it was termed in the study) no subdivision “in order to conserve the natural bushland character of the landscape and to promote the regeneration of natural bushland in areas with sparse tree or canopy cover” (p.116).
The Environmental Management Plan 2002 Volume 1 Planning Framework reiterated this view that the Hazelbrook-Woodford Residential Investigation Area was highly constrained by environmental factors and high levels of bushfire threat, that development would place considerable pressure on servicing and infrastructure, and that “the impact of development on watercourses and vegetation communities within the locality would be Submissionunacceptable” (p. 62). For these reasons, the Environmental 327 Protection zone was applied over the environmentally constrained area and Living - Bushland Conservation with a No Subdivision notation applied to other land. This was consistent with the planning principles of the Draft LEP 2005 limiting urban expansion especially to exposed, environmentally sensitive and under-serviced areas such as this. However, in August 2003, following advice from Sydney Water, Council resolved to lift the No Subdivision notation on this and other Living - Bushland Conservation areas. Lifting the No Subdivision notation was purely on the basis of Sydney Water’s current and future planned capacity to provide reticulated sewerage and potable water supply, not on the basis of environmental constraints.
Around 2002 the property was sold to a Sydney-based property development company. In late 2012 the property was passed in at auction under a mortgagee sale. It was subsequently sold in 2013. Given the long history of subdivision attempts, this is a site of great concern to the Society.
DLEP 2013 Zones applying to the property In accordance with the Council’s policy to translate LEP 1991 and LEP 2005 zones into the most closely fitting Standard Instrument zones in DLEP 2013, E2 has been applied to the Environmental Protection zone areas on this property, E3 applied to the LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation zone areas, and E4 applied to the LEP 2005 Living - Bushland Conservation zone areas. While this is consistent with Council’s policy of translating current LEP zones to DLEP 2013 zones, it creates anomalies in the zones and the minimum lot sizes that are then applied to the property. These anomalies have been created through two LEPs having been applied to the property. An urban zone, Living – Bushland Conservation, was applied over part of the property when it was
35 incorporated into LEP 2005. LEP 2005 was meant to cover already developed urban areas of the Blue Mountains, yet this property is on the outer fringes of south Hazelbrook-Woodford adjoining the national park. The anomaly becomes apparent when you consider that the areas of south Hazelbrook-Woodford further up the access roads from this property, closer to the highway and train line, are still covered by LEP 1991. So you have zones relevant to bushland areas (LEP 1991) applied to already developed residential areas, and urban zones (LEP 2005) applied to areas that really are in the undeveloped bushland adjoining the national park, at least in this case.
The upshot of this anomaly is that the most unsuitable area for residential development on this property – the portion at the end of Riches Ave which does not have water or sewer supply and with only a narrow 1 km dirt road leading to it - has had an E4 zone applied to it simply because this was a translation from the LEP 2005 Living – Bushland Conservation zone which previously applied. At the same time, the most developable part of this property – the serviced, already partly cleared and developed area with a sealed road access from Valley Rd – has a small portion of E4 at the property entrance followed by a more extensive and highly constrained E3 zone area. E3 was applied simply because this was a translation from the LEP 1991 Bushland Conservation zone that had previously applied.
Arguably, an E3 zone should have been applied to all developable areas on these large lots, as has occurred on similar lots at the end of Bedford Rd, Woodford. Alternatively, a larger minimum lot size could have been applied to the E4 areas e.g. 10ha, reflecting more accurately its environmental sensitivity. We also note that the recommendation in the LEP 1991 Rural Lands Planning Study Bushland Conservation Zone Report (p.85) that more extensive Environmental Protection zoning should be applied to the Bushland Conservation area on the property at the Valley Rd entrance has not been followed through in the DLEP 2013.
Minimum lot sizes applying on E3 and E4 zones on the property, and essential services The anomaly in zoning becomes more apparent when the minimum lot size that is then applied to the E3 and E4 zone areas on Submissionthe property is considered. The E3 area on this property 327 at the end of Valley Rd has an AB3 30 ha minimum lot size applied, while the E4 areas at the end of Riches Ave and Valley Rd have a 1200m2 minimum lot size applied. Remember that the Riches Ave part of the property is the area that is most highly constrained by lack of access and services.
Further, the E4 areas on the property have the designation Area G (Clause 4.1F) on the Lot Averaging Map. This clause allows for cluster housing development in E3 and E4 zones. While this is meant to limit the impact of housing development in these environmentally sensitive lands, it raises the issue of servicing such a development. It would seem from Clause 6.24 that any subdivision of the E4 area at the end of Riches Ave would be precluded by the current absence of availability of sewer, water and electricity services. The cost of providing these services, along with the stormwater management and other provisions that would apply, would be prohibitive for any developer given the limited lot yield that would be possible on this part of the property.
The only economically feasible subdivision option for the Riches Ave part of the property would be one or two dwellings on lots large enough for on-site sewer disposal. This is apart from any such houses requiring large water collection tanks and possibly off-grid electricity generation. However, any dwelling and on-site effluent disposal system on this/any part of the property would be located on a hillside draining down into one of the creeks. Any on-site sewer disposal would not be acceptable, as confirmed by the Environmental Management Plan 2002 Volume 1 Planning Framework’s statement that “the impact of development on watercourses and vegetation communities within the locality would be unacceptable” (p. 62).
While such constraints, plus the proximity of E2 zones and ecological buffer areas, seem to offer protection from inappropriate development on this environmentally sensitive property, the 1200m2 minimum lot size
36
(with cluster housing provisions) applying to the most undevelopable part of the property (the Riches Ave E4 area) seems anachronistic.
Minimum lot sizes (MLS) applying to E2 zones on the property The Council’s policy in applying minimum lot sizes to E2 lands is to apply the MLS on the developable part of a lot/parcel to the adjoining E2 zone on the parcel. So if a lot/parcel has a split zoning of E4 and E2, for instance, the MLS applying to the E4 part also applies in the E2 zone on the lot/parcel i.e. 1200 m2. This becomes highly problematic on this property which is made up of several parcels. Where there is an E4 zone (such as at the end of Riches Ave and Valley Rd), a 1200 m2 MLS also applies to all the E2 zoned area on that parcel. Where there is an E3 zone on part of a parcel (e.g. also in the Valley Rd section), a 30 ha MLS applies to the E2 zone on that parcel. This produces an anachronous situation illustrated in the map (see APPENDIX – yellow lines show parcel divisions), where two adjoining parcels of land on the one property, which are identical in physical and natural features, have been allotted vastly different MLS on both the developable part of the parcel and on the E2 part of the parcel. This does not make sense and sends the wrong signal about the development potential of the property.
Council will argue that the E2 zone prohibits subdivision and development and that is adequate protection and so it doesn’t matter what MLS is applied to the E2 zone. But the concern is that land owners can apply for rezoning of E2 land and even if Council rejects the application the owner has recourse to the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel. If the Council decision is overturned and the 1200 m2 MLS applies it may then be very difficult for Council to increase the lot size to gain the protections the land would lose through a change of zone from E2.
Supports BMCS recommendation: that to overcome such anomalies and to maintain protection of the E2 zone, the minimum lot size applied to the E2 zoned land should be 40 ha. See main submission for further recommendations aboutSubmission minimum lot sizes applying to E2 lands. 327 Unmapped Protected Areas on the E2 zone Similarly, the BMCS is concerned about the potential impact of the lack of mapping of Protected Areas on the E2 zones surrounding the E3 and E4 zones on this site, and on all E2 zoned areas across the local government area generally.
As for LEP 2005, Council has chosen not to map the Protected Areas in the environmental protection zone (E2) in DLEP 2103. This is problematic because of the potential for rezoning of E2, and because of the (albeit limited) activities allowed in the E2 zone. If Protected Areas are not mapped in E2 areas, any rezoning, development or subdivision of E2 land would not be subject to the controls contained in the relevant Protected Area clauses under Part 6 of the DLEP.
The LEP 2005 Map 21 Panel E (Significant vegetation communities/ecological buffer areas) covering this property shows that the E2/Environmental Protection zone on this site contains substantial swamp and significant vegetation buffer areas along the creeks, riparian corridors and complexes. There are also escarpment complexes and a range of significant vegetation communities and Protected Areas on the site, but mainly (obviously) located in the E2 areas. These environmentally sensitive areas and Protected Areas on this site are mostly not visible in the DLEP 2013 maps because they are not mapped in E2 areas. This means that there is not a clear picture of what, exactly, are the environmental constraints on development on the property and to what extent.
Supports BMCS recommendation: that Protected Area mapping be applied to ALL lands in the DLEP 2013 including land zoned E2.
37
APPENDIX to Attachment ‘B’: map of minimum lot sizes on different portions of 179-199 Valley Rd Hazelbrook. The property takes up much of the bottom half of the map west of Park Rd.
Submission 327
38
Blue Mountains Conservation Society submission to Blue Mountains DLEP 2013 ATTACHMENT ‘C’ – CEMETERY MANAGEMENT
Comments about each of the following cemeteries are contained within Attachment ‘A’ Mt Victoria; Blackheath; Katoomba; Wentworth Falls; Lawson; Faulconbridge; Springwood.
Recommendation
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society recommends that all cemeteries have a buffer area of at least 25m wide on the downslope side, contained within the lot, for the protection of groundwater. In cemeteries located within 100m of a swamp or watercourse this buffer width should be increased (similar to buffer widths required around effluent disposal areas as stated in Better Living DCP, clause D1.9.11). This buffer should be zoned E2 - Environmental Protection.
'Buffers' usually encompass an area which requires protection – in the present case, the buffers proposed are to protect what liesSubmission outside the area used as a cemetery. 327 These recommendations are based on work undertaken by Boyd Dent and Michael Knight at the National Centre for Groundwater Management (University of Technology, Sydney). Although deep sandy soils (as discussed in Dent and Knight’s work) are uncommon in the Blue Mountains, their findings provide some guidance on the matter of groundwater protection.
During the 1996-1998 National Study of Cemetery Groundwaters, Dent and Knight compiled a paper entitled “Cemeteries: A Special Kind of Land fill. The context of their Sustainable Management”. This paper was presented to the Groundwater Sustainable Solutions Conference in Melbourne in 1998 [International Association of Hydrogeologists]. It makes the following recommendation:
There are now sufficiently strong grounds for asserting that cemeteries must have buffer zones on all boundaries but particularly on topographical lows and lowermost portions of hydraulic gradients. These should be planted with substantial, deep-rooting, native trees that consume large volumes of groundwater, rather than lawns that are unlikely to do this and may also permit excessive infiltration. No internment should lie at the cemetery boundary. Buffer zones in sandy areas should be larger than those in clayey soils, but at present cannot be prescribed for size.
Work by Boyd B. Dent1 in 2002, gives more precise guidelines as to the width of buffer zones. This Study recommends that buffer zones be created around the whole of sites at default distances of:
. 20m in sandy soil if the boundary is down hydraulic gradient or on a topographic low; otherwise
1 Dent, Boyd B. The Hydrogeological Context Of Cemetery Operations and Planning In Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Technology, 2002.
39
10m. This distance should be greater (to 25 m) in sandy areas with high hydraulic gradients, say more than 0.05 (5 %). . 10m in clayey soils if the boundary is down hydraulic gradient or on a topographic low; otherwise 5m.
Dent explains that there may be some instances where the default distance is inappropriate or too restrictive to the cemetery development: for example, too small where a cemetery on steep aeolian deposits borders a wetland, or too big where a clayey site adjoins a landfill. Such instances should be resolved following an appropriate hydrogeologic evaluation.
In the buffer zone a further effort should be made to attenuate groundwater flow by removing it naturally, that is, through evapotranspiration with suitable vegetation – one of the forms of phytoremediation. The planting of deep-rooting, locally adapted, native vegetation is likely to provide the best type of planting, although there are cases where other species have proved effective.
Dent’s analysis2 shows that the most common decompositional product to leave the cemetery’s precinct is nitrogen; other products include Cl, SO4, Na, Mg and P. Overall, the concentrations may be small, but N and P have the propensity to cause environmental degradation because they are plant nutrients. If these nutrients could be consumed en-route, this would be advantageous for wetlands or aquifers which receive the groundwaters.
The assessment of the survival and transmission of potential pathogenic organisms, and the likely off-site migration of some nutrient substances, has reinforced the need to keep cemeteries well away from swampland, waterways and lakes.
The potential risk is that products of decomposition will spread from the swampland and contaminate the groundwater system Submissionand/or have detrimental effects on the swampland 327 ecosystems. With respect to the latter, the effects will be very varied depending on the size, type and inter-relationships of the swampland.
Summary of DLEP 2013 Issues The Society therefore makes the following comments concerning the proposed Zoning of cemeteries in DLEP 2013: . The Society recognises that Council is required to zone cemeteries as SP2.
. We propose that only the extent of the area to be disturbed for cemetery purposes be zoned SP2 and the areas to be retained as natural bushland be zoned E2 when these areas have been identified as fulfilling the criteria of Protected Areas – slope, significant vegetation, watercourse buffers etc. The criteria for the E2 zone should be applied across all land tenures and uses to ensure consistency.
. A cemetery is an intensive land use, which requires significant ground disturbance and potentially impacts the groundwater regime.
. The DLEP2013 is the appropriate mechanism to protect groundwater and environmentally constrained land. Cemeteries should not be exempt from these land use controls.
2 Dent (ibid), chapters 5 & 6
40
Cover photographs:
Tawny Frogmouth (Podargus strigoides), Blackheath – Paul Vale Pool of Siloam, Leura – Dianne Page Bushcare/BMCS DLEP 2013 Workshop, Springwood – Paul Vale Mountain Devil (Lambertia formosa) – Alan Page George Phillips Lookout, Blackheath – Paul Vale Three Sisters, Katoomba – Alan Page BMCS DLEP 2013 Public Meeting, Lawson – Paul Vale
Submission 327
41
ATTACHMENT A to BLUE MOUNTAINS CONSERVATION SOCIETY SUBMISSION on Blue Mountains Draft LEP 2013 – Ref. No. F08616
MAP SERIES – The following specific comments have been collated from individual volunteers and volunteer groups. BMCS cannot guarantee accuracy or comprehensiveness. Many more issues regarding specific lots would no doubt have been identified given more time.
MAP TOWN/VILLAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS 002B MT VICTORIA Victoria Street, western end, unbuilt blocks on south side The E2 zones do not appear to adequately cover highly constrained Review zoning with a view to extending E2 land. zone. 002B MT VICTORIA Violet Road, lots proposed for E2 and Acquisition Support E2 zones. 002A MT VICTORIA North GWH west of Darling causeway, Mt York Rd area (see Rural Lands report) 40‐64 Darling Causeway (2 parcels) We suggest this be checked as a possible error. The Rural Lands Study recommended a larger area for the E2 extending further to the east on both these parcels ‐ this does not Submissionappear to have been adopted. This section zoned E3 has si gnif327icant slope constraints. 002A MT VICTORIA 40‐100 Lawsons Long Alley (3 parcels) The central parcel of these lots is degraded, and hence it is We suggest this be checked as a possible error. understandable that the recommendations of the Rural Lands Study could not be applied. However for the parcels to the east and that to the west, it appears that application of the recommendations in the Rural Lands Study are possible. The zones for E2 and E3 appear to be the reverse of the recommendations. 002A MT VICTORIA 7‐19 Lawsons Long Alley The E3 zone has been applied in direct contradiction of the We suggest this be checked as a possible error. recommendation of the Rural Lands Study. 002A MT VICTORIA North of Balmoral Road, Salisbury Ave, The Glen & Chatsworth This area at the northern end of Salisbury Ave is not developed. The We recommend that Council zones as much as whole area is highly bushfire prone. These lots are highly constrained possible as E2 (acquisition). by slope, contain Significant Vegetation Communities (incl Heath & Scrub) and also several impressive stone pagodas.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 1 002B MT VICTORIA Area on the eastern side of Darling Causeway All large parcels with a MLS designated as V1 (2000 sq m) need a MLS of AA1 (5 ha) would be more appropriate. more consistent MLS in keeping with adjacent lands (National Park) and environmental constraints. 002B MT VICTORIA Mt Victoria Cemetery The areas of swamp should be zoned E2. An This lot contains Blue Mountain Swamp which requires more than a additional buffer along the NE and SW corners Vegetation Constraint Area to protect it. Not only is there a need to (where the land slopes towards each creekline protect the swamp with deep rooted plants in a buffer, but also to system) is required with at least PA status to protect the groundwater from pollution. provide groundwater protection. See also separate comments re cemetery management in Attachment C. S002 FA? BLACKHEATH Crown Reserve (known as Hospital Reserve ) 29‐39 Hargraves LZN 002 FA St Oppose E3 – propose that swamp should be The swamp has been given status as a PA – Vegetation Constraint zoned E2. Area with an Ecological Buffer area in the surrounding woodland. This swamp and its buffer are being rehabilitated by the Sutton Park SubmissionBushcare group with the support of the Swampcare program. This 327 swamp has been part of Council's Swampcare program since 2010. LZN 002 FA BLACKHEATH Property to north Hospital Reserve (2‐18 Clan William St) The swamp has been given status as a PA – Vegetation Constraint Oppose E3 – propose that swamp should be Area with an Ecological Buffer area in the surrounding woodland. zoned E2. This swamp and its buffer on this land form part of the swamp extending on to the Hospital Reserve land discussed above. LZN 002 FA BLACKHEATH Unformed Clan William and Hargraves Streets – adjacent to Should be zoned E2 or at the very least be properties described above identified as Protected Areas. This would assist These road reserves are not suitable to be developed due to slope in ensuring a proper assessment in the case of and vegetation constraints. future development and hazard reduction works. LZN 002 FA BLACKHEATH Sutton Reserve Support the proposed E2 zone over a significant Existing natural bushland area has been rehabilitated by the Sutton part of the Reserve, but the E2 zone should be Park Bushcare Group since 1996. We do not support the zoning of extended further to coincide with all the these bushland areas as RE1. existing natural bushland area.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 2 002E BLACKHEATH Cemetery (on GWH west of Ridgewell Road) The sections of the cemetery with significant vegetation The E2 zone should be applied consistently communities qualify to be zoned E2 with an Ecological Buffer area across all land tenures and purposes. The within the SP2 zone; these have only been designated as vegetation cemetery should be split zoned, with E2 zone constraint areas in the DLEP to date. applying to areas of significant vegetation communities. The mapping of this location for LEP 2005 only identifies Eucalyptus oreades Open Forest, however it also contains areas which could qualify as the E. radiata – E. piperita Open Forest. Eucalyptus radiata and E. gullickii are both present. 002E BLACKHEATH Crown Reserves In each of the following land parcels there are Eucalyptus radiata It is critical that all Crown lands with species and in some, significant areas which would satisfy the environmental constraints should be zoned to definition for the Eucalyptus radiata – Eucalyptus piperita Open give the highest appropriate level of protection Forest. The whole of each property was not checked, but warrants because of the direction that NSW governments further investigation. have been pursuing for some time, to sell off Submission 327land for development.
A. Reserve 163(pt) 321A A. Strongly object to the minimum lot size Eucalyptus radiata – E. piperita was found on the western side (MLS) proposed as 1200 sq m (U2). For reasons adjoining the cemetery – it extends from within the cemetery on to of planning consistency and the presence of this property. E. radiata – E. piperita Open forest is also evident in environmental constraints this Reserve should the north eastern section, where E. gullickii also occurs. have a MLS of AB3 (30 ha) at the very least.
B. Reserve 43671 Part of a large area of good quality bushland. B. This should also be included in an E2 zone protecting the surrounding areas. C. Reserve 751627 (western part) Most of the area is already E2, probably as a result of the swamp and C. Western boundary of the E3 zone needs to its buffer. It appears that the swamp extends further into the E3 be moved east. zone than has been mapped; i.e. the western boundary of the E3 zone needs to move east (it is unlikely that the significant vegetation community terminates neatly along the adjoining property boundary to the west).
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 3 NOTE: this mapping anomaly is evident elsewhere also and suggests a problem with the mapping software. Either, scheduled vegetation Mapping anomalies such as this (which on the adjoining properties has not been identified, or more likely, it interrupt natural constraint boundaries to align has previously been mapped, but the mapping software is not with property boundaries) need to be checked identifying it due to some misinterpretation. Failure to rectify this and rectified. problem will have implications for future protection of scheduled vegetation on those Lots.
D. 63 Radiance Ave (in between two sections of Reserve 751627) D. Needs an on ground assessment to check As this swamp had been burned it is difficult to identify the accuracy the adequacy of the E2 zone. of the E2 zone boundary.
E. Reserve 751627 (part) (east of D and north of A) E. Needs an on ground assessment to check This portion was not specifically checked however is part of the adequacy of E2 zone. larger area of good quality bushland.
F. Reserve 751627 (part) 68‐74 Ridgewell Road (south of G) F. Needs an on ground assessment to check SubmissionE radiata – E. piperita Open forest with scattered E. gullickii is also 327adequacy of E2 zone to include area of E. evident in the E3 zoned area, not far from the road. The western radiata ‐ E. piperita Open Forest. slope of the swamp/creekline also had a significant area of E radiata – E. piperita Open Forest with scattered E. gullickii; i.e. around the western section of this lot.
G. Reserve 46378 82‐88 Ridgewell Road (old tip site) G. Review RE1 zone boundary and extend E2 The RE 1 zone could more appropriately follow the contour line to zone if feasible. include only the area covered by the reclaimed land on the old tip. The swamp below extends up the slopes and whilst degraded is feasible to restore with a significant buffer. Council is already paying contractors to undertake bush regeneration works here.
H. Reserve 751627 (pt ) 68‐74 Ridgewell Road (north of G) H. This area warrants further investigation to The E3 zoned section of this lot contains Blue Mountains Heath and determine appropriateness of extending E2 Scrub. Whilst this area had been burned less than 3 months ago boundary to include all Heath & Scrub area. (October 2013), it is evident that there is a band of montane heath
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 4 containing a mallee eucalypt, Banksia spinulosa, Hakea laevipes, Lambertia formosa, Isopogon anemonifolius and a range of herb and sedge species.
The 2005 Vegetation mapping shows Blue Mountains Heath and Scrub as being more extensive than the E2 zone on the DLEP 2013 map covers.
I. Private land 141‐159 Ridgewell Road I. Review for possible acquisition and zone E2. This lot has two areas zone E3, some of which includes slopes greater than 20%.
The lower E3 section could not be developed without significant environmental impact in order to gain access. If this property is the only one amongst this tract of bushland with a zoning allowing development, there is a good management case for acquisition.
SubmissionJ. Reserve 751627 (pt) 131‐139 Ridgewell Road 327J. Warrants further assessment for E2 zoning. This property has significant areas of steep slopes (identified as a Strongly object to MLS proposed as 1200 sq m constraint) as well as a vegetation constraint area mapped. Whilst (U2). For reasons of planning consistency and the presence of a swamp has not confirmed, as identified in 2005 the presence of environmental constraints it LEP maps, it appears highly likely. Appears to comply with the criteria should have a MLS of AB3 (30 ha) at the very for E2 zoning. least.
K. Reserve 751627 (pt) 103‐129 Ridgewell Road K. Warrants further assessment for possible This property has similar issues (to above) with a vegetation extension of E2 zoning. Strongly object to MLS constraint area mapped and appears to comply with the criteria for proposed as 1200 sq m (U2) and recommend a E2 zoning. For reasons of planning consistency and the presence of MLS of AB3 (30 ha) at the very least. environmental constraints this should not have an MLS of 1200sq m.
L. Reserve 751627 (pt) 68‐74 Ridgewell Road (opposite G, north L. Area needs further assessment as to the of 63 Ridgewell) possible extent of E. radiata – E. piperita This property contains high quality bushland except around the community. With both a slope constraint and a power‐line infrastructure and small areas of dumped weeds. The vegetation constraint, increasing the area of E2
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 5 area zoned E3 includes E. radiata particularly on the slopes. zone would ensure consistency.
Strongly object to MLS proposed as 1200 sq m (U2) as it is not For reasons of planning consistency and the consistent with identified constraints. presence of environmental constraints this should have a MLS of at least AB3 (30 ha). 002E BLACKHEATH Private Land For reasons of planning consistency and the 63‐71 Ridgewell Road presence of environmental constraints this 61 Ridgewell Road should have a MLS of AB3 (30 ha) at the very Strongly object to the minimum lot size (MLS) proposed as 1200 sq m least. (U2). 002E BLACKHEATH Properties north‐west of Bettington Rd and adjoining Robb Ave Lots M‐P on the attached map were inspected for the presence of Check vegetation mapping. unmapped Significant Vegetation and a number of areas of such vegetation identified: • Lots M‐P all had areas of E. oreades Open Forest on lower slopes on both sides above the creek‐line; Submission• Small patches of Blue Mountains Swamp were identified on 327 steeper lower slopes of Lots O and N, between Bettington Rd and the creek; and on the steep lower slope of Lot N on the northwest side of the creek, above the fire‐trail; • Small patch of E. gullickii (with E. radiata) Alluvial Woodland along the creek, downstream from the fire‐trail crossing on Lot N. 002F MEDLOW BATH 87 & 89‐91 Grand Canyon Road We recommend that the E3 land be reduced Whilst the Rural Lands Study recommended larger areas for the E2 and E2 zone increased to ensure adequate zone on both lots extending further upslope (due to compliance with protection of the environmental constraints, as zone criteria), this recommendation has not been followed. recommended by Rural Lands Study. 002F MEDLOW BATH 93 & 95 Grand Canyon Road We recommend that the E3 land be reduced The Rural Lands Study recommended larger areas for the E2 zone on and E2 zone increased to ensure adequate both lots extending further upslope due to compliance with zone protection of the environmental constraints, as criteria, but this recommendation has not been followed. recommended by Rural Lands Study. 002F MEDLOW BATH 131‐133 Grand Canyon Road The Rural Lands Study recommended a larger area for the E2 Review zoning with a view to possible extension extending further into the north‐western part of the block, due to of E2 zoning, as recommended by the Rural
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 6 compliance with zone criteria. This recommendation has not been Lands Study. followed. This section zoned E3 has a swamp and a Eucalyptus oreades community plus other constraints. 002G MEDLOW BATH Crown Reserve 114‐122 Beaufort Ave (site inspection?) Review zoning with a view to possible extension The Rural Lands Study recommended a larger area for the E2 zone of E2 zoning, as recommended by the Rural which would cover the swamp to the west. This recommendation Lands Study. has not been followed. This section zoned E3 has a swamp and is the headwaters of the creek. 002G and 002 NTH KAT/LEURA E2 zones in Katoomba and Govetts Creek catchments The E2 zone should also extend over unformed GA…LZN / LRA Support E2 zones on both public and private land. roads where appropriate. / NRN / WCL) Hanging swamps and Eucalyptus oreades communities in North and also 002 F Katoomba are of particular importance. Also particularly important & 002 H to protect watercourses via E2 zones and mapped Protected Areas. 002G NTH KATOOMBA Area north of Wattle Tree Road Support the E2 zone & acquisition of remaining lands in this area, which has formed part of the Bushcare site for the Katoomba Creek SubmissionBushcare Group since 1991. 327
This is needed to protect significant vegetation (Eucalyptus oreades The Fauna Biocorridor should be extended to Forest), Blue Mountains swamps and heath etc) and to maintain cover this area of Community Land owned by fauna corridors / links between this area and that north of Davidson council. Rd and hence into the National Park.
There are two properties that are totally surrounded by the existing The 'undeveloped' lot, on 85 First Avenue bushland reserve and causing significant impacts – identified as 85 should be zoned E2 Acquisition, so that it can First Avenue. These are currently zoned EP OS and EP (Acquisition) be rehabilitated and incorporated into the and should remain that way. Whilst it is recognised that these two Reserve. The property with the house, on 85 properties are severely degraded, for management reasons for the First Avenue, should be identified for future whole reserve, it would be best that there is a long term plan to Acquisition and given whatever zoning is acquire and eventually rehabilitate them. possible. 002G NTH KATOOMBA Council owned property 83 First Avenue This property has been zoned E3 although owned by BMCC as part of Review zoning with a view to zoning as E2. the Bushland reserve. This is contrary to LEP 2005.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 7 002G NTH LEURA Area North of Davidson Road We support E2 zone and also the acquisition of those lots designated These lots which were identified for EP on the maps. We also thank council for its work in acquiring so many (acquisition) in DLEP 2002 should now be zoned of these properties since LEP 2005 was implemented. E2 and identified for future acquisition: 40 Ninth Ave, Leura In the draft LEP 2002, the whole area was proposed for EP or EP 49 Ninth Ave, Leura (Acquisition) to ensure consistency with the criteria for EP zones. 39 Ninth Ave, Leura This gained significant support from the community. However on the 18 Keates Rd, Leura final night of Council debate this was changed. The community therefore did not have an opportunity to comment on this In the event that this is not possible, the E4 unprecedented last minute change, nor to examine closely any zones should be reviewed. conflict of interest considerations.
It is recognized that some of these properties have had dwellings for some time, however some do not. Whilst these are only small properties, it is imperative that the surrounding E2 lands have the maximum protection possible. The E4 zones appear to be Submissioninconsistent with the zoning of privately owned developed 327 ‘inholding’ land elsewhere which is E3; and this fits better with the concept of a hierarchy of Environmentally Protected Lands. 002GA NTH KATOOMBA Harold Hodgson Reserve (Victoria/Whitton Streets) Support remnant bushland being covered by E2 zone and also the creekline buffer. 002GA NTH KATOOMBA Bureau Park This has been proposed as RE1 zone with the only Protected Area The parts of this area with the significant mapped being a Slope constraint. vegetation community Eucalyptus oreades Much of this bushland is a Eucalyptus oreades Open Forest which Open Forest and/or steep slope should be had been identified in the previous mapping (has the current zoned E2. At the very least, this community mapping changed this?). The Recreation zoning should only cover should be identified as a Protected Area – the extent of the existing cleared area, and not extend into the Vegetation constraint area. bushland. 002G NTH KATOOMBA Belmore Rd /Mort Street (Crown Reserves, 78 Mort St and 95‐99 North St) Support proposed E2 zones.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 8 002G NTH KATOOMBA Hill View Rd/Fourth Ave Reserve Support RE1 zone.
Creeklines & adjoining properties 002G NTH KATOOMBA Unnamed creek between Hill View Rd & Fifth Avenue:
Support E2 zones on private land to give protection to swamps,
forests & riparian buffer, and to keep development away from steep
slopes.
YOSEMITE Creek:
Properties east side of Seventh Ave ‐ Support E2 zone on private
land adjoining creek.
Support E2 zones, but this should be extended Land zoned Industrial IN1 around tributary flowing between to more adequately cover the slope & riparian Barton St and Woodlands Road, Katoomba buffers on the Industrial zoned land (IN1) as
well as Bureau Park (already discussed).
Submission 327Need to review Minimum Lot Sizes to promote
consolidation and enable development to occur
whilst protecting the watercourse corridor.
Support E2 zone on Waste Management Facility Tributary between Woodlands and Marmion Roads (known locally lot, the Cemetery and the R2 lands upstream as Marmion Creek) (south of cemetery).
GOVETTS Creek: 002G / 002H NTH KAT/LEURA Support the E2 zones, Ecological Buffer Areas and Slope Constraints
around the creeklines and the Eucalyptus oreades communities in
the headwaters of Govetts Creek.
Recommend that the E2 zone should extend Particularly support E2 zones on following Mt Hay Rd properties: further on the Brahma Kumaris site (186A Mt 216 ‐242 Mt Hay Rd Hay & 83‐91 Spencer) to take full account of the 206 ‐214 Mt Hay Rd swamp and creekline, reducing the area of E3. 196 ‐204 Mt Hay Rd These have not been fully mapped on the 188 ‐194 Mt Hay Rd Protected Areas mapping.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 9 186A Mt Hay Rd (Brahma Kumaris property) 83 – 91 Spencer Rd (BK property) 174‐186 Mt Hay Rd (BK property) 164‐172 Mt Hay Rd
KATOOMBA Creek: E2 zones along the creekline are supported because of the swamps, steep slopes and creekline buffers.
Mort Street properties with swamps not zoned E2: Swamps on the following properties have only been designated as These swamps should be zoned E2, in order to Protected Areas (VCA), despite being recommended for E2 zonings be consistent with the criteria outlined for the in the Rural Lands Study: E2 zone, and as recommended in the Rural - 121 Mort St (RSPCA property) Bush regeneration contract Lands Study. work funded by BMCC in the swamp has been going on for over 8 years. The RSPCA Landcare group has been working the top edge of the swamp about 4 years. Submission- 140 Mort St There is evidence of patches of swamp that have 327 regrown following grazing and other damaging practices by the owner. - 140A Mort St The lower section on 140A has also been worked by the owners and some by the Katoomba Creek Bushcare Group for over 10 years.
11‐41 North Rd (access Hill View Rd) ‐ support the E2 zone.
Integral Energy site on Camp Street The creek is piped under Integral Energy carpark and re‐emerges Review zoning of piped creekline with a view to at southern extremity of carpark. The creekline needs to be zoned E2 zoning. E2 to allow for the possibility of restoration in the future, e.g. many of Sydney’s concreted ‘canals’ and drains have been ripped up and rehabilitated.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 10 Land between Freelander Ave & Whitton St The E2 zones in this upper catchment of Katoomba Creek are supported.
NB. Katoomba Creek has been mapped as an intermittent creek on Map WCL_002F. The remote bushcare team that has worked there for many years has indicated it flows continuously in all areas shown on this map (and often is very deep too!). 002GA STH KATOOMBA Creekline between Vale St Wetland and Leura Cascades We support the E2 zone and Protected Areas along this creekline.
002GA STH KAT/LEURA The top of catchment below rail and road corridor, the light In principle all unformed roads should be industrial area (LIA) and the land around Commonwealth, Murray zoned E2 particularly in the upper catchment. & Wascoe Sts Specifically: the two additional sections of unformed road in York St just below Kanimbla 7 Kanimbla St, Leura ‐ we support the E2 zoning and high level of and below Coomassie (the northern part of York development constraint on this property. St is E2); the unformed section of Wilson St
Submission 327(north of Magdala St); almost all of Coomassie We strongly support the E2 zone along creeklines and all protected St (between Railway Pde and just beyond areas in particular the riparian land. However there is still Govett St); the unformed sections of Clarence fragmentation of protection along creeklines in the top of the St, particularly the section next to Hertz car catchment and therefore we make the following recommendations. Rental and up to and north of Kanimbla;
continue the E2 zoning on all unformed sections
of Commonwealth St and include the section of
unformed road at the end of Kanimbla St
(before Commonwealth St) in the E2 zoning; the
section of unformed road in Murray St (south of
Kanimbla); the section of unformed road in
Wascoe St just south of Railway Pde.
E2 zoning should be applied to the entire parcel 25 Kanimbla St, 52 Govett St and 56 Govett St ‐ three blocks of land of land. owned by Council in the light industrial area.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 11 22 Commonwealth St, Leura ‐ parcel of Council Operational Land. Should be rezoned from E4 to E2.
82 Megalong St, Katoomba (DP 334638) currently has Protected Extend the Riparian Protection Zone onto the Area – Ecological Buffer Area – Riparian Corridor. In the DLEP 2013 north side of this property. this protection has gone.
Jersey Ave: We support the E4 zoning of houses on the western side of Jersey Ave. We support the step up of protection and the step down of intensity of development from R6 through E4 to E2.
We support the Ecological Buffer Areas along Jersey Ave up to 53 Consider extending the Ecological Buffer Jersey Ave. We are unsure why the Ecological Buffer Area does not protection to land at 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 and 63 continue along Jersey Ave. Jersey Ave.
The creekline from Kingsford Smith through Vale St wetlands to SubmissionLeura Cascades: 327
We strongly support the E2 zone along this creekline and all
protected areas.
We support the E4 zoning around the Cumberland ‐ Hope St areas. 14 Cumberland Ave ‐ we support E2 zoning for most of the parcel To ensure protection of hanging swamps we of land 14 Cumberland Ave (DP 414826) ‐ the property is 3,502m² propose that Council redesignates this of which only 401m² is E4, the rest being E2. Even though the property as minimum lot size V2: 2000m2. subdivision clause is there, we are concerned about future subdivisions. 138 Waratah St (Messiter Lane) – we support the E2 zoning, all protection buffers and the minimum lot size (Y1) on this property
All properties in Hope St ‐ we support the E2 zoning and all protected areas on these properties Properties that back on to the creek in Cumberland St (2, 6, 8, 10,
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 12 12) ‐ we support E2 zoning on these properties Warne St and properties 155 – 163 Waratah St – we support riparian buffer zones on these properties
165‐173 Waratah St – we support the E2 zoning, riparian buffer
and minimum lot size (Y1) on this property
Wilson and Lett St properties – we support the E2 zoning and riparian protection on Wilson St (6, 8, 10) and Lett St properties. We propose that riparian protection be added The creekline just north of Vale St between William and Lyne St for this part of the creek. 003BA and 3C STH LEURA Sublime Point Reserve (between Willoughby & West Streets) Support E2 zone.
Land between Cliff View & Dundas Streets Support E2 – important that this flowline is covered by E2 zone as well as the additional constraint areas extending into the surrounding E4 zoned areas, in order to protect the National Park Submissiondownstream/ downslope. 327
Properties at Southern end Sublime Point Rd Support the split zoning to allow for E2 – important to protect significant vegetation & steep slopes.
Minimum Lot Sizes Support 10 ha min of all properties south of Cliff View Rd. 002H NTH WENTWORTH FRANKI CREEK ISSUES FALLS Crown Reserve north of Hillcrest Rd and the adjoining properties –
This Crown Reserve located north of Hillcrest Rd is being managed by
Council and rehabilitated by the Franki Creek Bushcare Group. We
support the E2 zoning on the reserve and also the adjoining
properties along Yanko, Rozelle, Hillcrest, Walmer Cres etc.
Properties Bordering National Park or Crown reserve
We strongly object to the MLS of 1200 sq m proposed for the
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 13 properties in North Wentworth Falls which surround the Crown Review Minimum Lot Sizes with a view to reserve and/or the Blue Mountains National Park. Most of these increasing them. contain important swamp or other communities, which need protection from development pressures. These include, but are not limited to: 9‐15 McLaughlin 1‐19 Yanko 19 Rozelle 9‐11, 13‐19 Walmer The E2 zone on the Yanko Avenue and McLaughlin Ave properties (south of Kitty Hawke Ave) is strongly supported.
SWAMPCARE ISSUES – KITTYHAWKE AREA
Claines Crescent ‐ east end Recommend review of the EP zone removal Object to the removal of the EP zone designated under LEP1992. In from the swamp. Recommend E2 zone on all the vicinity of the unmade section of Claines Cres (east of Tarella Rd) Submission 327properties and unmade road(s) . The closing of is located a swamp which has been Zoned E4; steep slopes are also a Walmer Cres is also necessary. significant constraint. This area has been only designated as a
Protected Area – Vegetation Constraint area, which is not sufficient
to protect an endangered Ecological Community. This swamp does
not appear to have been provided with adequate buffers. This is an
area where volunteers and contractors have already invested
considerable time and BMCC, NPWS and CMA resources.
Yanko Avenue
The E2 zone on the Yanko Avenue and McLaughlin Ave properties
(south of Kitty Hawke Ave) is strongly supported.
Henderson Road Area – properties Bordering National Park or
Crown reserve
We strongly object to the MLS of 1200 sq m proposed for the properties in this part of North Wentworth Falls. Most of these are Review Minimum Lot Sizes with a view to very deep and long running down into either a Crown reserve and/or
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 14 the Blue Mountains National Park. Many contain important swamp increasing them. communities and are steep, which need protection from development pressures.
WENTWORTH FALLS LAKE ISSUES
Wentworth Falls Lake Review zoning with a view to protecting more Support E2 zone for lake reserve. of the Lake catchment.
Land between Bass Rd and Correa Rd ‐ Geebung reserve
We support the E2 zone on the land between Bass and Correa roads
as well as the closure of Banksia Road and others in the vicinity on
the following basis:
• it is a wildlife corridor between the lake and the national
park, possibly used by the endangered Quoll amongst
other species;
• this bushland is an important protective buffer for the
swamp, lake and Jamison Creek; Submission 327 the swamp is habitat for the threatened Leura Skink, and • the rare conifer Pherosphaera (formerly Microstrobos)
fitzgeraldii is found downstream.
64 & 66 Banksia Rd
These two blocks of land are within the wildlife corridor between We recommend these Banksia Rd lots be Bass and Correa roads but are zoned E4. Excising these lots from the assessed in order to assign Protected Area E2 area (and the superior protections it offers) will diminish the status on at least part of the lots. corridor and increase management problems by creating the ‘edge
effects’ associated with behind back fences. These lots appear to
form part of the buffer to the swamp above Wentworth Falls Lake
(and hence included in the E2 zone and also have a Protected Area
imposed). Unfortunately Das have been approved on both these lots.
BLUE MOUNTAIN CREEK CATCHMENT/WATER NYMPHS DELL
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 15 Decommissioned STP at end of Westbourne Ave We support the site being zoned E2 – this is appropriate for land surrounded by National Park and Bushland owned by the Crown. Review SP2 zoning on the two small lots with a However the site of the previous infrastructure has been identified view to changing the eastern one to E2 zone. as SP2 even though it is no longer housing any infrastructure and is the subject of some rehabilitation works by Sydney Water, and promises to that effect.
Blue Mountain Creek (Water Nymphs Dell) We support the E2 zones covering the valleys around Blue Mountain Creek (ie between Henderson Rd and Westbourne Ave).
Land identified for Acquisition We support the Regional Open space identified for acquisition.
5 & 7 Glenview Rd (near the corner of Taylor Avenue) The two existing houses are zoned E4 although they form part of the Review E4 zoning with a view to zoning the Submissioncreekline buffer and both contained hanging swamp until mid 1998, 327lower portions of these lots (which are Slope when the previous owner slashed it severely. There is some constrained) as E2. This would be consistent regeneration now occurring. with the zoning of the lots further to the east that have been split zoned. Lots to the north of Allen Crescent (nos 15‐31 Allen Cres) The designated E2 zones are supported for these lots, except the Review vegetation mapping with a view to adequacy of the E4 zone on the two lots to the east is questioned extending E2 zoning if appropriate. (number 15‐17). We also question the extent of the mapped Blue Mountains swamp; for example, on number 21 Allen Cres, does the sedge swamp go higher up the lot than appears to have been mapped? Has the rainforest been mapped on nos 15‐31 Allen Cres?
LAND BETWEEN TOWNS Support lands designated as Land between towns – important to keep large low density areas to maintain healthy catchments for Blue Mountain Creek and Wentworth Creek (and hence the Grose River).
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 16
80‐104 Railway Parade We strongly support the consolidation requirement on the land and Recommend that the adjoining properties from also the AB2 MLS. No 66 – 78 Railway also be included in the consolidation requirement. 002H STH WENTWORTH Wentworth Falls Cemetery Recommend that a buffer of native vegetation FALLS Refer to cemetery management notes in Attachment C of this be retained, protected by an E2 zoning to submission. ensure the protection of groundwater.
Escarpment Areas: Sandbox Road Recommend that the unformed part of Sandbox This land is steeply sloping, contains heath & scrub, swamp and is Road (south of Mawson St) be zoned E2 an important headwater creek for the Jamison Creek catchment. because of the presence of swamp. This area, including the lots on the eastern side of this road Also that the lots on the eastern side of this (numbers 28‐40 Sandbox Rd) has four environmental constraints road (numbers 28‐40 Sandbox Rd) which – escarpment, vegetation, riparian and slope. require this road for access, be identified for Submission 327Acquisition and zoned E2, and added to the These lots have been designated with a MLS of 1200 sq m – this is Jamison Creek Reserve. Recommend a totally inappropriate. consolidation requirement be imposed.
Maple Grove – need to check nos 32, 34 & 36 re proximity to Review vegetation mapping and zoning to swamp ensure swamp is adequately protected.
30‐32 Yester Road – highly constrained land mostly zoned E4. Review Minimum Lot Size with a view to The Slope & Escarpment constraints should make the MLS of U2 increasing it. (1200 sq m) inappropriate (lot is approx. 21,400 sq m in size).
34A Yester Rd (Yester Grange) – this lot is highly constrained and MLS of AB3 (30ha) would be more appropriate a significant portion is zoned E2. MLS of AB1 is inappropriate. to achieve adequate protection.
37 Yester Rd – contains swamp, slope, escarpment; need to check if swamp located in E4. MLS of AB1 (10ha) still allows subdivision Review vegetation mapping to check swamp (lot is approx. 20,500 sq m in size). boundary; MLS should be AB2 (20ha).
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 17 2 Fletcher St – contains slope, escarpment & watercourse. AB1 MLS of AB2 (20ha) is needed to ensure no (10ha) Is not an appropriate MLS (lot is approx. 23,250 sq m). subdivision (regardless of what happens to the local clauses in the LEP). Tablelands Road Area – Queen Victoria hospital site 003C We support the E2 zoning of the environmentally constrained areas. 006A BULLABURRA 181‐199 Railway Parade This property contains swamp beyond that which has been zoned E2. The sections of swamp in the E3 area should be The areas of swamp in the proposed E3 zoned areas have been zoned E2, as recommended by the Rural Lands included in the recommendations from the Rural Lands Planning Study. Study to be zoned E2 and specifically have fulfilled the zone criteria.
Swamp west of Boronia Rd extending into Red Gum Park & constructed Stormwater Detention Basin The swamp extending from 15 Boronia Rd southwards is covered by A review is needed of the appropriate zoning in an E2 zone. However the properties affected above this need more this area to cover the highway Stormwater appropriate zonings and possibly consolidation/acquisition Detention Basin and the flows which go into the Submissionrequirements. They are in the vicinity of 40‐46 Kalinda Rd (western 327downslope swamp . side of Boronia). The R6 zone and MLS of U2 is not appropriate for ongoing maintenance of this area by public authorities. It will not allow for the necessary rehabilitation of the ecotone around the swamp and the basin. 005BA NTH LAWSON Crown land 35 San Jose Ave, North Lawson Review zoning ‐ should at least have an E2 The land to the north of San Jose Ave is zoned RE1, despite meeting zoning, as identified by the Rural Lands Planning E2 zone criteria in the Rural Lands Planning Study. Study.
The area bounded by Loftus, Hay and Lurnea Streets contains the A larger MLS than U2 (1200 sq m) is needed to headwaters of one of the creeks flowing into Wilson Park and is protect this creekline. mostly zoned E2.
5‐17 Queens Rd (Kihilla) ‐ the lot size of U2 (1200 sq m) is MLS should be increased to AA1 (5 ha). inappropriate for this property which has considerable Slope Constraints, some Veg and Ecological buffer and forms the headwaters of the creek flowing through Gloria Park.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 18 006A STH LAWSON 39‐43 Charles St, Lawson [or 49‐59 Charles?] There is a significant intact swamp system extending upslope The presence of swamp over these sites fulfils between View and Henry Streets, which feeds into Ridge Creek and the criteria and should be zoned E2. requires strong protection. Although we haven’t checked these lots Further on ground assessment is warranted on ground, it is highly unlikely this swamp stops suddenly around the along the creekline to assess the extent of the borders of the lots and the unformed road. Excluding these does not riparian buffer that would satisfy the E2 criteria, make sense. CHECK CLAUSE 4.1G & Lot Size map [these blocks with a view to extending E2 zone. appear to be proposed for Consolidation so why not zone E2??]
We support the road closures at the end of Charles and Cleveland Streets.
South Lawson Park: 81‐147 Honour Ave & 48‐78 Wilson We support the E2 zoning on these two parcels. An RE1 zoning on the remainder of the area is supported.
Lawson Creek, with its two tributaries Ridge and Cataract creeks, is a The east side of Lawson Ck appears suitable for Submissionhighly significant stream system flowing into the Bedford/Erskine 327PA‐Riparian with a wide buffer (say 60m) as creek catchment area within Blue Mountains National Park. It there is a wide strip of riparian bushland from absorbs many of the adverse urban and transport corridor the unformed section of Waratah St down to environmental impacts. It is important to maximise the Protected the National Park. On the west side the Area‐Riparian and E2 zoning within this catchment area in order to bushcare group has undertaken extensive work maintain water quality downstream. [Note: Regular Streamwatch & on strengthening and widening the buffer with BMCC monitoring has shown water quality varies from excellent to planting and natural area regeneration. fair in this stream system.] Recommend this be be supported with a wider PA‐Riparian corridor.
9‐15 Waratah Street This lot adjacent to Sth Lawson Pk contained a healthy shrub swamp Considering it is part of the headwaters and and regionally significant species prior to 2002. upper catchment of Lawson Creek and feeds into a swamp, we recommend a larger MLS (8000 sq m?) for hydrology reasons. PA‐Riparian We strongly oppose the MLS of Q and/or E2 zoning should be considered. (720 sq m).
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 19
7 Attlee Lane (south of 9‐15 Waratah Street) Similar to the property to the north, retention We support the E2 zone along the eastern boundary, but strongly of current lot size of >8000 sq m is needed to oppose the MLS of U2 (1200 sq m). maintain whatever functions of the swamp and the riparian buffer is possible.
Proposed R2 zones north of Waratah Street (29‐41 Honour Ave) Much of this area has been identified as highly constrained (Slope). Review MLS with a view to increasing it. Without protection to the creekline, future intensification of development will add to the problems of the creekline further downstream. Minimum lot size of Q (720 sq m) is considered inappropriate.
Lawson Cemetery (80‐90 Wilson St) The existing bushland along the southern edge should be protected Review the bushland areas near the cemetery by an E2 zone, to establish a buffer to protect the groundwater. with a view to extending E2 zoning. See also The bushland areas to the north, east and south of the cemetery are separate ‘Attachment C’ re cemetery Submissionin good condition, and although not defined as Significant Vegetation 327management. they act as a buffer for the cemetery and Wilson St stormwater runoff. They are located on a significant ridge top which drains into Ridge Ck. They may also prove to be a significant ecological buffer zone if parts of the Lawson golf course are urbanised.
South Lawson Industrial Areas South of Adeline Street the area including the swamp (Nos 7‐9, 11 & 17) has been Zoned IN2, although it satisfies the criteria for E2 zone. This area should be reviewed for possible This swamp is part of Cataract Ck, which flows through two zoning as E2. significant waterfalls located on a major tourist walking track before joining the Lawson/Bedford/Erskine stream complex. Cataract Ck records poor water quality at times (see Streamwatch/BMCC water quality monitoring results) and maximum protection is desirable. 005B and NTH HAZELBROOK Gap in mapping of creeks between Winbourne Rd and Clear View Review accuracy of mapping of National Park 005BA Rd on the property to the north of 112 Clear View Pde. This boundary (block on south‐western side of 143‐ appears to be National Park but is only zoned E2. No other 153 Winbourne Rd should be E1?).
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 20 environmental constraints are shown.
Creeks on north side of highway – support E2 zones to protect
them.
E2 zone and acquisition of land at the north end of Queens Rd are supported. E2 zone on western side of Gloria Park (21 Lester St) is supported.
Riparian land on no. 65 Park Rd and creek into Horseshoe Falls Reserve – support E2 zones giving riparian protection. Generally support E2 zones fingering into E3 and E4 zones north of highway ‐ these break up the E3 and E4 and link to National Park. 5‐17 Queens Rd (Kihilla) – see comments under Nth Lawson.
Large lots at the north end of Winbourne Rd, mostly zoned E2 ‐ lot size of AB3 (30ha) is supported. SubmissionLots at north end of Clear View Pde lot size is AB1 (10 ha) ‐ 327 supported. Lots at the north end of Alexander Ave (nos. 61, 49, and 43) are E3, Increase MLS of these battleaxe blocks In with lot size U2 (1200 sq.m) ‐ these are battleaxe blocks with Alexander Ave to Y1 (1 ha). environmental constraints (Slope & Riparian). Large lots with MLS of U2 (1200 sq.m) should all Support the acquisition of land identified as Environmental Open be reviewed for a more appropriate level to Space in north Lawson/Hazelbrook on LRA 005 BA in the vicinity of safeguard environmentally constrained land. Queens Rd 006A STH HAZELBROOK Large lots with MLS of U2 There are a significant number of these lots which warrant review for Review MLS of U2 with a view to increasing it. a more appropriate MLS, including those to the east of Somers St Lawson.
27 Heron Place A significant portion of this lots was recommended for E2 zoning by Review zoning with a view to E2, as the Rural Lands Planning Study as it meet the zone criteria, however recommended by the Rural Lands Study. it has only been zoned E3. Support the MLS of AB3.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 21
Residential Investigation Area in South Hazelbrook/Woodford ‐ see Review MLS with a view to increasing it. separate comments in this submission.
006B WOODFORD Land between Woodford Ave & Ridge St (Bulls Ck headwaters) E2 zones are supported.
Oppose E4 zone on 30‐38 Forest Glen Rd ‐ more appropriate that this lot be E3 because of the swamp which extends over it. The owner has been damaging it by mowing, however it could regenerate. It is important that this illegal activity is not condoned Review E4 zoning, with a view to zoning E3; and rewarded. [These lots have Slope constraint & Ecol Buffer.] recommend area of swamp be zoned E2. 005C LINDEN The following properties are completely surrounded by National Park. These are all highly constrained, as well as being part of the catchment for the water supply area: 187 Glossop Rd It is more appropriate that all these are zoned Submission179‐185 Glossop Rd 327E2 (Acquisition) to avoid fragmenting this large 155‐177 Glossop Rd bushland reserve. 170‐186 Glossop
Large properties designated with a MLS of U2 The properties on the western side of Glossop Rd from nos. 6‐10 to All these properties should have a MLS of at no. 128‐130 (with part E2 zoning) should be a higher MLS to ensure a least Y2 (1.2 ha) or for consistency with clear message of no subdivision. adjoining areas could be AB3 (30 ha).
4 Linden Place (Dawes Park) – MLS of U2 (1200 sq.m) is MLS should be AB3 (30 ha). inappropriate. 005C and 005E FAULCONBRIDGE Large allotments to east of Chapman Pde [map 005E] Recommend the following MLS to ensure Several large properties around Springwood Creek have been protection: assigned a MLS of U2 (1200 sq m) which is considered inappropriate. 15‐71 Lindsay Rd (3 lots) – AB2 (20 ha) 37 Watkin Wombat Way – AB1 (10 ha) 2A‐2B Fairway Cres – AB1 (10 ha)
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 22 005E and NTH SPRINGWOOD Else Mitchell Park (Prince St, Springwood) 005EA Zoning of bushland areas as E2 and mown areas as RE1 is supported.
Springwood Cemetery The bushland remaining on the northern, western and part southern Review RE1 zoning of bushland areas adjacent boundaries should be protected with an E2 zone. The western to the cemetery, with a view to extending E2 boundary is particularly important for groundwater protection. zoning. 005G & 6D/DA SPRINGWOOD Fitzgeralds Creek Catchment (East This area includes Fitzgeralds, Long Angle, Valley Heights and Cripple Warrimoo) Creeks. The DLEP proposes an E2 zoning around creeklines and and 005E & extending upslope and this is supported. 5EA (West This catchment is being managed by the Long Angle Landcare Springwood) Group, the Deanei Bushcare and the Cross Street Bushcare Groups and coordinated through a Coordinating Working Group with The minimum lot sizes could be interlinked Council support. with the landuse zoning. Therefore all land within the catchment should have the The catchment has a combination of iconic terrain, flora and fauna following MLS linked with the highest zoning Submissionand is surrounded by development that so far, has not posed threats 327 that is designated for any part of the property: to preservation of the area. Maintenance of these conditions is • E2 zoning should be designated as AD2 dependent on continuance of the E2 zoning and preventing (130 ha) or preferably a new size of 195 ha intensification of landuse by adopting appropriate subdivision established (the largest lot is approx. 390 controls. ha) The minimum lots sizes applied to some of these properties is • all RU2 and E3 zones should be designated contrary to the intention of the E2 zones and hence a review is AB3 (30 ha) required. • E4 should be AB2 (20 ha)
005EA STH SPRINGWOOD Magdala Creek Catchment The land east of Scott Street and surrounding Blue Gum Lodge, is Minimum lot size should be increased to 40 ha. protected with an E2 zoning, but has a lot size of 1200 square metres applied. This is a common anomaly throughout the Draft LEP. This E2 zoning/MLS anomaly should be The three creek tributaries running through this land are a corrected throughout the Draft LEP. “Protected Area – Watercourse” according to Riparian Lands and Water Courses – Map WCL‐005EA. As well much of this land is zoned as “Slope Constraint Area”, according to the Natural Resources Land
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 23 Map – NRL‐005EA. It contains some significant “Blue Mountains Shale Cap Forest”, which is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the “Threatened Species Act, 1995”. 005F WINMALEE Leslie Street Support E2 zoned land.
005F WINMALEE/ Hawkesbury Road HAWKESBURY HEIGHTS Support E2 zoned land from 548 Hawkesbury Rd to Hawkesbury Lookout
550‐590 Hawkesbury Road E3 land on eastern portion of this block is covered by a Conservation Recommend change of E3 zone on eastern section of Agreement with the State Government (Banksia View) and cannot be 550‐590 Hawkesbury Road to E2. developed. It is an area of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest and contains Aboriginal artefacts.
614‐642 Hawkesbury Rd to Booker Rd Hawkesbury Heights Recommend revision of E3 zone here with a view to Concerned about continuous zone of E3 land along both sides of changing undeveloped sections to E2. SubmissionHawkesbury Road mostly because of presence of Shale Sandstone 327 Transition Forest.
614‐642 Hawkesbury Road Winmalee E3 land on this block is not suitable for development: slope constraints, Recommend change of zoning from E3 to E2 vegetation constraints including Shale Sandstone Transition Forest, riparian lands and watercourses, groundwater vulnerability, land between towns, erosion and sediment control issues, fire exposure, Aboriginal heritage values, loss of conservation values of Banksia View Conservation Area on its western boundary. 005F / 005G WINMALEE Hawkesbury Road and the Winmalee Sewage Treatment Plant: 627 Hawkesbury Rd has been zoned SP2 despite the presence of Recommend these lots be split zoned, with the significant vegetation communities, steep slope and watercourse. areas satisfying E2 zoning criteria to be zoned 553A Hawkesbury Rd was zoned EP in LEP 91 but changed to SP2. appropriately. This lot also contains features that should qualify at least part of it to be zoned E2.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 24 005D / 005E St Columba’s area A large area of RE2 private recreation/E2 land to the north and north All this land should be given the largest west of Paulwood Ave in Winmalee has been given an AB3 min. lot minimum lot size available to ensure there is no size in map sheet 005E but an AB2 MLS in map sheet 005D. further subdivision and development where it hasn’t already occurred. Land between Yandina and Halcyon Avenues, and at the corner of Linksview and Hawkesbury Road, has not been given a lot size despite already being subdivided and developed. [Lot Averaging – Area G – Clause 4.1F applies instead.]
005EA Buckland’s Retirement Village (Hawkesbury Rd) The proposed application of the E2 zone to this site is supported, as this is an important site at the head of the catchment.
005G YELLOW ROCK Re‐zoning of parts of lots from Bushland Conservation to part Environmental Management E3/part E2 It is recommended Council review the SubmissionThere has been some re‐zoning of parts of lots from Bushland 327application of E2 zoning to parts of lots Conservation to part E3/part E2 (for instance in Marau Place) currently zoned Bushland Conservation in in recognition of the environmental values of these lots. This Yellow Rock especially along Singles Ridge, appears to have occurred where there is slope mapped as well as Purvine and Yellow Rock Roads, to ensure that a significant vegetation and a watercourse nearby. However, if this is consistent approach to rezoning parts of lots to the criteria for re‐zoning some lots from Bushland Conservation to E2 is applied. part Environmental Management E3/part E2 then it has not been consistently applied in Yellow Rock. For instance, - large parts of the Greek Monastery off Singles Ridge Road, which is a very large lot, has significant areas with mapped slope and significant vegetation draining to a watercourse but is zoned E3 throughout. - the lots at the end of Singles Ridge Road, south of the road and adjacent to the old mushroom farm, have large parts mapped with slope and significant vegetation and drain to a Given the development on these lots watercourse. While parts of the lots are zoned E2 (with the for public recreation is currently confined to remainder E3) the areas zoned E3 include large areas mapped only a very small portion of these lots, and that
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 25 with slope and significant vegetation and should further recreational development is be considered for E2 zoning. extremely unlikely and These are just two examples ‐ given much of Yellow Rock has will impact on recognised environmental values, significant vegetation mapped which is Sydney Turpentine Ironbark it is recommended that these Yellow Rock Forest (an Endangered Ecological Community) the inconsistent reserves be zoned part RE1 and part E2, application of the criteria to re‐zone parts of lots consistent with the zoning of the adjacent from Bushland Conservation to part E2 is a real concern. bushland.
Public Recreation Areas zoned RE1 ‐Yellow Rock Park and Yellow Rock Guide Hall There are two Public Recreation Reserves in Yellow Rock, both significant sized lots. One is used as Guide Hall with only the front of the site developed adjacent to Singles Ridge Road, with the remainder undisturbed bushland. The other is used for a very small park with play equipment with only a very small part developed adjacent to Illingsworth Road, with the remainder of the It is recommended that an or AB3 (30ha) lot lot undisturbed bushland. Significant constraints exist on both size is applied to all large lots in Yellow Rock Submissionsites. For instance significant vegetation under the draft LEP is 327currently allocated a Y1 or Z lot size, to ensure mapped for the vast portion of these two reserves (for the Guide no further subdivision of lots down to Hall a vegetation constraint area is actually mapped for all of the an unsustainable 1ha occurs. This is also site) as well as slope. Further development of the sites for public consistent with the approach for the other large recreation will be problematic and realistically extremely unlikely lots in Yellow Rock which are all zoned AB3. given the limited investment in public recreation at Yellow Rock to date.
Application of Y1 (1h) lots size The Y1 (1ha) [or occasionally the Z (2ha)] lot size has been applied to large parts of Yellow Rock including large lots in Marau Place, and along Purvines, Long Angle, Single Ridge and Heather Glen Roads. While some of these lots are zoned all or part E2, which will constrain any future subdivision under the Part 6 provisions of the draft LEP, the imposition of the 1ha lot size will give to rise unrealistic expectations that these lots could be subdivided in the future down to 1ha. Any subdivision down to 1ha on any of these
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 26 lots would result in significant negative environmental impacts, including issues associated with the provision of on‐site wastewater as all of these large lots are unsewered. Some of these large lots (such as the Greek Monastery site off Singles Ridge Road) are zoned either E3 in entirety or the majority of the lot is zoned E3, and so the provisions within the draft LEP limiting subdivision on E2 zoned land would not apply, and subdivision down to Iha is entirely possible. 005E VALLEY HEIGHTS Valley Heights Reserve 41 Waratah Rd and We support the E2 zone over most of this reserve however the E2 Review E2 zoning with a view to extending it. 005EA zone should extend further to protect the riparian area as well as the slope. It is recognized this area is partly degraded from the impact of the residential area upslope, but not beyond rehabilitation. Only a very small part of the area proposed as RE1 is suitable for recreation. Benoit Park (16‐20 Cambridge St) is more suitable for Recreation and has been appropriately zoned RE1. Submission 327 Vicinity of 71 Russell Ave These (recently subdivided?) lots are shown as having constraints Need to check vegetation mapping on‐ground (Shale Sandstone Transition Forest, Ecological Buffer & Escarpment), and consider part E2 zonings if appropriate. however some lots have no E2 zoning.
27‐28 Tusculum Rd (bounded by Banksia Dr on west) – BMGS campus Check remaining vegetation and consider part This property was once dominated by SSTF but some was cleared E2 zoning. MLS should be increased to AB1 (10 when the Grammar School campus was established. It only has an E4 ha). Also consider larger MLS on adjoining 29‐38 zone with protected areas. Lot size is approx 16 ha, but MLS is U2 Tusculum Rd given its part E2 zoning. (1200 sq m). 005G WARRIMOO Crown Reserve 195‐225 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo and This property, which is unreserved Crown land, is approx. 390 ha MLS should be increased to maximum possible 006D with a MLS of AB3 (30 ha). To ensure the reserve remains intact for (at least 195 ha). catchment protection regardless of LEP clauses) this should be increased.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 27 Crown Reserve 163 ‐ 193 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo [Map 005G] This is Crown land located on the southern side of the road and Extend E2 zoning to ensure protection of zoned RE1 in the DLEP. We oppose this land being zoned RE1 as it is surrounding E2 bushland. not compatible with protection of the surrounding E2 bushland.
Whilst this land includes some relatively flat areas, more intensive use would increase the risk of soil erosion and introduction of weeds into the E2 zoned land. The Cross Street Bushcare group has for almost 5 years battled with removing weeds from the area surrounding the Warrimoo Oval. We therefore are well aware of the weed invasion risk posed by locating recreational facilities in viable bushland. Also, this land is not needed for recreation as there is ample surplus space zoned RE1 in close proximity at Warrimoo Oval.
122 – 148 Rickard Rd, Warrimoo [Map 005G] The relatively flat portion of this land is zoned RE1 to accommodate Warrimoo Oval. The remainder is zoned E2, which we support. The Submissionsection zoned RE1 contains ample space for future expansion of 327 recreational activities. The Cross Street Bushcare group has been working in the E2 zoned area for almost 5 years and have removed Wisteria and other invasive weeds that spread vegetatively and with the runoff from the oval. The bushland is on a steep slope and drains to the local creeks.
Gwen Crescent, Warrimoo E2 zones supported, but MLS of U2 for most lots is inconsistent with Recommend larger MLS consistent with E2 this zoning. 20 Gwen Cr has AB1 zoning which is more appropriate. zoning. 006D and MT RIVERVIEW E2 zones supported. 006DA 67‐69 Blackbutt Circle is largely zoned E2 but has MLS U2 (1200 Review MLS with a view to increasing it. sq.m), which is inappropriate. 006D and BLAXLAND Catchment of Glenbrook Lagoon 006DA Adequate ecological buffers are needed to protect creek/drainage lines flowing into lagoon (e.g. there is one, flowing from the east between Olivet and Kedron Streets, but it does not have an E2 zone
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 28 for its entire length).
28 – 30 Attunga Rd, Blaxland This is the Waste Management Facility which has an extensive area Review RE1 zoning; recommend E2 zoning for to the north zoned as RE1. This northern site is highly constrained by northern property. a significant slope and a watercourse. It would be appropriate to zone the whole area as E2 to provide a substantial buffer between the Waste Management Facility and the creeks, bushland and various Significant Vegetation Communities contained in the catchment. Also, the groundwater vulnerability of the site is 'moderately high'. A public recreation use is inappropriate as it promotes weed invasion into the bushland, requires infrastructure creating soil disturbance and is likely to result in siltation of local creeks and their tributaries. 006D STH BLAXLAND / STH Reading St Reserve (on West St, Glenbrook – map 006D) and GLENBROOK The protection of this Recreation Reserve on West St depends on the Review MLS on 29 Powell St, Blaxland with a 006E Submissionprotection of adjacent land. We therefore support E2 zoning for land 327view to increasing it. to the west. We support E2 and E4 zoning for the land north of the reserve. Re 29 Powell St, Blaxland ‐ this battleaxe block (with lot size approx. 9700 sq m) is Slope constrained and includes Riparian Land. A larger MLS than the proposed U2 (1200 sq m) would be appropriate.
Properties east of Wright St to Railway corridor (incl. Watson St) and south to National Park We support the E2 zone because of the important creekline corridor and the potential impacts on the National Park. The Zoras Creek Landcare Group has put many years work into this creekline to restore and maintain it.
The eastern boundary of the zone is a straight line along the western Review E2 zone with a view to extending it on 6 boundaries of two properties, 6 Station St and Crown reserve Station St and the Crown reserve. 1013848. The environmental constraints do not terminate along this very straight boundary; need to see the vegetation mapping for this
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 29 area. We support the Protected Areas identified in this vicinity – riparian, slope and vegetation constraints.
2,4 & 6 Station St and 2‐10 Watson and Crown reserve 1013848 and 16 Cox The 1200 sq m min lot size for these properties is not consistent with MLS should be AB1 (10 ha), consistent with the E2 and E4 zonings placed on them, nor the recognition of the other large lots in the area. environmental constraints (identified as Protected Areas).
Creekline north of Railway corridor between Hunt & Raymond Sts We support the E2 zone along the creekline and the Riparian Protected areas. This is essential to conserve and rehabilitate if the Wright St section is to be protected, which in turn is essential for the protection of the NP.
E2 zones west of Wright St We support this zone on a number of properties, in particular 38 Review E2 zone with a view to extending it. SubmissionStation St. However we question the boundaries on 16 Cox and also327 59 Wright St.
Lapstone Reserve catchment [map 006E] The following lots should have an MLS of at The lots around the riparian areas on the western side of Lapstone least 2000 sq m: 6 & 8 Turella St, Glenbrook reserve have riparian areas designated as Protected Areas. The MLS and 30 Avoca St, Glenbrook. of U2 (1200 sq m) is not consistent with the environmental The MLS of other creeklines should also be constraints. (Slope & Riparian). reviewed.
Attachment A to BMCS submission on Draft Blue Mountains LEP 2013 – Ref. F08616 30 Page 1 of 1
We live in proposed Zone 6. We have examined the DLEP at Council and checked the permitted uses document on Fact Sheet 11 with your staff member on the first floor at Katoomba Council Chambers. 1. Granny flats were permitted in this area under LEP 2005 but not under the DLEP - why not? 2. Please delete permission for Neighbourhood stores under the DLEP - not needed or wanted by all neighbours we spoke to. 3. Child care and Respite Day Care centres are more appropriate in an industrial area - not a residential area. Please remove. 4. Under the current LEP the nearby Everglades are allowed to hold 'temporary' functions. These temporary functions sometimes clog the neighbouring streets with cars. We can find no mention in the DLEP whether this is allowed to continue or the Everglades will be granted permission to become a fully fledged reception centre. Please advise. Regards Rodger and Lynne Phillips 7 Kensett Avenue Leura 2780
Submission 328
mhtml:file://C:\Users\rreid\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fil... 1/04/2014 General Manager Blue Mountains City Council Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba, NSW 2780 [email protected]
F08616 ‘Blue Mountains Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013’
Dear Sir
I live in Leura in the Blue Mountains. One of the reasons I live in the Blue Mountains is because of the unique environment, including the beautiful bushland and the native flora and fauna and the views of the valleys and escarpments. I regularly bush walk in various parts of the mountains
The Blue Mountains environment has been recognised internationally through declaration of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Conserving our environment is vital to ensuring the ongoing viability of our visitation and tourism economy. I believe that the Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Government must ensure that we have a strong and legally defensible Local Environmental Plan (LEP) which protects the environment while facilitating ecologically sustainable development.
I therefore strongly support the Blue Mountains Draft LEP 2013 (BM LEP 2013) currently on public exhibition. I believe the plan will protect the Blue Mountains environment because of the numerous localised provisions included in the draft LEP which were specifically developed for the Blue Mountains. The local provisions in draft BM LEP 2013 also reflect current LEP provisions.
I have the following comments on the draft BM LEP 2013. • I support the Aims of the Plan but believe that the the Aims should be amended to include the definition, principles and practices of Ecologically Sustainable Development as currently outlined in the Blue Mountains LEP 2005. The Aims should also be prioritised as follows: 1. Aim (b)Submission To provide a clear framework for the development of land329 that is consistent with and promotes the principles and practices of ecologically sustainable development; 2. Aim (d) To conserve and enhance, for current and future generations, the ecological integrity, environmental heritage and environmental significance of the Blue Mountains; 3. Aim (f) To preserve and enhance watercourses, riparian habitats, wetlands and water quality within the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment and Sydney’s drinking water catchments. • I support Clauses 1.2A and 2.3A which includes the legally defensible requirement that new development ‘complies with’ the Aims and zone objectives within the plan. • I support the proposed land use zones and objectives in the draft LEP, as well as what new developments are allowed or prohibited in each of the zones. • I support the inclusion of the new zone R6 Residential Character Conservation as the appropriate replacement for the LEP 2005 Living Conservation zone, especially for the large lot leafy residential areas of our villages. However, the zone objectives should be amended to include protection of nearby bushland areas from the impact of invasive species. • I believe Clause 3.3 should include additional areas that should be excluded from the state-wide exempt and complying development code. These additional areas should include ‘environmentally constrained lands’ as defined in the Dictionary to the draft LEP. • I believe that a 40 ha minimum lot size should be applied to all land E2 zoned areas on private property to prevent unsuitable and unsustainable subdivision proposals on these highly environmentally sensitive areas. • I believe the draft LEP should be amended to place the largest minimum lot size possible on all crown lands and reserves. • I support Clauses 4.1D ‘Subdivision in the recreation zones for a public purpose’ and 4.1E ‘Subdivision of land in Environmental Protection zones’. These clauses retain current limits to subdivision on environmentally sensitive land. • I support Clauses 4.1F ‘Cluster Housing within certain environmental protection zones’ and 4.1G ‘Lot consolidation within certain environmental protection zones’. These clauses retain current provisions limiting the impact of housing development in environmentally sensitive areas. • I support Clauses 4.3A ‘Flexibility in the height of buildings’ and 4.4A ‘Site coverage’. These clauses help ensure that new development in the Blue Mountains does not result in hard surfaces such as concrete over entire sites or take development above the tree line in visually sensitive areas. • I support sub-Clauses (8)(d), (8)(e), (8)(f) to Clause 4.6 ‘Exceptions to development standards’. These subclauses stop development standards (e.g. building height and setback) being varied in E3 and E4 land use zones, and control the development of major supermarkets and drive-through fast food outlets in the Blue Mountains. • I support Clause 5.9 ‘Preservation of trees or vegetation’ and subclause (9) under it because it prevents the clearing of trees and native vegetation in environmental zones that would otherwise be permitted through exemptions for rural activities under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. • I would seek that the mapping of Protected Areas be applied to all land covered by the draft plan, including lands zoned for environmental protection (E2). • I strongly support the inclusion of ALL of the Part 6 Local Provisions clauses and the supporting mapping, which have been specifically designed to protect and conserve our unique environment. I would like to see the following amendments made: o Clause 6.1 (2) be amended to read “Consent shall not be granted to development proposed on any land adjacent to, or nearby, the Blue Mountains National Park, unless the consent authority …” and that Clause 6.1 (5) be amended to add “(f) the Blue Mountains National Park”. o The existing Blue Mountains Swamps mapping be overlaid onto the Groundwater Vulnerability map, and these swamp areas be designated high groundwater vulnerability. o Clause 6.33 be amended to specifically prohibit hoofed animals, regardless of stocking rates, from all E2 zoned land and environmentally sensitive areas (mapped or defined as Protected Areas). • I strongly support that Schedule 6 Significant Vegetation Communities be included in the new LEP. • I support the inclusion of ‘environmentally constrained land’, ‘notional development area’, ‘rare species of Submissionflora’ and ‘Scenic and Landscape Values Map’ in the DLEP 329 2013 Dictionary, and for the addition of a definition of ‘invasive species’ with a reference to Schedule F2 “Weeds List” in the Better Living Development Control Plan.
I recognise considerable effort has been made by Council to translate all the existing land use zones and special environmental provisions into the draft BM LEP 2013. I understand that after the public exhibition period, Council staff will review all submissions before preparing a report and a finalised plan for approval by Councillors. The plan will then go to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for review and then to the Minister for Planning for final adoption. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure can make major changes to the plan, with no guarantee of further public exhibition, and the final plan adopted by the Planning Minister could look very different to the draft plan. I am very concerned that there is a risk at any stage after the public exhibition that the draft BM LEP 2013 could be watered down and changed. I ask that if major changes are made to the draft Plan post exhibition, that the draft LEP is re-exhibited.
Yours sincerely
R Bilton
Signature
Date 3rd March 2014 Name: Rosemary Bilton Address: 21 Mount St, Leura 2780
28 February 2014
Department of Planning & Infrastructure Blue Mountains City Council Great Western Highway (Cnr Civic Place) KATOOMBA NSW 2780
Dear Sir, Re: Draft Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2013
We refer to the draft plan above and wish to make comment on behalf of the Pet Industry Association of Australia and our members.
The Association has concerns regarding the animal boarding and training establishments listed in the draft Submissionplan. We believe there needs to be a definition 330on “animal establishment” that clearly defines the difference between a commercial animal establishment and a domestic animal establishment where the owners have dogs and cats as pets.
We believe that in its current form, the draft does not make this differentiation and encourages backyard breeders or unapproved businesses to operate from their homes without council consent adding to noise and impacting on the local environment. In many cases these operators are not reported to Council and consequently operate businesses without the appropriate DA or approval. Established boarding and breeding facilities are already regulated under Codes of Practice in NSW and are registered businesses.
We have been a member of the NSW Companion Animal Taskforce since its inception where the many issues of managing companion animals in the community were reviewed. The issues related to backyard breeders and puppy farms were discussed and the Regulations are being revised in relation to registration and micro-chipping. We believe it would be beneficial for Council to either restrict the number of animals that can be held on a property or ensure that these illegal operators are regulated.
The Pet Industry Association is Australia’s only peak body who works with its members to “raise the bar” for the pet industry ensuring they provide a service of excellence whilst providing the best welfare outcome for the animals.
Please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 9659 5811 should you require to discuss these points any further.
Kind regards
Maryann Dalton Operations Manager
Submission 330