A Planning Proposal Which Nominates High Conservation Protection For
If you would like to add your note of support to this
Gateway submission to protect the Hacking River Catchment of Otford, Stanwell Park & Helensburgh, surrounding the “Royal National Park” from development, please add your name and details here http://www.otfordeco.com/submission.html
A Planning Proposal which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights
Prepared by
Otford Protection Society Incorporated
Page 1 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 The Director General N.S.W. Planning – Head Office 23-33 Bridge Street (GPO Box 39) Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Director General,
Planning Proposal: WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL - A PLANNING PROPOSAL WHICH NOMINATES HIGH CONSERVATION PROTECTION FOR FORMER 7D ZONED LANDS AND A COST EFFECTIVE EXIT STRATEGY FOR OWNERS OF LOTS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTS RIGHTS
Otford Protection Society Incorporated, by a resolution on May 2, 2010 at a Committee Meeting, has prepared this planning proposal, in accordance with Division 4 LEPs of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and section 27 of the Local Government Act 1993, to initiate a draft local environmental plan which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights.
Approval be granted for Otford Protection Society Incorporated, delegated authority, to prepare and submit a planning proposal to the Minister for Planning in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights, such planning proposal is to include the following:
(i) a statement of the objectives or intended outcomes of the proposed instrument; (ii) an explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument; (iii) the justification for those objectives, outcomes and provisions and the process for their implementation (including whether the proposed instrument will comply with relevant directions under section 117); (iv) maps for proposed land use zones; heritage areas; flood prone land—a version of the maps containing sufficient detail to indicate the substantive effect of the proposed instrument; and (v) details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken before consideration is given to the making of the proposed instrument.
The attached planning proposal has been drafted in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Department of Planning’s “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals”. Page 2 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 It is requested that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the LEP Review Panel for a gateway determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
An electronic copy of the submission is included at the end of the document.
If you have any further enquiries on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs Pauline Smith on (02) 4294 1243.
Yours sincerely OTFORD PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (Registration Number 1585513702)
N Watson – Secretary C/o 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive OTFORD NSW 2508
30 April 2010
Distribution
Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts PO Box 6022 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
National Parks and Wildlife Service PO Box 1968 Hurstville NSW 2220
N.S.W. Planning - Southern Region - Wollongong PO Box 5475 Wollongong NSW 2520
Sutherland Shire Council Locked Bag 17 Sutherland NSW 2232
Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500
Page 3 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Otford Protection Society Incorporated appreciates that Wollongong City Council and the Department of Planning drafted, exhibited and gazetted the Wollongong LEP 2009. However, the PROCESS and VALIDITY of that planning instrument are questioned.
This Planning Proposal prepared as a community submission nominates a higher conservation protection for former 7D zoned lands to E2 zonation which was put forward at the community consultation stage of the Wollongong DLEP and not the E3 zone which was gazetted.
The reason given by Wollongong City Council for its last minute switching of lands from E2 to E3 is contradicted in writing by the Department of Planning.
Otford Protection Society also appreciates that a desktop study has been carried out into the 7D lands YET would question why reclassification of these sensitive lands WITHOUT BIAS or ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES being completed is even being contemplated!
The 7d land in question has always had limited development capability, yet, for whatever reason, some present 7D landholders continue their lobbying for inappropriate development size downgrading.
Lack of foresight and a desire to capitalise on the parchment subdivisions should not mean that the environment and local community should suffer, nor the Royal National Park, be isolated or endangered.
Nothing has changed since 7d land was gazetted to warrant the ‘7d’ zoning to be degraded to E3.
This Planning Proposal validates this reasoning for a zonation of E2 together with a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights.
Page 4 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Type Description Page Cover Front Cover 1 Letter Planning Proposal Notification 2 Summary Executive Summary 4 Contents Table of Contents 5 Proposal Background 7 Proposal Landscape Master Plan 8 Proposal Part 1 – Objectives and Planned Outcomes 9 Proposal Part 2 – Explanation of provisions 10 Proposal Part 3 – Justification 11 Proposal Part 4 – Community Consultation 16 Appendix 1 Previous Council committees and State Government 17 Department advocating protection of the environment Appendix 2 Government and Community Groups 18 Appendix 3 Applicable State Environment Planning Policies (at 13 March 19 2010) Appendix 4 Section 117 (2) Directions (at 13 March 2010) 20 Appendix 5 Sydney Catchment Authority Zonation as E2 21 Appendix 6 NPWS Bioregional Assessment Study (within Wollongong LGA) 23 2002 Appendix 7 Rare plants and animals in the Upper Hacking River 24 Appendix 8 Extract from 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park, 29 Garawarra State Conservation Area and Heathcote National Park Appendix 9 Heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites 32 Appendix 10 Extract from the Nature Conservation Council of NSWs website 36 – Paper Subdivisions Appendix 11 Minister Garrett refused the proposal for Jervis Bay rezoning 37 due to the impacts on ecological integrity Appendix 12 Summary of Royal National Park and Garawarra State 38 Recreation Area Appendix 13 Extract Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management 39 Plan 2007-2013 Document 1 NSW Planning criteria for Planning Proposal as E2 41 Document 2 NSW Planning Right to rebuild under E2 after Bush Fire 42 Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission to Wollongong 43 City Council on the Draft Review of 7(d) land Document 4 Sutherland Council Submission to Wollongong City Council on 61 the Draft Review of 7(d) land
Page 5 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Type Description Page Document 5 “Heritage Estates” Rezoning Investigations Small Lot Rural 65 Subdivision at Worrowing Heights Document 6 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service correspondence 75 concerning land additions to Garawarra State Conservation Area , the DECC and Aboriginal Heritage Document 7 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 76 Acquisition of land for a wildlife corridor between Royal National Park and the Illawarra Escarpment Document 8 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Addition of lands to 78 Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area – high conservation significance Map 1 Current Gazetted Wollongong City Council 2009/10 Zoning 79 Map Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map 80 Map 3 Parish Map originally drawn 1880 82 Map 4 Conservation Corridor 83 Map 5 Wildlife Corridor- Royal National Park - Garawarra SRA & 84 Illawarra Escarpment Map 6 Sydney Catchment Map 85 Map 7 Biodiversity Zone Map 87 Map 8 Littoral Rainforest Corridor 88 Map 9 Satellite Photo of Area including the Royal National Park 89 Receipt Delivery Receipt 90
Page 6 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Background
This planning proposal follows the future direction framework provided by the ”Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Land use and Zonings in the Vicinity of Helensburgh” July-Dec 1994.
This planning proposal is not for new development but rather seeks to protect the area from future development by providing a long term solution to repeated developer requests, especially including those beyond the development conditions stated in the former 7d lands (currently Interim E3), for expansion to the area immediately adjacent to the Royal National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area and in turn protect the Hacking River Catchment, which needs to supply high quality water to the Hacking River which bisects Royal National Park.
The planning proposal is built on the premise that Council will ratify, as indicated to many community groups, previous 7(d) land classification Environmental Protection standards under the classification system/zonations which replaces it, which Otford Protection Society Incorporated and many community groups assert should be E2 rather than E3. One anomaly this Planning Proposal shall resolve is the different advice received at different times from Wollongong City Council and Department of Planning as to whether E2 will provide support for rebuilding of a burnt down legal home on former 7d lands. Council premised its decision to change E2 to E3 based on a wrong assumption, as verified by The Department of Planning, and latterly, it appears, by Council also. The Council’s aim of providing “certainty” to 7d landowners is not matched by the confused and changed interim zonations of E2 to E3.
The planning proposal is to continue the protection afforded under the previous 7(d) land classification Environmental Protection zonation rights and conditions.
E2 recognised the importance of the area and the previous zonation can continue to operate just as it has for over 20 years as an Environmental Protection Zone.
Sufficient alternate land is available for housing needs in the New South Wales land bank. It is unnecessary to clear native bushland that will potentially degrade the pristine “Class P: Protected Waterways” of the Hacking Catchment.
Page 7 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Landscape Master Plan
This planning proposal applies to land previously zoned to limit residential development in accordance with lot size restrictions and does not seek to increase the development land. Significant studies have already been undertaken regarding the proposal precinct and determined the unsuitability of the area for suitable residential development.
This planning proposal seeks to resolve long standing issues of the economic sustainability and development sensitivity of inappropriate development to the area.
The government (through the Department of Planning) has a precedence opportunity to acquire former 7d lands that lack development rights and ultimately add these portions into the adjoining Garawarra State Conservation Area, Royal National Park, Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area.
Page 8 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 1 – Objectives and Intended Outcomes
A planning proposal which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights. The identified area will replace the existing precinct identified with multi-zoned areas with a planning proposal to recognise the high conservation, historical, heritage, cultural, economic and tourist values of the area. Examples are:
• Density of Village maintained • Ensure future viability of habitat corridors • Reverse the trends of Fauna/Floral local extinctions • Improve recolonisation of National Parks Estate • Preserve Hacking River Catchment
The current approved zoning is Wollongong LEP 2009 as per Map 1.
The proposed zoning is shown as per Map 2.
The Parish Map originally drawn 1880 is shown as per Map 3.
Page 9 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 2 – Explanation of provisions
Amend the Wollongong LEP 2009 to confirm certainty of conditions of development on former 7d lands so that economically and environmentally sustainable development can occur in areas compatible with all Wollongong City Council and Department of Planning instruments.
Amend the Wollongong LEP 2009 E2 provision “Permitted with Consent” to read Environmental Facilities; Environment Protection Works; Recreation Works.
The Amendment ensures compliance with Federal and State Legislation (e.g. Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Water Management Act 2000, Local Government Act 1993, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, Fisheries Management Act 1979, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, Heritage Act 1977, Native Title Act (NSW) 1994) and administered by various government departments including but not limited to Commonwealth Department of Conservation, NSW and Department of Energy, Conservation Climate Change and Water (DECCW).
In addition the planning proposal helps to ensure more adequate sustainable conservation, of key lands identified as parts of at least three habitat corridors, and the conservation of many threatened plants, mammals and other species. The provisions also aim to provide land tenures which will maximise the chances of recolonisation within Royal National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area, from the south or west of locally extinct species.
Page 10 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 3 – Justification
Section A - Need for the planning proposal.
1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
This planning proposal arises from the public endorsement of studies and reviews conducted by Wollongong City Council by way of endorsement of submissions and the 1994 Commission of Inquiry findings into appropriate land use and zonings in the vicinity of Helensburgh, states at page 11 “The overriding term of reference is : To assess the capacity of land in the general vicinity of Helensburgh, to sustain various land use options without causing significant environmental degradation” to protect the environment, wildlife corridors, riparian zones, historical areas, native animals, flora, protected and endangered species and the protection of local residents against bushfires.
This planning proposal has arisen directly from the sheer weight of opposition to the last rezoning study, Willana Report, (some 95% against or partially against development) commissioned, not by former elected Councillor’s but by State Labor Government appointed Administrators.
This report failed the community’s expectations, a desktop study flawed by the lack of scientific basis and depth of investigation e.g. an inappropriate Fire Risk Assessment was only on 4 areas and the Fauna Report containing a full extract of the Liverpool City Council policy.
2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
Yes. The long term preservation of The Royal National Park, Garawarra State Conservation Area, and its environs including the Illawarra State Conservation Area, Heathcote Park and Woronora Catchment Special Area, by ensuring strongest possible conservation zoning of former 7d lands and National parks additions as is enabled by this Application, is a powerful and available solution to avoid further developer appeals and unnecessary financial cost and impost of time on scarce Council resources.
Assessment of Development Applications in the ‘7d’ area be suspended until this planning proposal is determined.
3. Is there a net community benefit?
Yes. The net community benefit will be to the Council financially and the health and wellbeing of the local community.
By virtue of a planning proposal which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights, development costs will be zero and future developments will also be zero.
A rich and natural environment around Helensburgh is the foundation of the attraction of the area.
Page 11 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 3 – Justification... The nett community benefit will be the ever increasing tourism to the area, The Royal National Park and then visitors continuing on south through Bald Hill (the location of first man flight by Sir Lawrence Hargraves), the Sea Cliff Bridge (New South Wales’ “Great Ocean Road”) and Wollongong Gateway Centre (traditional home of the Dhawarral Aboriginal elders) including The Jumbulla Aboriginal Discovery Centre.
Development would only increase the pressure on the Wollongong City Council annual budget.
Yes. Socially, environmentally and economically to the Community.
Open “green” space, bush walks, picnic areas, and tourism including the economic benefit to local shop keepers are some of the many unique benefits having the The Royal National Park, Garawarra State Conservation Area, and its environs including the Illawarra State Recreation and Escarpment area, Heathcote State Recreation Area and Woronora Water Catchment Area as the adjoining areas. Linking all the surrounding areas of 2508 will forever be of social and economic benefit to the Community.
In light of the “ZERO” rezone cost to the community, i.e. this application stops further inappropriate development, no “Net Community Benefit Test” is deemed necessary.
Section B - Relationship to strategic planning framework. 4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
Yes. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Illawarra Regional Strategy, Illawarra Strategic Management Plan (in the absence of a Regional Conservation Plan [see Minister’s comment in introduction to Regional Strategy]).
As the area is not a ‘designated area’ as outlined in the Regional Strategy, the proposal must meet the Threshold Sustainability Criteria (Illawarra Regional Strategy page 42, Criteria 5, 6 & 7). This planning proposal achieves this where the current (Interim E3) zoning does not.
The planning proposal will maintain connectivity of large tracts of protected lands by protecting a vital Riparian Corridor through appropriate zoning as required by the Regional Strategy. The Strategy states, “Local environment plans are to maximise protection of ‘Significant Native Vegetation’, ‘Indicative DEC Regional Habitat Corridors’ shown on Map 4”. The proposal covers an area within the mapped corridor contained within the Strategy.
The Regional Strategy also instructs Wollongong City Council to “Incorporate the planning controls recommended in the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan into its local environmental plan”.
The Illawarra Regional Environmental Plans’ outcomes and specific strategies for a range of different matters are unchanged and will support the existing strategy.
Page 12 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 3 – Justification... The planning proposal is consistent with the vision, land use strategies, policies and objectives of The E1 Royal National Park, The E1 Garawarra State Conservation Area, the protected Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area and Woronora Special Area and by joining all previously zoned 7d lands – bounding all the existing native bushland in the area North to the Royal National Park, East to Pacific Ocean, South to Illawarra Escarpment and West of F6 Freeway to the Waratah Rivulet Woronora Dam Water Catchment Area. All three areas are then linked together and protected by their respective strategy, legislation (Federal and State) and heritage order/s.
Endangered ecological communities cannot exist as fragmented units, thus the need to connect the areas.
The planning proposal is shown as per Map 2 and the extension of Garawarra State Recreation Area is shown as per Map 5.
5. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan or other local strategic plan?
There are a number of local strategic plans that have been adopted by Wollongong City Council. These have been supplemented with reports by Council staff that has been consistent with a “full protection policy” of the previously zoned 7(d) lands.
This planning proposal is essential to the future strategic direction of the Wollongong LEP 2009 and the soon to be undertaken Helensburgh Town Plan for 2508 which the community will have active participation and input.
Previous Council committees and State Government Department advocating protection of the environment are shown in Appendix 1.
Many community groups have expressed concern about the lack of long-term protection to the Royal National Park, see Appendix 2.
6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?
Yes. As this Planning Proposal is to maintain and protect the environment, it will not adversely affect any applicable state environment planning policies shown in Appendix 3 and Referenced Document 1.
Yes. Wollongong LEP 2009 to be modified so that E2 zoning shall have a land use clause but no building entitlement. A right to rebuild is inherent after bush fire, refer Referenced Document 2.
The Planning Proposal is supported by the National Parks Association and Sutherland Shire Council, refer Referenced Documents 3 and 4.
Page 13 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 3 – Justification... 7. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?
Due to the nature of this planning proposal, that is, “to maintain and protect the environment”, it will not affect any applicable s.117 directions that apply to all former 7d zoned lands, refer Appendix 4, except as now noted.
In support of the change of zone from E3 to E2, Sydney Catchment Authority confirms this planning proposal zonation as E2 is now correct, refer Appendix 5 and Map 6.
Section C - Environmental, social and economic impact.
8. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
There will be no adverse affect on the ecological communities or habitats as part of this application. To the contrary there will only be positive outcomes. This planning proposal is a community response to our need to contribute to local actions that will support broader regional biodiversity conservation.
Further information in justification of this approach, it is noted:
8.1 The three north south and two east west Corridors in the area help maintain regional biodiversity, refer Map 7 and Map 4.
8.2 The NPWS Bioregional Assessment Study (within Wollongong LGA), 2002, refer Appendix 6, identifies areas of National, State and bioregional significance for biodiversity within Wollongong LGA. The Helensburgh/Otford/Stanwell Park Area is a "biodiversity hotspot" whose habitat corridors need to be conserved intact and enhanced to ensure that no further biodiversity loss occurs.
8.3 Listed in Appendix 7 is a comprehensive list of rare plants and animals in the vicinity of the Upper Hacking River that will be further threatened if this planning proposal in not adopted. There are seven Mammal species that are either possibly locally extinct or rare with uncertain status.
8.4 The 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park outlines extensive supporting documentation on Rainforest and Tall Moist forest thereby emphasizing the critical importance of the corridor – see Appendix 8, Map 4 and Map 8.
9. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
There are no negative environmental effects as a result of this amendment.
A satellite photo of the area contained within the planning proposal and the adjoining Royal National Park is shown as Map 9. There is no appreciable difference in either area.
Page 14 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 3 – Justification...
10. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
There will be no negative impact on social and economic effects as a result of this planning proposal.
There will be no negative impact on heritage item as a result of this amendment. As seen in Appendix 7, mammals designated as extinct in the Royal National Park, would appear to be returning to the natural habitat of this area.
Failure to implement the planning proposal would detrimentally affect heritage areas and cultural (aboriginal) sites in the area – refer Appendix 9.
Section D - State and Commonwealth interests.
11. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?
This planning proposal contains no residential subdivision in excess 150 lots, substantial urban renewal, or infill development, and therefore does not apply.
Further information on the “Heritage Estates Rezoning Investigations” Small Lot Rural Subdivision at Worrowing Heights Updated July 2009 is available at: http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/council/pubdocs/communityissues/Heritage/HeritageE stateRezoningInvestigations.pdf and/or refer Referenced Document 5.
12. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?
The Commonwealth Department of Conservation, NSW Department of Energy, Conservation Climate Change and Water have declined todate to participate in “auction” sales. However, the Shoalhaven City Council example should be acceptable to the Department’s current budget constraints and “high conservation significance”– refer Referenced Documents 6, 7 and 8.
As shown with the Shoalhaven City Council “Heritage Estates”, State and Federal authorities were successfully consulted and resolved the long standing issues by not developing environmentally sensitive and heritage lands – refer Appendix 10 and 11.
Page 15 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Part 4 – Community Consultation
The response by the community of over 3,500 negative submissions to the recommendations of the Willana Study led to this planning proposal.
The Planning Proposal will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act) and/or any other requirements as determined by the Gateway process.
During the exhibition period, the planning proposal, gateway determination and other relevant documentation will be available Department of Planning tracking website – link is http://leptracking.planning.nsw.gov.au/Default.aspx - hard copies may be downloaded from the website.
Appendix 12 details a summary of the Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Park.
Page 16 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 1 Previous Council committees and State Government Departments advocating protection of the environment
List of State Government Stakeholders ”The Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Land use and Zonings in the Vicinity of Helensburgh” July-Dec 1994 Department of Planning, and The Heritage Branch Department of Energy, Conservation Climate Change and Water Heritage Branch, Department of Planning National Parks and Wildlife Service Southern Rivers Total Catchment Management Committee, Stage 1 & 2 Sydney Catchment Authority
List of Council Committee’s and reports Bulli Pass Scenic Reserves Trust Illawarra Environmental & Sustainable Development Committee Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan Illawarra Escarpment Walking Trails Illawarra Escarpment Working Party, Stage 1 & 2 Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management Plan 2007-2013 (Refer Appendix 13) Sutherland Shire LEP 2006
Page 17 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 2 Government and Community Groups
Government and Community Groups that have expressed concern over many years and through submissions to state and local government about the lack of long term protection to the Royal National Park if overdevelopment in Hacking Catchment occurs, in alphabetical order.
Colong Foundation for Wilderness Community Alliance Northern Suburbs Friends of the Earth Friends of the Hacking River Helensburgh District Protection Society Helensburgh Historical Society Helensburgh Landcare Illawarra Escarpment Coalition Illawarra Greens Nature Conservation Council National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks Association National Trust Northern Illawarra Residents Action Group Otford Protection Society Port Hacking Protection Society Royal National Park Connections Save The Hacking Coalition Stanwell Tops Residents Awareness Association Sutherland Greens Sutherland Shire Council Sutherland Shire Environment Centre The Wilderness Society Total Environment Centre Wildlife Information and Rescue Service Wollongong City Council
Approximately 30,000 public submission and/or letters have previously been lodged since 1994 (Commission of Inquiry) to support and maintain the existing environment zoning.
Page 18 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 3 Applicable State Environment Planning Policies (at 13 March 2010)
Ref Policy Commen No. t 1 SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 N/A 2 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 N/A 3 SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 N/A 4 SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 N/A 5 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 N/A 6 SEPP (Major Structures) 2005 N/A 7 SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 N/A 8 SEPP (Temporary Structures) 2007 N/A 9 SEPP No. 01 – Development Standards N/A 10 SEPP No. 04 – Development Without Consent and Miscellaneous N/A Complying Development 11 SEPP No. 14 – Coastal Wetlands N/A 12 SEPP No. 15 – Rural Land-Sharing Communities N/A 13 SEPP No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas N/A 14 SEPP No. 26 – Littoral Rainforests N/A 15 SEPP No. 32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban N/A Land) 16 SEPP No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development N/A 17 SEPP No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection N/A 18 SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land N/A 19 SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage N/A 20 SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development N/A 21 SEPP No. 71 – Coastal Protection N/A
Reference Numbers 7, 11, 13, 14 and 21 strengthen existing state environmental planning policies.
Reference Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 have no impact on existing state environmental planning policies.
Page 19 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 4 Section 117 (2) Directions (at 13 March 2010)
Ref Direction Comment No. 1. Employment and Resources 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones N/A 1.2 Rural Zones N/A 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries N/A 1.4 Oyster Aquaculture N/A 1.5 Rural Lands N/A 2. Environment and Heritage 2.1 Environment Protection Zones N/A 2.2 Coastal Protection N/A 2.3 Heritage Conservation N/A 2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas N/A 3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development 3.1 Residential Zones N/A 3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Homes Estates N/A 3.3 Home Occupations N/A 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport N/A 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes N/A 4. Hazard and Risk 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils N/A 4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land N/A 4.3 Flood Prone Land N/A 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection N/A 5. Regional Planning 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies N/A 5.2 Sydney Water Catchments Now Complies 6. Local Plan Making 6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements N/A 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes N/A 6.3 Site Specific Provisions N/A 7. Metropolitan Planning 7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy N/A
Page 20 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 5 Sydney Catchment Authority Zonation as E2
Page 21 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 5 Sydney Catchment Authority Zoning as E2…
Page 22 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 6 NPWS Bioregional Assessment Study (within Wollongong LGA), 2002
Extract from Wollongong City Council Sustainability Policy 2002
Environment a) Protect and improve water, air, and soil quality;
Objectives In all its operations and activities both internally and externally Council will take all reasonable steps to: • control its actions, and the actions of others over which it has influence, to prevent further damage to air, water and soil resources. • take all reasonable action to restore air, water and soil to as close to their natural state as is possible. b) Protect and expand habitat for all forms of life;
Objectives In all its operations and activities both internally and externally Council will take all reasonable steps to: • control its actions, and the actions of others over which it has influence, to prevent further damage to biological resources. • take all reasonable action to restore biodiversity to as close to its natural state as is possible. • take all reasonable action to restore biodiversity to its pre-European coverage.
Page 23 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 7 Rare plants and animals in the Upper Hacking River
PART A: PLANTS
All the plants listed below have been recorded at some time in the Upper Hacking River Catchment, or have been recorded in Royal National Park or Garawarra State Conservation Area or in the vicinity of Kelly’s Falls or plant associations in close proximity to the Upper Hacking that resemble them closely.
The plant list below has been collated from personal discussions with Alan Fairley, (April 2010) based on the summary of historic records at the Royal Botanic Gardens, within Mr. Fairley’s book, Seldom Seen: Rare Plants of Greater Sydney, New Holland, 2004, and on data supplied by both professional and respected amateur botanists.
KEY: EPBC Act (Plants and Animals) is the Commonwealth’s mechanism for national environmental protection and biodiversity conservation. Nominated plant species are classified as: • Critically endangered • Endangered • Vulnerable, • Conservation Dependent or • Extinct
TSC Act (Plants and Animals) is the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act which aims to protect and foster the recovery of threatened species and communities. There are two categories under which threatened species are classified under the Act • Schedule 1: Endangered • Schedule 2: Vulnerable
ROTAP (Plants only) Rare or threatened Australian Plants (JD Briggs and JH Leigh) is a CSIRO publication where species are listed under a code indicating their distribution category and conservation status at a National Level.
DISTRIBUTION 1. Known from only one collection 2. Geographic range in Australia less than 100km 3. Geographic range in Australia greater than 100km
CONSERVATION STATUS E Endangered. Species at serious risk of disappearing from the wild within 20 years. Includes populations of 100 or less individual plants (Plants and Animals) Vulnerable. Species not presently endangered, but at risk over 20-50 years R. Rare in Australia, but not currently under threat. Includes species within a very restricted area, or small populations over a wide range. K. Poorly known. Accurate knowledge is inaccurate C. Reserved. The species has at least one population within a national park or other reserve.
Page 24 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 7 Rare plants and animals in the Upper Hacking River…
SIZE OF RESERVED POPULATIONS a 1000 plants or more known within a conservation reserve i Less than 1000 plants known within a conservation reserve -Reserved population size not accurately known t Total known population reserved
Statement of Conservation imperative The following list as well as/besides containing plants classified under the above categories, may contain details of plants which have local conservation significance. For what is locally uncommon or threatened, may, in the future be threatened on a broader scale. It is individual planning decisions and cumulative impacts of all kinds which will ultimately lead to once common plants becoming threatened. Any compromising of the former 7D lands by a zonation that allows a potentially increased scale of urban, commercial or agricultural development can only lead to many native plant species, especially the rare ones listed below, becoming more vulnerable than what they are at present. The list is indicative of what may occur in the former 7d closed and tall open forest and drier woodlands of the Upper Hacking River and adjacent reserved lands.
Species Common Name Status Acacia bauera TSC Vulnerable ROTAP 2RC- Acacia bynoeana Bynoe’s Wattle TSC Endangered ROTAP 3VC- EPBC Vulnerable Acacia nortonii Burnettia cuneata Lizard Orchid ROTAP 3RC Darwinia diminuta ROTAP2RCi Darwinia grandiflora ROTAP2RCi Eucalyptus camfieldii Camfield’s Stringybark TSC Vulnerable ROTAP 2Vci EPBC Vulnerable Eucalyptus luehmanniana Yellow-top Ash ROTAP 2RCa Genoplesium bauera Brittle midge orchid ROTAP 3RC- Grevillea patulifolia Uncommon with restricted distribution. At northern limit of distribution. Hibbertia nitida Shining Guinea Flower ROTAP @RC- Lomandra fluviatilis ROTAP 3RCa Melaleuca deanei TSC Vulnerable ROTAP 3RC- EPBC Vulnerable Monoteca ledifolia ROTAP 3RC- South RNP Persoonia hirsute Hairy Geebung TSC Endangered ROTAP 3Kci EPBC Endangered Prostanthera sp aff densa Rare and localised (in South
Page 25 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 7 Rare plants and animals in the UpperGarawarra Hacking SCA River… Pultenea aristata TSC Vulnerable ROTAP 2V EPBC Vulnerable Symplocos stawellii White Hazelwood Rare in Sydney District. Check alluvium in Hacking River. Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Cherry TSC Vulnerable ROTAP 3Vci Tetratheca neglecta Black-eyed Susan ROTAP 3RC-
PART B: ANIMALS
Mammal species present in Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area prior to and following the 1994 wildfire as detected by the 1996 and 1997 wildfire as detected by the 1996 and 1997 fauna surveys and records of local naturalists.
KEY: C – common, U – uncommon, R – rare, E – locally extinct for Royal NP and Garawarra SCA, ? - uncertain status, * listed on the Threatened species Conservation Act, NSW
Data Source: Post Fire Vertebrate Fauna survey, Royal and Heathcote National Parks and Garawarra State Conservation Area, Debbie Andrew, NPWS, 2001
Species Recorded Prefire status Recorded Post fire Notes Pre-fire (source) Post Fire status (source) Platypus + E? (1,2) 0 E? 1 Short-beaked Echidna + C (3) + U Tiger Quoll* + E? (4) 0 E? 2 Brown Antechinus + C(5) + C Dusky Antechinus + R (6) R? Common Dunnart + R (5) + R 3 Long-nosed Bandicoot + C (5) + U Common Wombat + R(7) + R Koala* + R (8) + R Common Ringtail Possum + C (7) + R Greater Glider + U (7) + E? 4 Sugar Glider + C (5) + U Common Brushtail + C (7) + U Possum Mountain Brushtail + U (7) + U Possum Feathertail Glider + U95) + R (14) 5 Eastern Pigmy-possum + U? (5) + R Red-necked Wallaby + R (9) 0 E? Swamp Wallaby + C (5) + C
Page 26 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 AppendixRed-necked 7PademelonRare plants+ and animalsE? (10) in the Upper0 Hacking RiverRiver…E? Grey-headed Flying Fox + C (8) + U Eastern Horseshoe- bat + U (7) + U Yellow-bellied Sheathtail + R (11) 0 R? 6 Bat* A mastiff-bat + R 8 Mormopterus sp 1/M norfolkensis Large Pied Bat* + R 8 Gould’s Wattled Bat + R 8 Chocolate Wattled Bat + ? (5) + U Little Forest Bat + ? (5) + U Large Forest Bat* + ? (5) + Eastern False Pipisistrelle* + U 8 Common Bent-wing Bat* + ? (5) + U Large-footed Mouse-eared + ? (5) + U 7 Bat* Greater Broad-nosed Bat* + R 8 Gould’s Long-eared Bat + R 8 New Holland Mouse + R (5) + U Bush Rat + C (5) + C Swamp Rat + U (12) R
Conservation Commentary: Gary Schoer B.Sc. (Hons, Zool), Dip Ed, Dip Env Studs)
“This comprehensive pre and post 1994 wildfire study in which 95% of Royal National Park and much of Garawarra SCA was burnt, demonstrates, in general terms a picture of impacts on mammals arguably largely due to one of many cumulative impacts that have been affecting many mammals since European use and urbanisation of the fringes.
It is worthwhile reflecting on the indicators of change that could be due to one major event, when so many other cumulative events continue to threaten the viability of remaining mammal populations. Poor, compromised planning decisions that could increase density of urban development at Helensburgh will certainly add to the survival pressures illustrated by the post-fire trends in this table. Many community groups have, in the last number of decades, stressed the importance of maintaining intact habitat corridors between Royal National park, Garawarra SCA and reserved lands to the south and west. It is my professional opinion that an increase in urban blocks developed in the former 7d lands and relaxation of former restrictions on block sizes for development and types of development can only add to the accumulation of impacts which, for over a century, have led to a situation where many mammals, other animals and plants have an increasingly te
Page 27 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 7 Rare plants and animals in the Upper Hacking River… The figures above show for Royal National Park and Dharawal SCA:
Seven mammal species are either locally extinct or rare - but the latter status is uncertain.
Six species known in the two reserves before the fire were not found during extensive surveys after the fire. This does not necessarily prove that this one event caused these changes in status, but may be illustrative of the general downward trend that can be expected in animal diversity following an accumulation of events such as very large wildfire and other causes, including planning which does not place a high value on maintenance of habitat corridors.
Fourteen Species have had their conservation status downgraded since the fire.
Any interpretation of the trends in mammal and other animal populations around the vicinity of the former 7d lands can only lead to the conclusion that The Royal National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area’s mammal species have been subject to such a scale of cumulative impacts over 130 years that there is a pressing ecological imperative and moral duty for Wollongong City Planners and Administrators to be fully aware of data such as this to inform environmental choices. If the objective environmental facts of The Royal National Park’s loss of mammal and other species doesn’t sit firmly at the base of planning and zonation decision making, this decision to ignore the biological facts before them will be yet another historical record where the relationship between species loss and cause will be an indelible blot on Wollongong City Council’s environmental record. These former 7d lands need active conservation measures including strong planning decisions and maintenance of habitat links between major bushland reserves to sustainability of animal populations in this part of southern Sydney and Northern Illawarra.
Page 28 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 8 Extract from 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park, Garawarra State Conservation Area and Heathcote National Park
4.1.2 Native and Introduced Plants Much of the sandstone plateau of the three areas supports a eucalypt woodland community which in western Royal National Park and Heathcote National Park grades into sandstone gully forest dominated by smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata). In moist and sheltered locations such as along the Hacking River valley and in some of the deep gullies around South West Arm Creek, Warumbul and Deer Park, the vegetation is tall open eucalypt forest and contains rainforest elements.
The exposed sandstone plateau surfaces in the eastern section of Royal National Park are covered by a complex mosaic of heaths and mallee. To the north and the north-east, the plateau gradually falls to the sea, forming a coastal plain characterised by heath covered sand dunes. Along the coast, where salt and high winds prevail, the vegetation is typical of the low coastal scrub of south-eastern Australia. In the south the plateau drops abruptly to the coast where it forms a narrow, steep escarpment supporting small patches of littoral rainforest which are dominated by cabbage tree palms (Livistona australis) along the streamlines.
In the upper catchment of the Hacking River in both Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area there are significant stands of subtropical and warm temperate rainforest. This is the result of higher rainfall in the south and the occurrence of richer soils of the Narrabeen Group shales which are exposed in the deep gullies. It is estimated that some 75 per cent of the rainforest of the Illawarra has been cleared since settlement and accordingly, that remaining in the upper Hacking River catchment is of high conservation value.
Within the basic vegetation types found in Royal National Park there are many local variations in structure and floristic composition which are determined by the local geology and soils, physiography, aspect, catchment and fire history. The area is on an east-west climatic gradient derived from the influence of the ocean.
It also falls on a bioclimatic gradient between the northern warm-temperate biota and the southern cool-temperate biota. The complexity of physical factors is reflected in the development of a uniquely diverse mosaic of floristic assemblages. For several years the Service has been undertaking a vegetation survey of Royal National Park, Heathcote National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area. This survey will allow a comprehensive vegetation map of the three areas to be produced, which can be used for management and planning purposes.
The vegetation survey has been undertaken in such a way that data can be added and updated.
The significant features of each major vegetation type are given below. Rainforests Areas of subtropical, warm temperate and littoral rainforest occur in Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area. These areas represent the northernmost extent of the
Page 29 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 8 Extract from 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park..Park… once extensive rainforests of the Illawarra region. Both subtropical and warm temperate rainforest are mainly restricted to sheltered terrain in the Hacking River valley on 15 Narrabeen shales. The best examples of subtropical rainforest in the area occur in the valleys of Stuarts and Cedar Creeks, just outside the two reserves. Littoral rainforest is found on sand dunes at Jibbon, Marley, Curracurrang and Garie and a somewhat different assemblage of species occurs on the seaward slopes of the Narrabeen Group shales south of Garie. The only similar stand of littoral rainforest in the Sydney region occurs on sand in Towra Point Nature Reserve.
The conservation of rainforest in the upper Hacking River catchment is a priority as a habitat link with the rainforests on the Illawarra escarpment.
Tall moist eucalypt forest Tall moist eucalypt forests grow on sheltered gully slopes with Narrabeen Group shale soils in the southern part of the Hacking River valley in Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area. As for the rainforests, Royal National Park represents the northern extent of the Illawarra moist eucalypt forests which extend southwards along the escarpment. Throughout this range, the forests are in a state of regeneration following a long history of logging and clearing which continued in the southern part of what is now Royal National Park until the 1960s. In Heathcote National Park, wet sclerophyll vegetation occurs on the eastern flank of Scouters Mountain.
Shale forest Small stands of eucalypt forest which are floristically different to those found in the gullies on Narrabeen Group shales occur on Wianamatta shale outcrops on the Hawkesbury sandstone plateau. These occur along the western edge of Royal National Park, the largest being at Loftus behind the former tram museum. A second patch occurs between the Princes Highway and the F6 Freeway at Helensburgh. These are remnants of a more extensive forest community which stretched along the shale-capped ridge from Sutherland to Cronulla. Due to their limited distribution, they will need to be protected.
Sandstone gully forest Sheltered sandstone slopes and gullies throughout the three areas support a forest dominated by smooth barked apple (Angophora costata) with a few eucalypt species. These forests typify much of the spectacular bushwalking country in western Royal National Park and Heathcote National Park and similar vegetation is found to the south and west on the Woronora Plateau. Within Heathcote National Park, most of the gullies from Burns Road north to Heathcote Road are dominated by an association of smooth- barked apple, Sydney peppermint (Eucalyptus piperita), grey gum (E. punctata) and red bloodwood (E. gummifera). There are occasional stands of forest she-oak (Allocasuarina torulosa) but beaked hakea (Hakea teretifolia) is the most common shrub.
Sandstone Plateau Woodland Much of the sandstone plateau supports a eucalypt woodland community with a diverse shrubby understory. South of Mt Leighton Bailey in Royal National Park there is a well developed ironstone mantle capping on the sandstone which supports woodland vegetation with rich populations of Gymea lily (Doryanthes excelsa), waratah (Telopea
Page 30 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 8 Extract from 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park.. Appendix 8 Extract from 2000 Plan of Management Royal National Park… speciocissima) and woody pear (Xylomelum pyriforme), species generally uncommon on sandstone ridges in the Woronora region. Similar stands are found around Garawarra Hospital and the O'Hares Creek area to the south- west. The sandstone plateau has had small areas cleared in the past for military purposes, gravel extraction and other uses. Regeneration on sandstone is slow but areas where topsoil was removed were brush matted in the early 1970s and regeneration is gradually taking place. The region's shale forests and sandstone plateau woodlands on ironstone, such as those found in Menai, scattered along the Heathcote to Helensburgh stretch of the Princes Highway, and in the O'Hares Creek area, have been highlighted as being under greatest threat of destruction because of their location on flat ridge tops suitable for development.
Page 31 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010
Appendix 9 Heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites
Source:“Helensburgh District Historical Society”
The significant heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites in the Helensburgh District are;
Bushland of the Upper Hacking River Catchment The significant heritage value to the National & State Parks is by preserving these remnants of bushland in Helensburgh for the long term survival of rare, endangered or threatened species depends upon the protection of the moist forest types and riparian environments after hundreds of year of fire damage in the Parks. Another heritage feature is its link to the aboriginal artifacts that are contained within the bushland of the Upper Hacking River Catchment outside of the protection of the adjoining Parks.
Railway Tunnels There are 4 significant heritage tunnels from the original Illawarra Railway line laid down from 1878 to 1888 in the Helensburgh District outside the protection of the National and State Parks. The structure of these tunnels is significant by their design and construction and typical of the British design of the late 1800's. These tunnels are the only ones left of the original Illawarra Railway line in the Steam Train era. Other tunnels in the area were modified to suit the line duplication from Como to Wollongong. The tunnel near the old Lilyvale station is in its “original” condition.
Metropolitan Coal Mine The Helensburgh Metropolitan Coal Mine has significant heritage value in the Helensburgh District. The Mine is the longest operational coal mine in Australia. The heritage bushland surrounding this mine contained tent cities from when the mine in 1884 started explorations. These tent cities grew surrounding the mine as the population increased. These bush lands are part of the Upper Hacking River Catchment outside the protection of the Royal & State Parks.
Aboriginal Heritage The bushland in the Upper Hacking River Catchment of the Helensburgh District has been surveyed and several sites of significant Aboriginal artifacts found. Wollongong City Council in 1986-7 commissioned this survey in conjunction with other Studies being carried out for the new Proposed Helensburgh Plan. The Aboriginal Survey document was classified "Confidential" by the Council and these sites were never disclosed.
Hanging Swamp – Stanwell Tops
Page 32 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 9 Heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites..sites… The Hanging Swamp at Stanwell Tops is the catchment of Hargrave Creek Stanwell Park. The Hanging Swamp of Stanwell Tops covers a large area on top of a sandstone bed on the southern side of Bundeena Garden and the northern side of The Christian Conference Centre and to the eastern perimeters to the F6 expressway. The historical significance of this area of the swamp is its rarity and size. It contains a very rare sundew, a small carnivorous plant that only survives in sunny damp conditions. The only other known small colony of this rare variety of sundew is at Bulli Tops, Sublime Point. There are numerous colonies of native flora and fauna that plays an important part in the regeneration in the Hanging Swamp as a wildlife habitat from the Royal National Park to the Illawarra Escarpment Park and Water Catchment area to the west.
The Tops Pleasure Park In the 1930’s Henry Halloran developed the Stanwell Tops Pleasure Park as a local tourist attraction. Remnants of the “Tops Pleasure Park” still exist and are considered worthy of historical value. The entrance to the Park was marked with a large stone feature with a “Pleasure Park” sign on the top. The stone feature actually housed a flag pole and bollard from HMAS Sydney. The Park contained a kiosk, dance hall, overnight cabins, playing fields, mineral swimming pool, bush-walking trails, and wonderful lookouts over Stanwell Park and the ocean. Many rock monuments were constructed at the lookouts, entrance gate to the mineral pool and walking trails. The mineral swimming pool gained a reputation for its therapeutic value. Public access to the Pleasure Park continued into the 1970’s where the Park was re-named “The Pool of Peace” and claimed the site being of aboriginal significance as a “male sacred site for the mind, body and spirit”. The Pool of Peace property is now in private ownership and public access is denied, but the stonework of the entrance gates and pool still exist.
A giant old gum tree with a girth of over 25 feet is known as the “Wishing Tree” and the family of Henry Halloran preserved this old giant in the 1930’s when logging was prevalent in the area. Another of Halloran’s lookouts named “Marcellus” was a short distance from the old gum tree with magnificent views of Mt Mitchell and a stonework seat is on the lookout platform. There are numerous lookout along the escarpment ampitheatre, “Stanwell View Lookout”, “Pericles Lookout”, “Verona Lookout” The heritage significance of this area is unique and is considered under threat from inappropriate land management under Council’s zonings.
Princess Marina Walk The Princess Marina Cliff Walk was established by Mr. Henry Halloran, in the 1930’s on his land and is quite unique well worthy of historical significance. Bulli Council approved the development and made representation to obtain consent from Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent, for the walk to be named in her honour. Assent was granted in 1937 around the time the Princess visited Sydney. Princess Marina Walk linked walking trails from the railways of Stanwell Park, Otford, Lilyvale and Helensburgh.
The Cliff Walk had stonework seats, shelters and lookout viewing platforms. Further along the walk is an avenue called “Lover’s Walk” with a stonework shelter called “Lover’s Nook”, a small covered seat built on top of a large boulder facing down into Undola Canyon (Kelly’s Gully), and crafted of red gravel stones, with grey/red granite and dark, almost black, river stones. Moving along through the trail of gum trees hugging the escarpment you pass over
Page 33 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 9 Heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites..sites… the “Romeo & Juliet Falls”. The Princess Marina Walk is now part of the Kelly’s Falls Reserve but is considered under threat from its surrounds areas that are in private ownership where clearing and inappropriate land management is permissible under Council’s zoning.
Properties of Historical Significance There are three major properties from around the early 1900’s and they are situated on Lawrence Hargraves Drive, Walker Street, and Bald Hill. These properties are of historical Significance and have links to Kelly’s Fall Reserve and scenic Ball Hill. Each property was built around the same era and situated on lands vulnerable under Council’s zonings. Two properties were part of larger estates and their boundaries are adjacent to the Kelly’s Falls Reserve. The property on Bald Hill holds a position of importance to the scenic attributes of the escarpment. These three properties hold high heritage significance to Bald Hill, Stanwell Tops and Helensburgh.
Immediately Adjacent to the Royal National Park
SIGNIFICANT VALUES OF THE ROYAL NATIONAL PARK • Gondwana associations of diverse flora - especially family Proteacae • Richness of Aboriginal sites including sandstone engravings • World class coastal geology/cliff line and iconic coastal walk – “Eagle Rock” a unifying symbol • Evidence of 3 levels of beaches - one 70m below water - perched dunes well above water line (Marley) • High quality marine water adjoining and opportunity to link land catchment/ conservation with ocean - part of proposed Sydney Marine Park (NPA) Proximity to large city servicing 3 million visitors per year • A hub for environmental research via several adjacent universities in Sydney and Illawarra Historic links with concept of a National Park • World significance - the unique mix of tropical/subtropical and temperate elements in a rainforest very close to major city
“Official Guide to the National Park of New South Wales Published by Authority of the Trustees Published 1902
Page 10 “On August 3rd, 1880, His Excellency the Governor, with Executive sanction, approved an extension of the boundaries to the inclusion of an area amounting to 36,300 acres. This immense people’s reserve, briefly described, consists...... and perpetual streamlets of pure fresh water trickle down the gullies, keeping ever-verdant the overhanging vegetation, as they flow on their courses to swell in volume the principal water-way within Park boundaries.
Page 95 A vast numerical increase in the number of the population is bound to mark our domestic history, amid amidst all the multiplying changes in the passage of coming decades the National Park will remain much in the same condition as it now stands.... The whole heritage is safe beyond the reach of plunder, safe from the machinations of
Page 34 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 9 Heritage assets and cultural (aboriginal) significant sites… ambitious schemers, and secured to the people of this country upon express terms fixed and made final by Act of Parliament.
It is time, and time alone, that will prove the value of this magnificent dowry to the people of New South Wales.
In the wisdom of acquired years, how even more powerful is that statement of 1902 now in 2010.
Most of the contentious “paper” subdivisions were created around 1900 when the Princes Highway was still a dirt track and farms and bushland still stretched through most of southern Sydney. The town planners and land speculators could not have foreseen how scarce and precious the forest, fauna, and tributary creeks on the drawn land parcels would become a century later.
… lack of 'foresight' and a developer's desire to capitalise on the parchment subdivisions, should not mean that the environment and local community should suffer, nor the Royal National Park be in endangered….
Page 35 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 10 Extract from the Nature Conservation Council of NSWs website – Paper Subdivisions
2.3 Paper Rezonings
Although listed in a different section of the planning reforms than plan making, we believe the proposal of resolving paper subdivisions is relevant to the issue of plan-making as it is essentially rezoning.
We are not supportive of the objective of facilitating development or the underlying assumption that all paper subdivisions ought to be developed. Where land has never been zoned for urban development and is not suitable for it, the community should not be funding land acquisitions, trading or development to ‘compensate’ failed speculation.
There are a number of examples of ‘paper subdivisions’ across NSW many of which are on land of high biodiversity value or far from services and infrastructure.
Case Study 1 – Paper Subdivision, Shoalhaven LGA One example of a paper subdivision can be found in the Shoalhaven LGA near to Jervis Bay and Worrowing Heights. This informal subdivision is in the hands of multiple owners. The area has considerable environmental values that would make large proportions of it unsuitable for development. The site is a heritage estate. In addition to the biodiversity values of the site, the site also is seen as being of a high risk to bushfires.
Landowners and buyers are made fully aware of zoning and development opportunities on land through means such as Section 149 certificates. Therefore there is no onus on the NSW Government to enable this land to be developed with potential environmental costs and significant infrastructure costs to the Government. This ‘subdivision’ should could be transferred into the NSW Reserve System due to its environmental values.
These planning reforms should not be used to promote the development of areas in inappropriate locations. We acknowledge that some of these paper subdivisions are owned by so called ‘Mum and Dad’ investors. This is still not a sufficient reason to develop areas that may reduce areas of native bushland and have significant costs in terms of the provision of infrastructure. It is a simplistic approach that removes the safeguards required for considered and appropriate development.
Recommendation: The provisions for expediting paper subdivisions are removed from the proposed planning reforms.
Page 36 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 11 Minister Garrett refused the proposal for Jervis Bay rezoning due to the impacts on ecological integrity
Add estate to national park, urges Cr Guile - Local News - News - General - South Coast Register
BY 25/03/2009 9:13:00 AM
SHOALHAVEN City Councillor Andrew Guile has called for the controversial Heritage Estate to be classified as National Park land after a decision by the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, to rule out rezoning of the 1200 blocks.
“The solution for both the environment and the current land-holders is for the state to acquire the land with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government,” Cr Guile said.
“Our work is not done if all levels of government are serious about protecting the environmental sensitivities of this area,” he said.
Mr. Garrett issued a preliminary determination that none of the 1200 blocks near Jervis Bay be rezoned for residential development based on the land’s proximity to Booderee National Park and its environmental value.
“ We understand that Minister Garrett refused the proposal for rezoning due to the impacts on ecological integrity of the nearby Booderee National Park and the likely impacts on nationally threatened species,” he said.
Cr Guile met with Commonwealth National Parks representatives along with council staff last week.
“I am pleased to say that Commonwealth National Parks recognise the need to act quickly to secure the environmental value of the land which is currently in fragmented ownership and under a rural zoning,” Cr Guile said.
“Public acquisition and management of this land is the best way of ensuring conservation into the future,” he said.
“This is a unique situation and an opportunity for the Commonwealth and NSW governments to resolve a longstanding contentious issue with a positive outcome for all stakeholders, especially the landowners who are financially, socially and psychologically impacted by the Minister’s decision,” Cr Guile said.
Page 37 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 12 Summary of Royal National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area Source: Page 37 Australia National Heritage Brochure - 15 December 2006 Within 40 kilometres of the centre of Australia’s largest and most populous city, Sydney, lies a landscape of sparkling beaches, spectacular coastal cliffs, wild heathlands and windswept woodlands that host a glorious diversity of plant and animal life.
Australia’s first national park, Royal National Park, together with the adjacent Garawarra State Conservation Area, has one of the richest concentrations of plant species in temperate Australia with more than 1000 species. This diverse vegetation supports a rich array of birds, reptiles and butterflies.
Royal National Park was the second national park to be established in the world, after Yellowstone in the United States. Its declaration in 1879 marked the beginning of Australia’s conservation movement and of the development of Australia’s national park system.
Following the gold rush of the mid-1800s Sydney expanded rapidly to become one of the world’s larger cities, and demand grew for the creation of recreation areas to relieve crowded, polluted inner city areas. An area of 18 000 acres, including ocean frontage, was reserved from sale and on 26 April 1879 it was dedicated as a reserve for the use of the public as the National Park. During the 1954 visit to Australia by Queen Elizabeth II, the park was renamed Royal National Park.
Although the park was established as a recreation area it also marked a time when the Australian public began developing a greater appreciation for the natural environment. Social changes, such as improvements in working conditions and increased leisure time, better rail transport and the arrival of the motor car, enabled more people to visit the park. Royal National Park contains many features developed for recreation, such as the boating area, causeway and picnic lawns at Audley and Lady Carrington Drive.
Greater access to, and use of, this beautiful area contributed to the emerging interest in conserving Australia’s natural places. This interest was further demonstrated by an increase in nature writing and painting, especially the popular picturesque style of painting, and in the popularity of activities such as bushwalking and early nature tourism.
The emergence of the conservation movement was timely for the long term survival of the region’s rainforest and wet eucalypt forests, which contain red cedar and other valuable timbers. About 75 per cent of the rainforest of the Illawarra has been cleared since European settlement; making these reserves especially important for conservation purposes.
The eastern side of Royal National Park supports heathlands rich in plants and animals. The sandstone plateau contains more than 500 species of flowering plants, including heaths, peas, wattles, orchids, grevilleas, banksias, waratahs and the spectacular Gymea lily. The cliff top dunes to the east and south of Bundeena support a wide variety of large shrub species which once covered the eastern suburbs of Sydney.
Page 38 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 The abundant and diverse plant life supports a variety of insects, mammals (43 species), reptiles (40 species) and amphibians (30 species). The area is especially rich in birds (231 species), including many honeyeaters and a variety of rainforest birds.
Page 39 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 13 Extract Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management Plan 2007-2013
The Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management Plan 2007 – 2013 highlights the strong correlation between the Wollongong City Council Helensburgh/Otford/Stanwell Tops region with this planning proposal addresses and the Sutherland Shire Council southern boundaries represented by the Royal National Park.
Sutherland Shire Council is a major stakeholder in the region by the common border both Council’s share. Following is an extract from the Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management Plan 2007 – 2013 how the Planning Proposal would be seen as impacting on Sutherland Shire Council.
Port Hacking catchment is located 30 kilometres south of the Sydney CBD. The Hacking River commences in the upper regions of Otford and travels 27 kilometres where it meets the Port Hacking estuary, which covers an area of approximately 11 square kilometres. The total catchment area covers approximately 208 square kilometres, with the headwaters near Otford. Approximately 60 per cent of this area is natural bushland. Since the catchment is considered to be the most unpolluted of Sydney’s major river catchments, the maintenance of high water quality is therefore a high priority.
The majority of impacts in the freshwater areas of the catchment are from the urban settlements at Helensburgh and Otford, which have a combined population of almost 5,500 people. The emphasis then is to protect good water quality in the face of large housing development pressures, piggery developments and other agricultural activities, and inappropriate recreation use, particularly scouring of streams and the entry of sediment into the system.
Within the Wollongong LGA, approximately 1,200 properties utilise on-site sewage management systems (OSSMS) to treat and dispose of wastewater. Wastewater may be ‘blackwater’ (toilet waste), or ‘greywater’ (water from showers, sinks and washing machines), or a combination of both. The four most common types of OSSMS are absorption trenches, pump-out systems, aerated wastewater treatment systems and composting toilets. OSSMS are required in areas where a reticulated or centralised sewage service is not available, and in the Port Hacking catchment, include Stanwell Tops, Otford, and parts of Helensburgh. The geology and morphology of these suburbs is not ideally suitable for on-site effluent disposal, which when combined with poor maintenance practices and increased densities of OSSMS through the subdivision of land , has resulted in these systems negatively impacting on the natural environment (WCC SOE 2006/07).
Ecological Issues • The perception of diminishing water quality from bacterial contamination, stormwater run-off, catchment run-off, illegal disposal of material in the catchment and waterway, lack of reticulated sewage systems and the impacts of expanding urban development in the Helensburgh area.
Page 40 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Appendix 13 Extract Port Hacking Integrated Environmental Management Plan 2007 – 2013… SSC needs to address some critical challenges in planning for the future of the Port Hacking catchment. There is a data gap in the upper catchment as WCC does not undertake water quality monitoring in the Helensburgh area.
Licensed by DECC to discharge wastewater in waterways include DECC1 and in Helensburgh include the Helensburgh Waste Disposal Depot and Metropolitan Collieries Pty (WCC SOE 2006/07).
Theme Challenge 7. Water Quality Ecology Conservation of wetlands and Protection of freshwater hanging swamps riparian corridors throughout the Port Hacking catchment particularly in the Helensburgh area. Protection of riparian vegetation.
Page 41 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 1 NSW Planning criteria for Planning Proposal as E2
Note: All correspondence names deleted but originals available on request. http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument1.jpg
Page 42 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 2 NSW Planning Right to rebuild under E2 after Bush Fire
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument2.jpg
Page 43 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission to WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL on the Draft Review of 7(d) land
SOUTHERN SYDNEY BRANCH PO Box 312 Engadine 2233 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.npansw.org.au Head Office Phone: (02) 9299 0000 Re: “Draft Review of 7(d) lands at Head Office Fax: (02) 9290 2525 Helensburgh. Otford and Stanwell Tops (prepared for Wollongong City Council (WCC) by Willana Associates Pty Ltd July 2009.
Manager, Wollongong City Council Please forward to Administrators as important questions regarding process are asked that require urgent consideration and response prior to closing date for submissions. Attention David Green for formal Submission requirements
Dear Sir/Madam
National Parks Association of NSW, Southern Sydney Branch (NPA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Review of 7(d) lands at Helensburgh. Otford and Stanwell Tops (prepared for Wollongong City Council (WCC) by Willana Associates Pty Ltd July 2009.) We will also comment on the associated “Council Resolution) extract from minutes 28th July 2009.
Firstly NPA rejects the reason for an interim zoning of all 7d lands as E3 ostensibly to guarantee the right of owners to rebuild if a bushfire (for example) destroys their home. There should be no pre-emptive zonation of this land other than to E2, the closest equivalent to 7d. Doing so prior to any environmental assessment is not appropriate and arguably illegal. NPA believes it will be extremely difficult to argue for tighter environmental zonations from this pragmatic decision. An explanatory clause regarding the proviso with respect to existing dwelling replacement would have been adequate in NPA’s opinion. So, NPA will be responding to the substance of what is in the Willana report assuming that what is suggested for any rezonations represents Council’s existing position.
Page 44 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission..Submission… On the one hand NPA welcomes the description of this Review as “Draft” since there are key deficiencies and entire critical sections missing from this acknowledged “Desktop Planning Studies”. That it is a “desktop” studies is clearly demonstrated, for if this is meant to be a document in which residents and significant community stakeholders can make an informed judgement, the many gaps preclude many from doing so thus putting the blame onto WCC if relatively few objections are received.
There is passing allusion to “wildlife corridors” and “threatened species”, but apart from a sketchy allusion to an Indicative Department of Environment and Conservation (now DECCW) Regional Habitat Corridor and some diffuse images of “Endangered Ecological Communities (Fig 19, Willana Associates), there is no detailed analysis of the impacts of zonation changes on these, no critical analysis of detailed (as opposed to indicative) habitat corridors, and no mention of specific threatened plants and animals.
Illegal clearing of vegetation and development of land has most likely occurred in an attempt to pre-empt decisions of Council in relation to new LEP zonings. (Jedda Lemmon, NSW Coastal Conference 2007)
Lemmon makes the comment that one of the principles of the 2005 Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan relevant to this discussion (of illegal clearings) is that no further clearing of escarpment lands would be supported, as defined from baseline 2001 aerial photos (IESMP 2005).
While Council has had varied results in the past prosecuting for alleged illegal land clearing, as detected by aerial photography analysis, it can and should with certainty commit to zonings that will prevent further clearing. The 7d zonation gave that assurance, and NPA believes that with rare and strategic exceptions that will not threaten the regional biodiversity aims, E2 zoning needs to be the almost exclusive future zonation of these lands, with the highest conservation value lands. prioritised for future addition to Royal National Park via purchase or other transparent means.
That Council intends to make final decisions based on a desktop study is an abrogation of its responsibilities to consider the public interest and the future of these important regional ecosystems whose values have been emphasised in successive studies some of which are listed and generally acknowledged by Willana Associates. However, as will be demonstrated, a key NPWS document from 1985 which clearly and comprehensively rings alarm bells about the continuing risks of land clearings is perhaps unwittingly ignored. NPA will attempt to redress this imbalance and highlight several key flawed conclusions that, if accepted, will simply add to the continuation of habitat fragmentation and species extinctions ignored by this study.
While NPA has sought further natural resource information directly from DECCW to help inform our submission, NPA asserts that Willana’s desktop study is entirely inadequate in advocating stream and Hacking River protection as the apparent sole detailed criteria on which decisions on new zonations are being recommended. While DECCW may well be making submissions to WCC, the lack of transparency that is risked by not presenting natural resource data for critical, public evaluation, makes it very difficult for NPA and others to provide the quality of informed input that we wish to make. But we will try.
Page 45 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… Our membership and our consultants have a decades long history of making informed input to planning studies such as this both in the Illawarra and Southern Sydney Regions, and we feel frustrated that insufficient data is provided. While data we are providing is aiming to close the gap, this data is lacking for the general public to assess, and thus as a public document, this Draft Review is flawed and needs to be REPLACED by a more substantive document that more adequately addresses environmental impact issues.
Key Recommendation 1. NPA states that this “Draft Review” is an invalid document to assess public opinion. It is in the public interest to produce an improved document, and NPA requests that the Administrators direct that this takes place.
NPA thus requests that a revised proposal goes on public display after the commencement of this study, so that WCC can present a solution to implementing a vision for conservation of these lands that is aimed primarily at Conserving Land and not just avoiding conflict. Which seems the paramount explicit aim of the flawed desktop study.
The mere fact that all of these lands were zoned 7d in response to far reaching historical enquiries was indeed a “Vision” that acknowledged the high conservation values of the vast majority of these lands. Talking about the need for a “new vision”, NPA views as code for getting many of the proverbial “monkeys” off Council’s back. NPA is aware of and to some extent appreciates the frustrations of some 7d owners who feel let down by some of Council’s variations on what can be built on these lands. However, Willana Associates seem to acknowledge that some large sections of clearly high conservation land such as the Northern sections of land (some land is too optimistically predictive of what owners “wished”.) should be transferred to E2, and NPA applauds this. That Council’s pragmatic interim E3 zonation may ultimately compromise the clear conservation case for lands such as these, is of real concern to NPA. The problem is that strategic recommendations as to other lands that might be transferred to E3 or other light industrial or commercial zonations is based on pragmatism, and inadequate environmental assessment with respect to their potential values for threatened plant and animal conservation, and arguably as a key link in habitat corridors identified by DECCW as far back as 1985, and confirmed by NPA with current vegetation data..
And further on Key Recommendation 1: National Parks Association requests that Council re-exhibits this proposal in a form that scopes BIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES in a more comprehensive way, that more fully recognises these values. Reliance on water conservation values, and urban capacity and constraints studies (such as slope and bushfire risk) analysis alone (while relevant) does not provide the basis for exemplary decision- making that is required in these high conservation value lands.
NPA objects in the strongest possible terms to any decision by Council that excludes the public from making a more informed input to recommended zonation changes that may prove deleterious to nature conservation in the medium to longer term.
Page 46 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… Recommendation 1b The Phase 2 stage of public exhibition should only occur after the inadequacies of the Stage 1 process have been addressed. The desktop study is also inadequate in that it does not present in even cursory detail, what further lands need to be provided for stormwater runoff control. How big do detention basins have to be? Will such basins require compromising of any other high conservation lands such as gully rainforests within the ubiquitous Class 1 streams? Will key habitat corridor lands, perhaps to be more precisely identified, be compromised by such works?
That Willana advocates development of a “Bushland and Fauna Preservation and Augmentation Policy” to overcome risks to bushland, is an incomprehensible and incredible code that hopes to “retrofit” concern for plants and animals after zoning determinations in the absence of adequate planning. It has no hope of “ensuring” that “no site is developed without ensuring quality bushland is protected on the site …”when a zonation in fact allows what the Policy says it cannot do. The allusion to possibility of “Augmentation” generally is a hollow hope that when negative environmental consequences occur, there will be a “Policy” to fix it. Restoring degraded land (in some cases, illegally degraded) is different to “augmenting” vegetation after bad planning decisions. When was a subdivision anywhere retrofitted to allow wildlife passage after original vegetation was cleared to make way for that development? Willana and Council cannot really believe that this will occur when development pressures mount after zoning approval. All that will occur will be another “Gymea Lily Glades” promoted in name only, as bushland values progressively erode…a testimony to lack of vision and comprehensive environmental planning.
Willana Associates itself recognises the inadequacy of its desktop planning study in calling for a “Bushland and Fauna Preservation and Augmentation Policy”. NPA in its submission will highlight specific needs regarding assessment prior to final zonation decisions. Willana also (p54) recommends that the Riparian Corridor management Study (2004) which details recommended setbacks for development from class 1 streams etc, “requires consideration as part of this study” Where is this public transparent consideration? NPA in recent years has noted the preponderance of planning decisions that are made on the promise of “Environmental Plans” that will be made subsequent to planning decisions. Development of a “Bushland and Fauna Preservation and Augmentation Policy” and perhaps retrospective “consideration” of the Riparian Corridor management Study are examples of poor planning in practice that has become far too common in the last ten years, often in the name of providing more “timely” development decisions. It is time to say that this strategy has been retrograde for environmental conservation aims to the extent that finely stated regional goals have been losing their meaning.
Recommendation 2: NPA recommends that it uses this current Draft Review of 7d lands as an information gathering tool that will elicit from the public and public authorities a richer set of environmental information that can be integrated into a more comprehensive public review of these lands, with an emphasis on strategies to ensure environmental conservation of these high value lands. Courts have upheld the “public interest” in rejecting development proposals in several cases in the Land and Environment Court. Council needs to acknowledge its responsibility in helping to ensure the public interest is truly served in what it does, and it is demonstrably not being served in this Draft Review. Page 47 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission..Submission…
Specific Comments on Willana Draft Review. 1. Executive Summary
(a)NPA is incredulous that only a “Desktop” study was commissioned as a planning tool and public comment document especially when so much is at stake.
(b) That commission of a Desktop Study should have included a detailed investigation of faunal and floral values…based on historic studies by NPWS and updated with data from a broad area on ground study of flora and fauna, especially threatened species. c) Concurrent with this study should have been an investigation of the extent to which presence of biotic resources would trigger examination of relevance of Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 . NPA requests that Council ensures that the Commonwealth is requested to be involved, especially as it has (arguably illegally) pre-empted a linterim zonation change that could easily be oppositional to the aim of conserving biodiversity through risking loss of endangered species covered by Commonwealth legislation.
(d) NPA does not accept as valid the fact that there “have been many representations to … reduce the minimum lot size” as an “appropriate” reason for “planning controls to be reviewed” As NPA and many other community groups and formal Inquiries have reinforced over thirty years, the special environmental qualities of the area make it more paramount to resist lobbying efforts to reduce lot size…This is DEFENDING past decisions to MAINTAIN a vision that already exists, and should not be a trigger for bowing to pressure to relax past, well considered standards of conservation. If Council were to proceed with all the zonation changes heralded in the present study, this would constitute yet another compromise of the many compromises that have occurred to the environmental values of the area historically. This LEP model change presents an opportunity to WCC to remain CONSISTENT with ALL its recent, previous, enlightened environmental decisions, and stances, and not revisit development options which over more than a hundred years have led to the tenuous state of these high conservation value lands. If new LEP conditions allow such a change, of approach then the law which created it is contrary to the need to conserve high conservation value land, and should be opposed by Council because of this potential impact.
Compromises of other historic compromises have been the driving force for numerous local species extinctions.
Appendix 1 Outlines the indicative history of local mammal extinctions in Royal National Park, compromised by more housing, traffic movement, increased exotic animal populations adjacent to bushland….and especially bushland fragmentation.
The key habitat areas between Royal National Park and the Illawarra Escarpment and Woronora Plateau are centred on the Helensburgh area, where far more intense pressures of urbanisation than in the conserved National Parks estate occur. It is in the decisions made now for these lands that strategic advances will be made to protect endangered species, and indeed
Page 48 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… whole ecosystems made up of wet and dry forests which currently have tenuous continuity from Royal National Park and Garawarra in the North to the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area to the south and the water catchment areas and Heathcote National Park to the west. The conservation of the north-south habitat corridors has particular relevance now that global warming data indicates that there will probably be a (necessary) shift of populations of animals and plant assemblages southwards as a response to higher average temperatures.
NPA has obtained the latest (NPWS 2009, Appendix 2) broad vegetation data from NPWS which demonstrates the detail of past delineated corridors wet and dry forest corridors (NPWS 1985, Appendix 3), on which decisions such as potential rezoning could be made. NPA was able to acquire this data without too much effort and analyse its relevance. It is reassuring, that despite 26 years of intervening compromises to some of these lands, the corridors still exist. Public interest reinforced by firm state and local government decision making and regional planning has helped these lands to remain substantially intact, and while there is some damage, both intentional and at times illegal, and at times supported by Council decisions, overall there is still hope for closing the deal on regional conservation. To do otherwise will negate decades of successful advocacy and government support of the environment… all can be lost in a whisper or stroke of a pen. We ask why has Council and Willana Associates has not requested a more thorough analysis of this information from the state government’s leading land conservation agency before releasing this flawed and inadequate public document?
(e) The executive summary and the Council Resolution of 28th July 09 purports to promise that a further phase of public input will be carried out to seek input to a “Draft Review of land Zoned 7d at Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops”. While this is reassuring, NPA requests that the gaps identified in this desktop study are thoroughly addressed, for to have suggested what areas might be rezoned without the benefit of updated flora and fauna studies and a critical analysis of still intact critical habitat corridor links, has already given possible unrealistic expectations to landowners. This is a huge strategic error by WCC, who will now find it extremely difficult to justify why indeed some lands should never be developed once an adequate Environmental Assessment has occurred.
The aim of “Resolving Conflict” may well be thwarted once “further site-specific” studies are undertaken.
(f) NPA cautions Council to place more reliance on “Region-wide, habitat representative” studies than just “site-specific” further studies. Faunal sampling on recently burnt land, and in some cases, arguably illegally cleared land will give a biased picture of overall, long-term faunal and floral values. NPA is alerting NPWS about this possible issue as it develops its own response to the rezoning proposals. Later in NPA’s analysis, important NSW Wildlife Atlas data will be quoted. Threatened species could have been listed by a desktop study, but weren’t. NPA though, still believes that some on ground faunal (and floral) studies needs to be done to supplement (largely ignored) past studies such as:
Page 49 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission..Submission… (a) Andrew, D. (2001). Post fire vertebrate fauna survey - Royal and Heathcote National Parks and Garawarra State Conservation Area. Sydney South Region, NSW NPWS, Audley. (b) DECC (2008). Rapid Fauna Habitat Assessment of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville. (c) NSW NPWS (1985). The Upper Hacking Catchment: a Natural Resource Survey. Unpublished report by the Natural Resources Section, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. (d) NSW NPWS (2002). Bioregional Assessment Study Part 2: Fauna of the Illawarra Escarpment, Coastal Plain and Plateau. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Conservation Assessment and Data Unit, Central Conservation Programs and Planning Division, Hurstville.
Recommendation 3: Council should hire independent floral and faunal consultants to both liaise with DECCW on available detailed floral and faunal data and to carry out a review of endangered and threatened, and locally vulnerable plants and animals in the entire 7d lands precincts and adjacent reserved areas. The study should also include detailed mapping of dry and wet forest habitat corridors to test NPA’s contention that some key linkage habitats are potentially threatened by some of the rezonings proposed.
(g) If the “majority of lots (beyond those 108 with dwellings) do not have a current dwelling entitlement under current planning controls” NPA believes that this should remain the case.
(h) Willana acknowledges the many “constraints” to development such as vegetation, water courses, bushfire and steep terrain” but inconsistently alludes to only limited detail (eg space to include APZs in some areas), in alluding to development potential. Simply listing past studies is not an adequate basis on which the public can judge the mooted zonation changes. NPA or the general public should not have to delve into the detail of past studies to try to critically evaluate proposals.
Recommendation 4: The necessary expanded review of any zoning recommendations Council says it will prepare should cross reference justification of zoning changes recommended with explicit detailed historical and updated “on ground” data on “constraints” such as vegetation, water courses, bushfire and steep terrain.
(i) NPA agrees with the general contention that “the majority of the study area will retain its (high) environmental zoning”. It is in not thoroughly researching and justifying rezonings that NPA has the largest concerns.
(j)The decision to zone as E2 all “undisturbed bushland” while a positive general strategy needs to be analysed for the possible opposite conclusion …”if land is “disturbed” perhaps E2 is not warranted. However, it may well be that “disturbance” may in some cases be intentional (or at least complicit) to avert potential E2 zoning. The fact that Council has had to take some landholders to court in the past demonstrates that this is possible (Lemmon 2007).
Page 50 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… Also, this Draft Review refers to the possibility of “Augmentation” (of bushland). It may well be that some substantial degree of bushland regeneration may be appropriate for partly disturbed areas that could be a valuable, if marred, habitat corridor link. But retrospective augmentation of bushland destroyed by zonation permissions is rejected as a viable strategy.
Recommendation 5: The enhanced, fuller study of these 7d lands needs to identify whether some “partly disturbed” lands have merit as critical components of identified dry or wet forest habitat corridors.
. (k) While numerous previous studies such as the Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry have “informed this desktop study”, NPA argues that they have not done so explicitly and broadly enough. This issue will be addressed in later sections of analysis of the Willana report.
(l) In view of the above enumerated deficiencies, the fact that the proposed zoning scheme is “draft” while reassuring, it is professionally invalid (and arguably illegal) to have made such proposals prior to detailed studies and to receiving public feedback. The recent Catherine Bay legal decision cautions on the pre-emptive zonation of lands based on other than objective assessment of environmental value of land. A decision to zone land E3 for an interim period is arguably illegal, and Council is urged to re-examine that decision.
Recommendation 6: That Council in its further deliberations and assessment of future zonations considers the starting point that all lands be transferred from 7d to E2 or E1, UNLESS further detailed investigations can clearly demonstrate that current operations on lands are being done legally under permitted uses. While there may be environmental imperatives such as limited developments on (legally) cleared lands in exchange for higher conservation value land donations, NPA urges Council that if this is done, it is ONLY done after full environmental assessments and public input, as the Catherine Bay legal decision points to the probable illegal aspects of doing otherwise in a pre-emptive and non transparent way.
Recommendation 7: That no consideration for downgrading of zonation status be given where there is clear present or historical evidence of illegal clearing or other degradation of land. Council is especially referred to the paper given by the former Council’s Jedda Lemon which highlights apparent problems in this area.
(m) Biobanking processes are generally not favoured by NPA. However if transparent processes used to ensure public involvement and full environmental assessment is a pre- requisite, NPA acknowledges there may be some limited value to such a strategy that is compatible with legal precedents and where the issues of political donations are ruled out as a possible relevance in any negotiations..
(n) The possible construction of 302 dwelling houses should not be subject to further (environmental impact) before construction, but before altered zonation. NPA abhors the presumption assumed by this suggested “cart before the horse” strategy. NPA is angry that such a proposal is made now at draft stage, let alone foreshadowing legal zonation changes, that will prove legally impossible to reverse. At the least Council is setting Page 51 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… it up for a trail of court challenges even if Council were “brave” enough to retrospectively deny development rights to land owners. At the worst, full development may proceed in these areas despite fuller environmental investigations indicating a need for a far more conservative zonation change outcome.
NPA Reiterates and emphasises: Complete all the environmental investigations: Then suggest possible (conservative) zonation changes compatible with principles NPA has enunciated.
(o) The statement about a new long-term vision addressing the “historic issues of dwelling entitlements” gives the wrong impression that there are major historic entitlements. This is not the case,,,provisos regarding lot size restrictions are not mentioned in the summary section. There is no need for a new long-term vision. The restrictive entitlements existing reflect the current vision of a necessary softly softly approach, and major changes to this vision if 302 houses were to be built, is a destruction of an existing vision.
(p) NPA notes that the first Key Recommendation excludes consultation with major community environmental groups such as NPA. We assert that NPA is a necessary part of this consultation as we have for decades historically represented the public interest in such decision-making, and have consistently spoken up for the voiceless ecosystems, as has the NPWS especially. NPWS alludes to the necessity of maintaining partnerships with community groups, and NPA would like to think that such a cooperative partnership with us is equally as important as “consulting landowners”. Our Branch, despite past far-reaching submissions on issues in this region and a general submission to the Draft LEP Study, was not consulted, on the existence of this study, and we had to contact Council to confirm that this study was proceeding. Despite the centre of our Branch being further north than Helensburgh, we have assumed responsibilities for commenting on issues on northern Illawarra Escarpment and Upper Hacking River.
Recommendation 8 NPA demands to be included in all decision-making loops regarding this issue. Not to have such broader community involvement will lead to accusations of lack of transparent decision making…a process that is one of the reasons Administrators have been appointed to Council. To ensure that NPA is aware of any such future forums and opportunities for consultation, please contact us via Secretary, PO Box 312 Engadine 2233 and supplement that with an Email to Executive Officer, NPA, npansw.org.au
NPA further recommends that all development issues affecting the upper Hacking be advertised in the St George and Sutherland Leader to cater for people interested in how issues there might impact on Royal National Park especially.
(q) Statements such as “Undertake a Local Environmental Study Process“…to confirm the zoning scheme” “in conjunction with landowners” gives the clear impression to NPA that behind closed doors discussions with landowners will occur, and that the “Environmental Study” is just a useless addendum to an already declared scheme.
Page 52 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW SubmissionSubmission..… Recommendation 9: Council needs to far more clearly and explicitly enunciate all future processes, necessary community consultations, and an indication of a “clean slate” approach which will promote a genuinely inclusive methodology for reaching the conclusion of that process. Our Branch wishes to formally ask Council to communicate that process clearly in writing to NPA before the conclusion of the exhibition time of this present flawed study.
2. Introduction 2.2 Purpose of the study
(a) A stated Purpose to consider the “aspirations” of private owners should not be a key issue. I might “aspire” to run an inappropriate light industrial venture on my residential block, but Council has no need or mandate to consider such an aspiration. The mere use of this word demonstrates that Council, in carrying out this study, believes that “wants and hopes” are as relevant as “environmental imperatives and past decisions to conserve’. NPA wonders if it is Council or Private landowners who have assumed the power of decision-making.
(b) Helensburgh is an inappropriate location to “aim to achieve an effective balance between protecting and enhancing the locality’s environmental characteristics with the need to satisfy growth of urban areas. NPA is incredulous that Council would concur (as no doubt it has) with a statement that refers to this NEED for growth of its urban footprint. Contrarily, Council has regularly enunciated that places such as West Dapto might partially fulfil this need. The need being complied with here is more a “want” of landowners. Until the instigation of Administrators, Council has regularly enunciated that the upper reaches of Hacking and Illawarra Escarpment are inappropriate to satisfy such needs.
Recommendation 10. NPA calls on the state government to reconstitute representational local government at Wollongong City Council so that local Council representatives can more adequately defend the historical planning positions of Council on the need to prevent further compromising of the high quality environments of the Upper Hacking and Northern Illawarra. It is clear that there is a lack of sophisticated understanding of this precinct’s values, when such damaging pronouncements are made in a consultancy report. The Premier and Minister for Planning are being copied so that they are fully aware of the evolving on ground consequences of the political fix that installation of administrators has (perhaps unwittingly) caused. Strong local representation is needed as a buffer to the development forces, that ironically, are now thriving in this environment lacking local checks and (real) balances.
2.3 The Study Purpose (a) NPA rejects the contention that “Field investigations…” is one of the “Completed Steps”. If the consultancy is referring to any cursory field investigations it has made, this is not a minimal standard for proceeding. NPA has already enunciated the types
Page 53 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… of ecological field investigations that STILL need to be done, prior to a “clean slate” exhibition that makes no assumptions or draft recommendations regarding desired zonings.
Recommendation 11. Steps 1 and 2 of the alleged “Study Process” need to be completed, and Step 3 be replaced with a more comprehensive Environmental Assessment minus zoning recommendations, so that the broader community can respond more objectively to clearly and fully communicated environmental constraints and opportunities that have the benefit of detailed input from agencies such as NPWS, and that more fully reflect existing visions. To do less sends a strong message that this study is a pragmatic sop to the past, persistent pressures by landowners.
3.2 Site History (a) There have been persistent desires (on the part of owners and developers) not intentions for large-scale redevelopment.
4.1 Garawarra and Wilson’s Creek
(a) There has been negligible consideration of environmental constraints. (b) NPA has obtained more detailed vegetation maps from NPWS DECCW 2009 (Appendix 2) that NPA contends confirms a previously described Major and Minor Dry Forest/Heath Corridor (Andrew, D, 1985 The Upper Hacking Catchment: A Natural Resource Survey, 1985 ) running north-south from Royal National Park to the north to significant vegetated lands south of Helensburgh. (Appendix 3). There is a strong linkage westwards through vegetated lands surrounding Garawarra hospital precinct to both water catchment lands and Heathcote National Park. Also there is a southward link of this corridor leading to Illawarra Escarpment and Woronora Plateau.
Willana Associates have also not included in desktop survey, fauna from the NSW Wildlife Atlas. Andrew (1985, NPWS) identifies a further east west corridor from west of the southern part of Helensburgh to the Water Catchment Area. This and other corridors identified by Andrew in 1985 are still intact as demonstrated by the 2009 NPWS vegetation map (Appendix 2)
Appendix 4 lists all known fauna within this Atlas at 24/2/09 in the Upper Hacking Catchment defined by the co-ordinates easting >=311000, northing>=6211000, easting<=318000, northing<=6218000. Willana has not stated, as enunciated in this current NSW Wildlife Atlas extract that there are potentially 14 Endangered or Vulnerable vertebrate species recorded over many years within these geographical boundaries. While many species are associated with wet forest, some (eg the vulnerable Red-crowned Toadlet can survive in slightly damp patches of dry forest understorey.)
Royal National Park is a regional stronghold for this species and continual vegetation would probably be necessary to facilitate southward migrations imposed by climate change. Vulnerable Diamond firetails densities in Eucalypt woodland plunged from 1.18 birds per hectare to 0.25 birds per Hectare during a severe drought from 1979 to 1981
Page 54 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… (Ford et al, 1985, Density of birds in eucalypt woodland near Armidale, Corella, 9: 97-107). While the vegetation assemblage is different to that in Royal National Park, the known responsiveness of populations to a relative water shortage may be relevant in predicting how birds such as these will need to move south to areas of higher rainfall during extended dry periods predicted during climate change in southeast Australia. Lack of continuous vegetation corridors may well impede such movements. The precautionary principal should dictate the ecological sense of conserving still extant habitat corridors in ALL vegetation types. Population loss pressures are multifaceted enough without adding destruction of such corridors that have the potential to be conserved.
The NPWS 1985 Study ironically refers to the vulnerability of species such as Greater Gliders, to disasters such as major fires. In fact, this species has not been seen in Royal National Park since the major 1994 fires, and any recolonisation from the south will occur via the wet forest corridor that passes east of Helensburgh to join with the tall, moist forests of the Illawarra escarpment. In many years to come, many other species may well be far more vulnerable than they are now if dry forest corridors are compromised. Masked Owl is not recorded there but we know it is regularly recorded at the southern end of Lady Carrington Dr and is likely to be present. Andrew ( NPWS, 1985) paints an extensive and devastating picture of the cumulative impacts of development within Royal National Park and Helensburgh, with fragmentation of habitat being the biggest risk to long-term viability of animal and plant populations. NPWS gives a contrary view to the positive spin of Willana Associates that would allow a further not insignificant degree of development of 7d lands by offering “enhancement” as policy to undo potential floral and faunal losses.
Andrew states that … “The end result of this continuing development in the Upper Hacking Catchment will be:
• the loss (NPA emphasis) of rare and uncommon plant species from the catchment • the continued destruction of vegetation communities already reduced in extent in the Illawarra Region • the loss of valuable habitat for flora and fauna • the destruction (NPA emphasis) of the few remaining corridors of native vegetation which enable movement and exchange between flora and fauna populations of Royal National Park and other large natural areas
Andrew discusses these impacts in four chapters of the 1985 NPWS Survey. The fact that a “desktop study 24 years later fails to acknowledge these ominous predictions which are coming true as Council, yet again considers further compromises to the area is illustrative of the patterns of destruction commenced over one hundred years previously. We know what has caused ecosystem destruction in this region; yet the same environmental destruction processes are still being seriously embraced and advocated.
That Willana has not publicly highlighted the detailed, well argued historic position that NPWS has had on the value of SEVERAL wildlife corridors in the area, and the risks from
Page 55 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… habitat fragmentation is a major oversight of this study. It needs to be addressed in a vastly improved and more comprehensive study backed up by on the ground investigations.
While the consultants have correctly identified the values of lands around Garawarra Hospital where Cawley’s Creek flows into rainforests towards Garawarra State Conservation Area (Supported in principle by Minister for Environment for additions to Garawarra SCA), the vast majority of vegetated lands in maps 1 and 6 have a potential strategic role to play in overall regional conservation of plants and animals characteristic of these “Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests” as identified in the NPWS (2009) map. The Upper Hacking Catchment has been identified as a fauna site of “Very High Significance” in the Sydney Catchment Management Authority’s Rapid fauna Assessment 2009, and describes the habitat links here as “continuous and tenuous”. ANY compromising of these links will shift their status in the dry forests at least into a “fragmented” category. The Wet forest links, while a little less tenuous could easily slip into this status, given a greater concession to landowners east of Heathcote than exists at present. The Otford lands especially need to be conserved to guarantee that this link is not severely compromised or even broken.
Recommendation 12: The conservation values of lands identified in Maps 1 and 6 needs to be more thoroughly assessed in relation to their role in contributing to provision of unbroken, substantially vegetated Dry Sclerophyll Forest links north to south and east to west. East west links are essential to allow recolonisation of plants and animals in either direction following major environmental stresses such as large bushfires east or west of F6 Freeway. The “habitat corridor” concept goes beyond the more simplistic mammal corridor. While mammals might arguably find it very difficult to cross major road barriers, seed dispersal and bird migrations have no such major barrier, as long as vegetation is reasonably continuous. Development of many lots in the locations covered by Maps 1 and 6 can break this substantive continuity. Retrofitting constructed wildlife passages beneath roads has been successfully done in Australia and overseas, and are to be encouraged in this region to supplement adjoining vegetation links.
Recommendation 13: It is in these areas west of Helensburgh in particular, where “augmentation” via bush regeneration and replanting with indigenous species can have a substantial impact on enhancing north-south continuity. While NPA is not advocating removal of existing businesses or houses in the area, existence of minor degradation of other lands should not be taken as an excuse to provide carte blanche development rights to other lands.
Recommendation 14: NPA believes that ultimately such strategically identified land should be added to the National Parks Estate, and Council is urged to carry out a detailed dialogue with DECCW to explore all options for a phased addition of strategic lands to the National Parks estate by for example purchase from state or Commonwealth financial pools (The Commonwealth has a program of supporting land additions that are strategic for managing potential climate change impacts, that this purchase would fall under!);
DECCW needs to re-examine its policy of giving a very large priority, it seems, to allocating funds for filling in gaps in World heritage lands, when DECCW-identified corridors are in imminent danger of being compromised in southern Sydney through lack of strategic funds
Page 56 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… to purchase key lands potentially affecting the long term viability of ecosystems in the region, including those of Royal National Park, part of our National Estate.
Council is urged to facilitate discussions with and actions by DECCW that will create strategies for a win-win for both landowners east of Helensburgh and the sustainability of this dry forest corridor.
4.12 Area 2 Lady Carrington Drive North and Colliery Precinct (a) NPA agrees with assessment as to potential environmental values. The fact that this precinct links directly north and east to large undisturbed areas of bushland of Garawarra SCA and Royal National Park means that it is highly likely that environmental values in the wet sclerophyll forests which predominate will be high. The large north south turquoise-coded lands on vegetation map of Appendix 2 would closely approximate the “Wet Forest Habitat Corridor” identified by NPWS that links such forests of the Royal National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area with areas further south. Development of any of these vegetated owned lands in particular would place an impenetrable barrier across this corridor, so Council’s recognition of the majority of lands is acknowledged.
Recommendation 15: E2 is the appropriate zonation of Lady Carrington Drive North Lands prior to E1 on purchase or acquisition by other means by NPWS.
4.13 Area 3 Lady Carrington Drive South Recommendation 16; Options for ultimate NPWS acquisition needs to be explored by state government instrumentalities, especially DECCW and NPWS in cooperative consultation with landowners, Council and the broader community including NPA following full transparent environmental assessment of all these lands. Some development on cleared land adjacent to township, assuming sediment retention ponds are incorporated into cleared land is a possible option that may yield some room for trade-offs in conservation of the vast bulk of the land. The Catherine bay legal decision may be relevant in any such negotiations, so NPA urges caution in how this may be done. NPA would strongly oppose any zonation compromises that could lead to development of vegetated lands in this area.
Recommendation 17: Any zonation changes for the existing horse farm trails should include a requirement to submit a management and rehabilitation plan for clearly damaged vegetation in the area.
4.14 Area 4 Otford Precinct Otford village is located within the Moist Habitat Corridor. The proposed expansion of Otford Village will double the size of the Village. Although houses with large lots front Domville Rd and Lady Wakehurst Drive, the similarly large vacant lots behind these houses adjoin the National Park and are very steep (similar to Lloyd Place that Councils report rejects for development because of the steepness).
The lands proposed are currently zoned 7(d) and offer a buffer between the existing houses and the RNP. It also has two Category 1 Riparian designated gullies which require special protection. The existing large lot size and the vacant lots still allows the whole area
Page 57 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… to partially operate as a Habitat Corridor.
Zoning these large lots to E4 will also create the possibility of owners lobbying Council for sub-divisions in the future. The minimum lot size in the current Village is 999m2. The large lots are approximately 2hectares. NPA considers landowners will use this disparity in lot sizes to argue inequality. Negating Councils desire to resolve this type of problem.
Recommendation 18 7d lands in Otford should be zoned E2
4.1.5 Area 5 Kellys Fall Precinct, Land Pooling and Lloyd Place There appears to be potential for conserving habitat corridors east of Kelly’s Fall then south towards Stanwell Park. NPA will be relying on more detailed environmental analysis before it comments in detail on this precinct.
Recommendation 18 Overall NPA supports the principle that all substantially vegetated land in this area by designated E2, with some options for strategic purchases of lands adjoining Kellys falls (Already a isolated, strategic addition to Royal National Park) by State Government.
4.16 Area 6 Gills Creek Precinct
NPA would question that development of “relatively disturbed lands” of Gills Creek precinct does “not contradict the objectives of NPWS”. NPWS is vested with a large degree of responsibility to protect on park and off park biodiversity. Compliance in 2009 with future climate change impacts on ecosystems is now obvious, and it is highly possible that NPWS would rethink its apparent (1990) opinion of such a development mooted in the Draft Helensburgh Town Plan. A still existing link in NPA’s identified Dry Sclerophyll Forest Corridor exists through the more northern and eastern part of this precinct connecting to far less disturbed bushland southwards. While some bush regeneration and replanting projects would be indicated to enhance this habitat corridor, NPA rejects the now defunct conclusion in the 1990 study, repeated here, that “150 hectares have urban potential”. The potential of the Northern and eastern lands in particular to be part of a dry forest habitat corridor should take precedence, in the context of climate change amelioration mandates, over a general development concession to all blocks in this area. Here more than many other areas in Helensburgh, can Wollongong Council, in association with NPWS and DECC, give real meaning to regional conservation aims expressed in so many studies. .
4.2 Biophysical Constraints and NPA statement on Cumulative Impact:
NPA wishes to emphasise that it still stands by the overall assessment of several studies that 7d zonations or equivalent are a necessary strategy to protect special features of Class 1 Tributaries and the Hacking River, which flows through Royal National Park. Fig 16 of the Upper Hacking Catchment demonstrates just how closely linked such potential development areas are to this most important river which is the “lifeblood” of Royal National park, Australia’s first. The cumulative impacts of potential developments beyond the infill being carried out by Landcom, and the pollution load from other adjoining suburbs, means that
Page 58 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission… Council cannot honestly say that a further development of a hundred or more lots will be insignificant.
The precautionary principle must surely imply that when all potential PHYSICAL impacts are considered, and added to the (tokenistically considered) biological values in the area, and spread that impact over all precincts that send pollutants and sediments into the Hacking, then Council needs to act for no further cumulative impact. NPA reminds Council to look again at Appendix 1 which summarises mammal extinctions to date. We will probably never know the history of extinction of other animals…though the Emu did exist here when Royal National park was gazetted 130 years ago!
All we can do now, while we have been enlightened about the huge risk of cumulative impact, and now, climate change, is to be very cautious in what we allow to be further developed. It may be pragmatically easier to have general concessionary strategies to get the “problem of 7d landowners” off Council’s radar; but it is far more important to base planning decisions on actual, strong science, and our moral responsibility to do what we can to conserve ecosystems on the fringes of Sydney.
That is a harder choice, but it is the only right one if biodiversity conservation is a real goal, and not just a trendy expression.
NPA will be watching how Council and NPWS respond to this land management challenge.
6.4 Regional Plans and Studies
(a) The Illawarra Regional Strategy is, according to Willana, unlikely to influence the Helensburgh locality given its limited capacity for urban development.” This statement is missing the main point of the strategy. West Dapto has been identified as a major short to medium term growth area. The Strategy explicitly refers to this as a growth area due to far less environmental constraints than in Helensburgh region. A default position of allowing even a few percent rise in population at Helensburgh is not conducive to Hacking and terrestrial ecosystem conservation. The fact that only a fraction of buildings CAN be built here compared to West Dapto, does not mean that they should be permitted to build here. The IRS CAN influence Helensburgh’s natural environment if its overall intention (to permit development elsewhere) is ignored.
(b) The Illawarra REP should also not be seen as a tool for determining urban potential everywhere. The main thrust of the IREP is conservation, and it shouldn’t be quoted to justify further urbanisation in this highly sensitive area.
6.5 Local Environmental Plans The Wollongong Local Environmental Plan alludes to the need of 7d to maintain and enhance the existing natural environment as evidence in the WLEP objectives.
Page 59 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission..Submission… Much of what is proposed in this desktop study compromises these objectives. Far more is proposed than to “allow some diversity of activities on degraded lands that will not prejudice (the conservation values of the relatively pristine tributaries of) the Hacking River’. And destruction of options for sustainable habitat corridors will “detrimentally affect the environmental quality or character of the locality”, a phrase quoted from the WLEP’s objectives. The goals are not to “Resolve conflict” as this study states up front. So any compromise to the intents of the 7d zone are a retrograde step, and yet another impact which cumulatively threatens the long term viability of these ecosystems.
6.9 Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry (a) This desktop study has not followed the recommendation of the COI that “should urban development be pursued, further detailed studies of the environmental sensitivities of the area were essential. This has not been done. NPA has done what it can to highlight potential biotic values not recorded in this study, and urges such detailed work and a “clean slate” on zoning proposals until this information is placed on public record for consideration.
6.10 Draft Helensburgh Town Plan (1990) The fact that this rejected study is over 19 years old means that any recommendations (“Strongly support residential land release around Helensburgh subject to environmental controls”) should not even be considered. That Council is resurrecting this flawed study, when environmental pressures in the area have increased through continual compromising of this catchment, demonstrates inappropriate attention to the urban potential issue. Past environmental controls have not prevented local species extinctions, and nor will they in the future. “Environmental Controls” has become a universal catch-all expression used to justify environmental degradation, and Council needs to support the broader community in overriding this hollow promise.
8. Analysis of landholdings
NPA will not critically analyse this section until further detailed biological studies are carried out and made public. To comment on details beyond what NPA has submitted already is impossible with such limited biotic data.
This should not be taken as NPA’s compliance with any details in this section. NPA is asking for this Draft Review to be reissued complete with more detailed plans for nature conservation based on biotic data rather than justifying, from a limited analysis, what urban capacity is appropriate. That Council has actually voted on an interim zonation before the public submissions are received makes a mockery of the public participation process.
NPA awaits requested advice on its intent regarding specific requests in this submission, and wishes personal consultation on environmental and development issues as a representative of the “public interest”.
We ask that you respond to NPA’s questions regarding especially the requested more valid, detailed replacement “Draft Review” in writing to our Post Office Box to supplement any Email responses to [email protected].
Thank You
Page 60 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 3 National Parks Association of NSW Submission…
Gary Schoer Secretary 3/9/09 cc Premier and Minister for Planning for information and possible requested action regarding reinstatement of a representative Council to protect local interests of environmentally important areas such as the Upper Hacking threatened by overdevelopment.
Minister for Environment as DECCW purchase options have major implications for DECCW’s land purchasing policies
Appendices 1-4 are attached in this Email submission.
Note: Maps referenced in the NPA submission are not attached in this Planning Proposal.
Page 61 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 4 Sutherland Council Submission to WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL on the Draft Review of 7(d) land
Mark Carlon-9710 0523 File Ref: LP/03/413786 13 October 2009
David Green Land Use Planning Manager Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500
Dear Mr Green,
RE: Submission to Wollongong City Council on the Draft Review of 7(d) Hacking River Environmental Protection Zone at Helensburgh
[In response, please quote File Ref: LP/03/413786]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Review of the 7(d) Hacking River Environmental Protection zone in the vicinity of Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops. The study recommends much of the land, particularly privately owned land (currently unable to permit a dwelling due to lot size restrictions and/or zoning), now be zoned to permit dwelling development.
It is understood that there is a long and complex history associated with the land. This includes the Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry undertaken in 1994 at the request of the then Minister for Planning and Housing. The Commission was asked to determine appropriate future land uses for the locality after numerous conflicting reports were received in relation to the localities natural environmental features and its urban capabilities. The outcome of the enquiry was essentially that the existing conservation zonings be retained. The Commissioner recommended that no further urban development could be considered until various detailed studies were undertaken in light of the environmental sensitivity of the area.
The Commission concluded that the majority of the area was to be zoned for environmental conservation due to the existence of endangered flora and fauna; the presence of steep slopes associated with advanced erosion and sedimentation of the Port Hacking River; the sensitive water quality of the Port Hacking River, particularly given that existing stormwater management measures were inadequate; and the high likelihood of bushfire activity.
As such, the desktop review undertaken by Willana Associates of the 7(d) Hacking River Environmental Protection Zone is considered to be premature. It is understood that the study is intended to inform a revised planning framework for the area subject to public exhibition and specific site studies. However, these studies and more importantly the studies recommended by the Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry in 1994 have not yet been
Page 62 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 4 Sutherland Council Submission... undertaken. As such, there is insufficient information to make any preliminary recommendations in relation to the future use of the land.
The necessary studies include both immediate (or short term studies) as well as long term studies of the following key issues: • Existing water quality, water quality impacts and environmental impacts; • Cumulative impacts of development; • Impacts of flora and fauna habitat loss; • Testing and proving water quality control mechanisms (pond/ wetland proposals); • Fauna Impact Statements of rare and endangered fauna, particularly assessing potential impacts on the Sooty Owl; • Analysis of impacts upon wildlife corridors from various land uses and buffer areas (especially urban development and bush fire reduction areas).
Since the Commission of Inquiry in 1994, there has been very little action undertaken by Wollongong City Council or other government authorities to address the concerns raised by the Commissioner with regard to impacts on water quality and biodiversity in the Helensburgh area. The desk top study commissioned by Wollongong City Council as part of the current rezoning proposal provides only a very broad environmental assessment of the study area. It is considered that the study provides insufficient information to make a proper and informed decision about the future use of the lands in Helensburgh with any confidence. It does not respond to the concerns raised by the Commission of Inquiry. As a result a precautionary approach must be taken.
Sutherland Shire Council has a direct interest in the land use activity at Helensburgh due to the down stream environmental impacts. Inappropriate development will lead to increased nutrient and sediment inputs into the Hacking River. This is in conflict with the need to protect and conserve the diverse and unique natural areas of the Royal National Park, Port Hacking and linked bushland. These natural areas are major tourist destinations for the region and provide a central biodiversity link into the urban areas of Sutherland Shire, as reinforced by Council’s Greenweb strategy.
The Hacking River is a Class P: Protected Waterway. Maintaining its integrity is vitally important. Of major concern to Sutherland Shire Council is the impact on water quality and the wildlife corridor from development within the Herbert Creek, Gardiners Creek, Kellys / Gills Creek and Camp Creek catchments.
Core issues that remain relevant (as identified in the 1994 commission of inquiry and Sutherland Council’s submission to the Commission) include the: • Very high erodibility of soils in the area (Pedon Consultants 1994) and potential heightened source of sediment into the headwater creeks; • Removal of vegetation for urban and non urban activity contributing to erosion and high sediment input into the water catchment; • Impact of increased sedimentation and pollution on vegetation, invertebrates and ecology of the catchment; • Increased impact of predation of native animals by increased intrusion by dogs and cats;
Page 63 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 4 Sutherland Council Submission... • Increased opportunity and dispersion of weeds into highly vulnerable and threatened ecological communities; • Increased pressure and disturbance of natural environment from improved accessibility.
The E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management zonings proposed by WCC for Helensburgh are generally supported as a means of minimising adverse impacts from development on the Hacking River water catchment and wildlife corridor. However, the application of these zones must be supported by the aforementioned environmental studies.
In order to reinforce and reflect the environmental attributes of the area it is suggested that an environmentally sensitive land overlay (dealing with water quality and biodiversity) be applied to the area subject to the rezoning. Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of relevant local provisions. This can help ensure that stringent water quality and biodiversity safeguards are incorporated in any new development and or the intensification of existing development through ancillary buildings. This overlay should also apply to other developed areas of Helensburgh, such as the existing rural zones. This would allow better management of sediment and land degradation from activities in the B6 Enterprise Corridor along Parkes St and Princes Highway given that the proposed changes allow the potential intensification of light industrial activity in this locality.
The proposed rezoning of the land pool area north and south of Otford Rd to R2 is the most critical issue raised by the review. The land is question is now proposed to be rezoned R2 to allow single dwellings under the current review. This is not supported because the land in question is highly constrained by environmental factors.
Specifically the rezoning of this land is not supported on the following grounds: • It is sited in close proximity to valley catchment of Gills/Kellys and Herbert Creeks; • Development would increase erosion and sediment risk on highly erodible soils; • Removal of vegetation for fire asset protection zones will further increase erosion susceptibility; • The introduction of roads and hard surfaces will increase run-off intensity. Similarly perimeter roads concentrate runoff, exacerbating sedimentation impacts; • Development will be result in more likelihood of weeds entering bushland; • Potential adverse cumulative impact on significant wet sclerophyll vegetation corridor; • Wet sclerophyll corridor and transition zones are currently vital in supporting ecological diversity, providing a key refuge for movement of wildlife, particularly during fire events. This may be jeopardised by development; • Residential development in such close proximity to pristine bushland is a threat to the integrity of the environment due to the increased likelihood of sediment, feral animals and weeds. • Any development is dependent upon water quality devices, yet there is insufficient detail and analysis to demonstrate that such facilities will be adequate, particularly having regard to the area required to accommodate such facilities, their ongoing maintenance and associated impacts;
Page 64 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 4 Sutherland Council Submission...
It is considered that increased housing is best incorporated within the township, closer to services. The proposed area is more remote and reinforces dependency on car use.
In conclusion, land zoned 7(d) affected by the review is located in the upper reaches of the Port Hacking River. Consequently, any existing or proposed land uses within the study area are likely to have a direct impact on the Port Hacking River Catchment, the Royal National Park and the environmental quality of the Sutherland Shire. Sutherland Shire Council raises significant concern in relation to the future impacts on water quality of the Hacking River, and the integrity and impact on wildlife corridors that connect Royal National Park and northern Wollongong escarpment and water catchment areas. Additional studies (as outlined by the Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry) should be undertaken before any preliminary recommendations are made in relation to the future use of the land. As such a precautionary approach should be undertaken.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact Mark Carlon Manager, Environmental Planning on 9710 0523 if you wish to discuss any of these issues in further detail with relevant staff.
Yours sincerely
Mark Carlon for J W Rayner General Manager
Page 65 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010
Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates” Rezoning Investigations Small Lot Rural Subdivision at Worrowing Heights
“Heritage Estates” Rezoning Investigations Small Lot Rural Subdivision at Worrowing Heights
Updated July 2009
CONTENTS
Background Rezoning Investigations: 1992 - 1999 NSW Commission of Inquiry, 1999 Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, 2003 Scoping Study, 2004 Rezoning Investigations in 2005 - 2009 Threatened Biodiversity Assessment result s Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Commonwealth) Other What was done with the biodiversity findings? Referral made under the EPBC Ac t Outcome of the EPBC Referra l Heritage Estates Public Environment Report Proposal Refused Under EPBC Act What Has Happened Since the Minister’s Decision Resolving Land tenur e Rates & special rates Transfer of Land in Lieu of Unpaid Rates What Can Be Done With the land? Advice on ‘land maintenance’ issued by Council in 200 6 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act ) Summary Policy prohibiting camping or erection of temporary structure s Contact Details & Further Information
Background
This “paper subdivision” is made up of approximately 1,200 lots in Deposited Plans 8590, 8591, 8770, 8771 and 8772 within the locality of Worrowing Heights. Refer to Figure 1 - Location of the 'Heritage Estates'.
Page 66 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument5.jpg
Figure 1 - Location of the 'Heritage Estates'
Henry F. Halloran originally subdivided the land in 1915 as part of his vision for St. Vincent and Pacific Cities. The Deposited Plans that make up the Heritage Estates were registered in 1915/1916. The subdivision and registration complied with the relevant legislation of the day.
The subdivision was never actually implemented and remained unzoned until 1964 when the City’s first landuse zoning scheme, the Interim Development Order No. 1 came into affect. Under IDO No. 1, the land was given a “Rural” zoning, which essentially prohibited dwellings on the individual lots. When the IDO was superseded by the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in 1985, rural zonings were retained and the land is currently zoned Rural 1(d) and Rural 1(b). These zones also do not enable the individual lots within the subdivision to be built on.
The subdivision was largely retained in large ownerships until the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when the individual lots were marketed for sale. As a result the 1,200 lots are now held in approximately 1,100 ownerships.
Page 67 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument5B.jpg
Figure 2 - Aerial photograph and cadastre
Rezoning Investigations: 1992 - 1999
Requests from landowners to rezone the land led to a decision in December 1992 by Council to investigate rezoning to enable dwellings to be erected on the individual lots. As part of this process, an environmental study and other detailed investigations were prepared in the mid 90’s.
Disagreement among stakeholders and the community about the appropriateness of developing the land led to formation of a taskforce in 1998 and when the taskforce was unable to reach agreement, the State Government convened a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) in 1999 to resolve the matter.
NSW Commission of Inquiry, 1999
The CoI held under Commissioner Kevin Cleland, Deputy Chairman was finalised in August 1999 and made 12 recommendations. These recommendations are detailed on the attached diagra m . (PDF file 1.42Mb requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Further information on the CoI and its outcomes are available at:
http://www.coi.nsw.gov.au/inquiry/component/view.php?CompId=97
Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, 2003
The CoI recommendations included the need to consider the matter in the overall Settlement Strategy for the Jervis Bay Region. The Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy (JBSS) was completed by Council and endorsed by the State Government during 2003.
Page 68 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
The JBSS indicates that the area will be investigated for future rezoning to enable residential development in accordance with the CoI recommendations.
The JBSS can be viewed on Council’s Internet site at:
http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/council/pubdocs/JBSettlementStrategy.pdf
Scoping Study, 2004
Following the release of the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy in 2003, a “ Scoping Stud y” (PDF file 787Kb requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. Does not include certain figures and annexure's.)
was prepared for the project that outlines the range of tasks and costs associated with progressing the rezoning investigations. The findings of this Study were considered by Council during February 2004 and it was resolved that
a. Council proceed with Stage 1 (rezoning investigations) only for the Heritage Estates and if successful leave the development application and construction stages to be negotiated by the Landowners.
b. The cost of the Stage 1 rezoning investigations of the Heritage Estates be ultimately recouped by way of a special rate to be applied to rateable properties in the rezoned area.
Following on from this resolution Council included funding of $350,000 in its 2004/2005 Management Plan to advance the rezoning investigations. This funding has been used to employ a dedicated project officer to oversee the detailed investigations (eg. flora/fauna, bushfire, stormwater etc) associated with the proposed rezoning and fund the required detailed investigations that were outlined in the “Scoping Study”.
Rezoning Investigations in 2005 - 2009
A number of strategic planning assessments were completed from 2005 - 2007. These included:
• Threatened Biodiversity • Bushfire Assessment • Water Quality Monitoring • Hydrogeology & Soils • Cultural Heritage (Aboriginal and European)
Outcomes from the Threatened Biodiversity Assessment culminated in the proposal being refused under Federal environmental law in 2009. The findings of the threatened biodiversity report are summarised below. A summary of the findings of the other assessments can be found in the Heritage Estates Public Environment Report.
Threatened Biodiversity Assessment results
This Assessment was completed by Bushfire & Environmental Services (BES). A number of protected plants, animals and ecological communities were identified on the subject land:
Page 69 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) • 3 threatened flora species: Biconvex Paperbark, Bauer’s Midge Orchid & the Leafless Tongue Orchid • Endangered Ecological Community: Swamp sclerophyll forest • 17 threatened fauna species: Black Bittern, East Coast Freetail Bat, Eastern Bentwing Bat, Eastern Bristlebird, Eastern False Pipistrelle, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Gang-gang Cockatoo, Glossy Black Cockatoo, Greater Broad-nosed Bat, Grey-headed Flying-fox, Ground Parrot, Southern Myotis, Powerful Owl, Masked Owl, Square-tailed Kite, White- footed Dunnart, & Yellow-bellied Glider
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Commonwealth)
• 2 flora species: Biconvex Paperbark, & the Leafless Tongue Orchid • 2 fauna species: Eastern Bristlebird & Grey-headed Flying-fox. • 5 migratory species: Black-faced Monarch, Latham’s Snipe, White-bellied Sea-eagle, White-throated Needletail, & Rufous Fantail
Other 4 ROTAP (Rare or Threatened Australian Plants) flora species + 19 other significant species. ROTAP species are those listed by the CSIRO. Some ROTAP species are already protected under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. ROTAP species that do not yet have statutory protection under the legislation are matters for consideration in the assessment of development applications.
The Giant Burrowing Frog (protected under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act) was not recorded but the survey results were inconclusive due to poor survey conditions at the time. The occurrence of suitable habitat and proximity to known records on nearby land led BES to conclude that the species could occur on the subject land. Similarly, although the Eastern Underground Orchid was not detected, it is known to occur nearby and the subject land contains potentially suitable habitat.
More detailed information on the findings, including habitat maps of some of these species, can be found in the Heritage Estates Public Environment Report.
What was done with the biodiversity findings? All flora and fauna consultants working in NSW are licensed by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) in order to carry out their work. As a condition of the license agreement all threatened flora and fauna records collected must be provided to DECC.
Following receipt of the draft report, a briefing of Council took place on 20th September 2006. At that meeting, Councillors were provided with a number of options to progress the rezoning investigations and it was decided, given the significance of the issues at hand, that a meeting would be requested with the then Minister for Planning, the Hon Mr Frank Sartor, MP and the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon Mr Bob Debus, MP and their respective heads of department. This meeting took place on 23 November 206 with the then Mayor, Clr Greg Watsom, the General Manager, Mr Russ Pigg and Director Strategic Planning, Mr Rrnie Royston representing Council.
It was decided to establish a Working party to consider options for the future development of the land. The Working Party included representatives from Council and DECC. The first meeting of the Working Party took place on 15th December 2006. The Working Party was convened to consider options and
Page 70 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
opportunities having regard to the findings of the biodiversity assessment, bushfire, social and economic issues.
The second meeting of the Working Party was held in Canberra on 24th January 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to meet with the then Department of the Environment and Water Resources (DEW) to discuss matters relevant to the study area, that are protected under the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).
Referral made under the EPBC Act
Correspondence from DEW dated 22 March 2007 advised:
• It would be in the best interests of all parties to make a referral under the EPBC Act, as soon as possible • No additional flora or fauna surveys would be needed to complete a formal • Referral • It was likely that the project would be deemed to be a "controlled action" • under the EPBC Act.
The EPBC referral documentation comprising the referral form, the Biodiversity Survey and Assessment prepared by Bushfire & Environmental Services Pty Ltd (BES) and other attachments were submitted to the EPBC Referrals Section of DEW in May. In the referral form, Council advised that the biodiversity assessment had not at that stage been released to the public and was regarded as sensitive information, and therefore requested that the document be treated accordingly.
Council received correspondence dated 11 May 2007 acknowledging receipt of the referral and advising of a public consultation period extending for 10 working days. The referral form completed by Council was placed on the EPBC referral website.
Click here to view a flow diagram of the EPBC assessment process.
Outcome of the EPBC Referral
On 22 June 2007, the delegate for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources determined that the proposal is a “controlled action”. That is, that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act: listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A); and Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A). This meant that if the proposed rezoning and development was to proceed, Council (as the proponent) would require the approval of the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Water Resources under the EPBC Act.
The Minister’s delegate also determined that the proposal was to be assessed via a Public Environment Report (PER).
Heritage Estates Public Environment Report
As part of the approval process under the EPBC Act, Council was required to prepare a draft Public Environment Report (PER), addressing matters detailed by Department of the Environment Water Heritage & the Arts (DEWHA). The draft PER was publicly exhibited from June to September 2008 as required by DEWHA. Page 71 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
The Heritage Estates Public Environment Report, incorporating comments received during the public consultation on the draft PER, was finalised and published in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act in January 2009.
Proposal Refused Under EPBC Act
On 13 March 2009, the Federal Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett MP, refused the proposed rezoning and associated public works to facilitate residential development at the "Heritage Estates", Worrowing Heights under the EPBC Act, due to its impact on listed threatened species and Commonwealth land (Booderee National Park).
The Federal Environment Minister notified Council on 23 February 2009, that he proposed to refuse the proposal and gave Council 10 business days to comment. Council wrote to the Minister on 3 March 2009, urging stronger consideration of social and economic issues. The letter from the Minister accompanying his final decision on 13 March stated:
“I have given careful consideration to the comments you have provided, as well as to recent public comments that were received by the Council and my department from members of the public. I have also spoken with the Shoalhaven City Council Mayor, Paul Green, regarding Council’s views on the matter.
Although I appreciate the social and economic concerns that have been raised, nothing has been brought to my attention that I did not previously consider in making my proposed decision.”
People seeking further information on the decision are encouraged to review the Recommendation Report prepared by DEWHA prior to the Minister’s decision.
What Has Happened Since the Minister’s Decision
As a result of the decision under the EPBC Act, on 24 March 2009, Council resolved to:
• acknowledge the refusal of the Heritage Estates rezoning proposal under the EPBC Act by the Federal Minister for the Environment on 13 March 2009 • urgently seek discussions with the Commonwealth Director of National Parks and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) to discuss the option of Government acquisition of the Heritage Estates.
Council wrote to the Federal Environment Minister on 25 March 2009, to acknowledge the decision and urging the Minister to proactively assist in acquiring the land for addition to the National Park system (see below for more information on resolving land tenure). Council also notified the NSW Department of Planning that the draft LEP (rezoning) process that was initiated by Council’s resolution on 22 December 1992, has been terminated.
Page 72 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Page 73 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
Resolving Land tenure Since refusal of the proposal under the EPBC Act on 13 March 2009, Council has pursued the possibility of joint acquisition with NSW and Federal Government representatives. The outcomes of these discussions were reported to Council on 7 July 2009.
On 14 July Council resolved to: a) Advise landowners of the outcome of representations and meet with landowner representatives to discuss possible options; b) Again make further strenuous representations to relevant State and Federal Ministers pointing out that the property owners in the Heritage Estates, Worrowing Heights, are being treated unfairly and being denied natural justice by not having the provision of compensation.
As such, Council staff will now take the necessary steps to action this resolution and further representations will be made to the relevant NSW and Federal Ministers in accordance with the resolution.
Rates & special rates
Council is required to issue rate notices under the Local Government Act, 1993 to all land owners of rateable land. The category of these properties for rating purposes is “residential non-urban”.
In 2006/07 Council began levying the Heritage Estates Special Rate on those properties located in the investigation areas. The purpose of this was to recoup Council’s costs for conducting the rezoning investigations.
As a result of Council’s resolution to terminate the rezoning investigations, Council resolved to reduce the rates on the properties by: • discontinuing the special rate (only applied to properties in the investigation areas) - note that the special rate was to have been levied for a period of 10 years; and • reduce the 'residential non-urban' rate to approximately $50 p.a. (2008/09 ‘residential non-urban rates were $383 p.a.).
The above changes came into effect from 1 July 2009.
Transfer of Land in Lieu of Unpaid Rates
Council has a policy titled “ Small Lot Rural Subdivisions – Transfer of Land in Lieu of Unpaid Rates” that was adopted by Council on 27th February 2007. Under this Policy, Council may accept the transfer of land within the Heritage Estates, in lieu of unpaid rates, if requested to do so by the owner.
In such circumstances, Council will meet all legal costs associated with the transfer of the land. Where property owners are subject to debt recovery action, land owners will have 30 days to agree to a repayment schedule or transfer of the land to Council.
Alternatively, under S.713 of the Local Government Act, 1993 Council may move to sell the land by public auction where rates and charges have been unpaid for more than five years. In the case of vacant land, Council may sell the land within
Page 74 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
12 months but only if the amount of outstanding rates exceeds the value of the land.
The Policy will be reviewed in the near future.
What Can Be Done With the land?
Advice on ‘land maintenance’ issued by Council in 2006
At a meeting of landowners on 6th March 2006, Council staff were asked to provide information as to when landowners could resume these activities. Due to the complexity of existing and new controls applying to the clearing of vegetation in NSW, an undertaking was given that a response would be provided on Council’s Internet site.
In summary, the advice that was subsequently prepared stated that:
There is no legal ability for land in the Heritage Estates to be cleared, slashed or mowed without development consent. As development consent has always been required, the question of existing or continuing use rights does not arise.
Removal of vegetation within Heritage Estates would most likely require development consent from the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority as well as Council.
In the circumstances, land owners are advised to refrain from carrying out further clearing, slashing or mowing activities on their land without first having discussed the need for formal approval to undertake such work with Council’s Development & Environmental Services Group.
The resumption of clearing, slashing, mowing and maintenance activities resulting in the removal of vegetation has the potential to undermine the rezoning investigations and delay completion of the project.
The advice can be viewed in full at:
http://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/council/pubdocs/communityissues/Heritage/Clearing %20Internet.pdf
In addition to the above, the Heritage Estates land contains habitat protected under NSW and Federal environmental legislation as outlined below.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
The Heritage Estates land is known to contain a number of environmental assets known as matters of national environmental significance, which are protected by the national environmental legislation the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Matters of national environmental significance include listed threatened species and ecological communities, among others. Under the EPBC Act a person must not take an action that has a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. An action includes activities such as vegetation clearing or earth moving. Substantial penalties apply to a person who undertakes an action that has a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.
Page 75 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 5 “Heritage Estates”...
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)
Severe penalties can also be imposed for clearing vegetation protected under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act. For example, the NSW Land and Environment Court recently imposed a $180,000 fine on an individual for clearing woodland listed as an Endangered Ecological Community. The penalty was the highest imposed for such an offence and is further evidence of the continuing trend of the Court to impose significant fines for breaches of environmental legislation.
Summary
Council’s advice to landowners is that no further clearing, slashing, mowing or “maintenance” of land should be undertaken without the appropriate approvals. This advice is considered to be in the best long term interests of landowners, particularly as the land contains habitat that is protected under NSW and Federal legislation.
The above information is not legal advice. It represents Council’s current understanding of the planning controls and legislation applying to the Estate based on detailed research carried out by Council staff.
Any landowner intending to carry out any work involving the clearing of vegetation without development consent should obtain their own independent legal advice.
Policy prohibiting camping or erection of temporary structures
Council has had a policy of prohibiting camping or the erection of temporary Structures on the land prior to the sale of the land.
Contact Details & Further Information
For further information please contact Eric Hollinger, Senior Project Planner on 02 4429 3320 or [email protected]
Page 76 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 6 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service correspondence concerning land additions to Garawarra State Conservation Area , the DECC and Aboriginal Heritage
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument6.jpg
Page 77 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 7 Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) Acquisition of land for a wildlife corridor between Royal National Park and the Illawarra Escarpment http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument7.jpg
Page 78 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 7 Department of Environment and Conservation...
Page 79 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Referenced Document 8 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Addition of lands to Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area – high conservation significance http://www.otfordeco.com/images/ReferencedDocument8.jpg
Page 80 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 1 Current Gazetted 2009/10 Wollongong City Council Zoning Map
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map1.jpg
Page 81 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map
The published DLEP Wollongong 2009 proposed the following classification for the area.
7(d) Helensburgh and Otford Review Much of the land around Helensburgh and Otford is zoned 7(d) Hacking River Environmental Protection. This zone was introduced in the 1980s and 1990 to protect the water quality of the Hacking River and Royal National Park.
Council recognises that the zone has caused undue hardship on some landowners who have not been able to build a dwelling house, some for over 30 years. In 2008, Council commenced a review of the 7(d) zone, examining the appropriateness of the zone and the minimum lot size required for a dwelling house.
Conservation of significant bushland and protection of downstream water quality remain important priorities.
This review is ongoing and will be exhibited in early 2009.As an interim measure, the 7(d) land is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The E2 zone is similarly restrictive to the 7(d) zone. The map below represents the 7d zoning before DLEP Wollongong 2009.
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map2.jpg
Page 82 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map... Map representing E2 zoning under this planning proposal.
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map2B.jpg
Page 83 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 3 Parish Map originally drawn 1880 http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map3.jpg
"Original Crown Grants of Land generally reserved roads, lanes, ingress and egress from title"
Page 84 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 4 Conservation Corridor http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map4.jpg
Page 85 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 5 Wildlife Corridor- Royal National Park - Garawarra SRA & Illawarra Escarpment http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map5.jpg
Changing the former 7D lands to E2 zoning is consistent with the Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan. Whereas the gazetted E3 conflicts with the Regional Environmental Plan, given it allows new dwellings with their consequent fences, fire hazard reduction clearings, pollutants and domestic animal impacts. ILLAWARRA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 1 - REG 17 Wildlife corridors A draft local environmental plan applying to land shown on the map as wildlife corridor shall not alter the provisions in existing planning instruments applying to the land if, in the opinion of the Director, such new provisions would jeopardise the function of the corridor.
Page 86 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 6 Sydney Catchment Map... Map 6 Sydney Catchment Map
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map6.jpg
Page 87 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 7 Biodiversity Zone Map
http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map7.jpg
Page 88 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010
Map 8 Littoral Rainforest Corridor http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map8.jpg
Page 89 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Map 9 Satellite Photo of Area including the Royal National Park http://www.otfordeco.com/images/Map9.jpg
The satellite photo shows no visual difference in the land form or terrain between the area already zoned as E1 Royal National Park and the area to be zoned as E2 Garawarra State Recreation Area. It does depict the deep valleys and therefore vulnerability of the Hacking River catchment to erosion, effluent, toxins and litter flowing from the Helensburgh ridge and plateau above.
Page 90 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010 Delivery Receipt
M inister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts PO Box 6022 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
N.S.W. Planning – Head Office GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2000
National Parks and Wildlife Service PO Box 1968 Hurstville NSW 2220
N.S.W. Planning - Southern Region - Wollongong PO Box 5475 Wollongong NSW 2520
Sutherland Shire Council Locked Bag 17 Sutherland NSW 1499
Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500
Page 91 of 91 Planning Proposal – Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 30 April 2010