23 December 2016
Executive Director Local Planning Liaison New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 SYDNEY, NSW 2001
Dear Sir,
We refer to the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lake Scheme) Amendment 2016 (Draft SEPP).
In my capacity as the Chairman of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC), I wish to lodge an objection in response to the Draft SEPP on behalf of PLDC.
I also note that the exhibited Draft SEPP does not in any way represent the Urban Instrument submission to the Minister for Planning and Environment dated 29 August 2014 nor the subsequent technical reports submitted in March 2016 by PLDC. PLDC rejects any claim that there has been collaboration on the development of this draft SEPP amendment.
PLDC reserves all of its rights under the 1987 Deed (Deed) and in reserving its rights says that the provision of its submission in response to the Draft SEPP does not involve an acceptance or agreement by PLDC that the manner in which the Draft SEPP has been proposed, and its proposed contents, are either valid or appropriate. Nor does the making of submissions by PLDC constitute a withdrawal or waiver by PLDC of any of its claims that the State has acted and continues to act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Deed.
Clause 3.3(b) of the Deed expressly provides that:
"(b) The Lakes Scheme cannot be successfully implemented and completed unless the Urban Land is rezoned and redeveloped for urban purposes as contemplated by this Agreement." (my emphasis)
In PLDC's view, the Draft SEPP represents a radical departure from the intention of the parties as recorded in Part 3 of the Deed and the principal investigation undertaken by the NSW State Government documented in the Regional Environmental Study – Penrith Lakes Scheme 1984 (RES). The course being undertaken by the Government is likely to have adverse financial consequences for PLDC. The Draft SEPP is also, as far as we can discern, not supported by proper planning principles. We enclose a report prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd that fully outlines PLDC's planning concerns in response to the Draft SEPP, See Attachment 1.
PLDC is of the view that it is premature for the Government to be proposing a whole of scheme planning regime. This is particularly so given that the Greater Sydney Commission Draft West District Plan has yet to be finalised and, as one would expect, this is a key consideration in the making of any State Environment Planning Policy for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.
I wish to document the following matters of concern which have also been identified in respect of the Draft SEPP:
Page 2 of 6
1) Infrastructure, Flood Planning and Evacuation
DP&E has not provided PLDC (as the principal land holder to which the draft SEPP applies) sufficient technical information in the form of detailed reports or assessments to enable PLDC to make an informed view on the outcomes or objectives of the Draft SEPP. Of particular concern to PLDC is the lack of rigour and assessment undertaken by the Department in the development of this Draft SEPP surrounding the Scheme’s specific matters relating to New Castlereagh Road and the flood mitigation infrastructure provided within the Scheme, including the kilometres of structural weirs, extensive stormwater pipes and the earthen flood levees to protect significant cultural heritage sites, including the highly sensitive Hadley Park precinct. It would appear that no provision has been made for these major pieces of infrastructure in the zonings or planning controls and instead they have been effectively “Unzoned” by the proposed Draft SEPP.
In March 2014 the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley Flood Management Review Stage One report (Flood Review) was released. Key recommendations and strategies from this report included the development of a single appropriate flood model for the entire Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain including an updated and contemporary flood model to replace the 1995 RUBICON model. It was also recommended that this model be informed by detailed rainfall and extensive bathymetry data. PLDC, in anticipation of the Department implementing the recommendations of the Flood Review undertook detailed, peer reviewed, 2D modelling taking into consideration the latest hydrological modelling technology, in order that we could contribute fully to the further works being undertaken Infrastructure NSW (INSW) in the Stage Two Flood Review.
Stage Two of the Hawkesbury – Nepean Valley Flood Management Review has not been released and the NSW State Government has announced in July 2016 an interim Flood Policy to take effect until the Stage 2 Flood review has been completed.
In the development of this Draft SEPP, the recommendations of the 2014 Flood review, the extensive flood studies undertaken by Cardno and BMT WBM on behalf of PLDC as well as the peer reviews by Worley Parsons and WMA Water on behalf of the NSW Government have not been incorporated within the Draft SEPP instrument or the proposed zonings. As the principal landholder, PLDC has not been provided adequate information regarding the interim Flood Policy or the environmental studies which have underpinned the interim Flood Policy or the viability of the urban development component of the Lakes Scheme. Further, PLDC has had no opportunity to test any environmental studies underpinning the Flood Policy by way of peer review.
In respect of the July 2016 interim Flood Policy; I note that its purported aim is "to reduce the potential flood risk to life and property in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley".
A review of the Draft SEPP reveals that the interim Flood Policy as it relates to the Scheme, has been interpreted by the Government in a way which results in the development for urban purposes being limited to 30 lots outside the “future urban land” as indicated on the 1998 Structure Plan. However, no rationale is given as to why these 30 lots, as distinct from, say, 100 lots are appropriate to the Scheme at this time; nor why the Department has decided to zone lands which were not previously considered in previous iterations of the Structure Plan for the Scheme. It appears to PLDC that the interim Flood Policy has been applied in an arbitrary manner. PLDC maintains that there is a range of proven solutions which could be implemented to meet the Flood Policy’s concerns and/or objectives so as to permit urban development of the Lakes Scheme.
Page 3 of 6
In support of this position, I request that the Department review the studies which were provided in the August 2014 Urban Instrument submission and I also enclose a summary prepared by Molino Stewart Pty Ltd which addresses the July 2016 interim Flood Policy, See Attachment 2. I note, and indeed stress, that the findings of this report are that with no increased infrastructure, through the use of contra lanes for evacuation to the East, 1300 lots can be located on the Penrith Lakes Scheme.
Given the lack of transparency around the interim Flood Policy, PLDC's position is to strongly oppose the making of the Draft SEPP in its current form.
2) Water Management Plan
The Regional Environment Study 1984 included a Water Management Plan (1984 WMP) for the lakes within the Scheme which contained a number of significant objectives. Over a 30 year period PLDC has undertaken detailed studies and implemented the policies and strategies of the 1984 WMP. This Plan has been updated over time to incorporate changes in water management technology and to accommodate the changing catchment conditions. The last major review of the 1984 WMP was approved by the Director – General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in November 2013, See Attachment 3, and the subsequent detailed infrastructure construction plans were approved by the Department and implemented sequentially up until late 2015. These approvals incorporate 2 km of sandy beaches, 770 hectares of recreational lakes with two major external weirs, internal road networks, more than 5km of walking trails, landscaped foreshores, conservation zones and picnic areas.
The current Draft SEPP amendment fails to incorporate the public recreation and flood mitigation works, which have been undertaken by PLDC, into the land use zonings.
The draft SEPP amendment also fails to incorporate the detailed recommendations of the studies which were undertaken by independent consultants on the future zoning of lands within the Scheme. On this basis, PLDC’s position is to strongly oppose the making of the Draft SEPP in the proposed form.
3) The Structure Plan and Planning provisions amendment
The Draft SEPP does not seek to amend or update the 1998 SEPP Structure plan and therefore fails to take into consideration the relevant approvals received by PLDC for the Stage 1 WMP and subsequent detailed construction certificates or 2 year plans for infrastructure and land forming.
The Draft SEPP in the proposed form fails to realise the long held strategic directions set for the site, being to give rise to comprehensive and integrated land use changes. These include, and are not limited to, significant changes to the Main Lake shape as requested by the 2005 Hawkesbury - Nepean Expert Panel, along with additional water bodies and landforms which under typical circumstances would be incorporated into the Structure Plan on an amendment to the SEPP.
In the development of this proposed Draft SEPP the “typical” process, being industry and DP&E planning policy standards, has not been carried out, giving rise to a fragmented and disjointed approach to updating the planning controls for the Scheme. PLDC is concerned that only the Sydney International Regatta Centre and White Water Stadium as Olympic Legacies are considered requiring strong, updated planning controls while the major lakes are effectively “Unzoned”.
Page 4 of 6
PLDC key planning concerns include:
The Draft SEPP fails to realise the long held strategic direction set for the Scheme. The usual DP&E protocols for the making of SEPPs have not been applied. The Draft SEPP does not appear to be based on good urban design or integrated infrastructure delivery. The Draft SEPP is not based on any studies and no impacts have been assessed. It is not clear why 75% of the Scheme is proposed to be Unzoned. The Land use zones are extraordinary.
Further detail on PLDC’s position on this matter is documented in the AECOM Australia Pty Ltd See Attachment 1
4) Penrith Lakes Parklands Plan
The RES objectives required PLDC to develop management plans and seek the views of the National Parks and Wildlife Services. These management plans have been prepared and submitted to both the Department of Planning and the Officer of Environment and Heritage. The Penrith Lakes Parklands Plan is not exhibited with the draft SEPP nor do the proposed planning controls adequately address the range of objectives described in the 1984 RES.
Of particular concern is that the key planning strategies and land use objectives documented within the Biodiversity and Natural Resources Master plan for the Penrith Lakes have not been incorporated into the proposed planning controls for the Scheme. A significant proportion of the areas designated as core conservation have been effectively unzoned.
5) Technical Studies
None of the Department’s detailed analysis or assessment of site suitability have been exhibited and no determination or assessment has been made to the existing PLDC 28 August 2014 Urban Instrument proposal. PLDC’s technical studies have not been placed on the exhibition website despite the Department’s initial reference on page 5 of the Statement of Intend Effects to PLDC’s request for substantial rezoning for urban development.
6) Consultation and Community Engagement
I also note, by way of objection, that the consultation period for the Draft SEPP is shorter than any other new State environmental planning policy or amendment to a State environmental planning policy that we are aware of. Given the significant implications of what is proposed, the resulting imposition is inappropriate and further time must be provided to PLDC to allow for proper consultation on the Draft SEPP. This is also necessary to allow the various stakeholders to obtain the necessary expert opinions needed to equip them to make fully informed and responsive submissions.
In this regard, I enclose Table A which outlines the various studies PLDC needs to undertake in order to be able to make an informed submission in respect of the Draft SEPP. See Attachment 4.
Page 5 of 6
7) Environmental Heritage
I further observe that under section 34A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, consultation is to occur with the Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage:
"if, in the opinion of the relevant authority, critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will or may be adversely affected by the proposed instrument".
In this regard, I draw your attention to the existence of two Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC) within the Lakes Scheme. Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest is present within the Scheme along the riparian corridor of the Nepean River and at a location within the Wildlife Lake Precinct, while Shale Gravel Transition Forest can be found along the Cranebrook Escarpment.
A number of species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and/or the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as threatened and/or migratory have been known to frequent the Penrith Lakes Scheme and its surrounding environment. This has primarily been in association with the Nepean River Riparian Corridor however some species have also been observed in the open areas of the scheme. We have attached a report from Eco-Logical Australia Pty Ltd providing further details in respect of this. See Attachment 5.
It is not known whether such consultation by the Secretary of the Department with the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Environment and Heritage has been undertaken.
8) Cultural Heritage
PLDC has an extensive collection of Cultural heritage and Cultural landscape management plans detailing specific controls required to ensure heritage precincts are protected and incorporated into the future completed scheme.
GML Heritage Pty Ltd has undertaken a review of the draft SEPP and has provided commentary as to the adequacy of the proposed planning controls to protect the extensive heritage collection contained within the scheme lands. See Attachment 6.
Of significant concern to PLDC is that:
The Draft SEPP fails to updated Schedule 3 to include all heritage items identified in the Regional Environmental Study or the subsequent Heritage Studies; and that,
The proposed zonings bring inappropriate pressure to bear on heritage items and their sensitive curtilages.
Page 6 of 6
9) Master planning and Land Zonings
Extensive works have been undertaken by the NSW State Government, Penrith City Council, and PLDC over the last 30 years in taking an integrated approach to the rehabilitation and future of the lands within the Scheme. Works have also been undertaken by the NSW Government in preparing Draft REP’s and Draft SEPP which are consistent with the master planning and vision for the Scheme. Much of this work appears to have been ignored in the current proposed Draft SEPP, which proposes zonings which segment and oversimplify the complex values contained within the site.
PLDC’s position on this matter is documented in a review undertaken by Clouston Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd, which has been the principal Landscape Architects and Planners for the Scheme, acting for both PLDC and the NSW State Government. See Attachment 7.
10) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and “No Harm” Zones
Given the short time the documentation has been available for review, PLDC has not been able to contemplate the impacts of the proposed zonings on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) listed sites and “No Harm” zones within the Scheme boundary, except to note that many of the archaeological listed sites on the Office of Environment and Heritage AHIMS register are within the proposed “Unzoned” areas.
Given the lack of transparency around the future of these cultural heritage sites, PLDC's position is to strongly oppose the making of the Draft SEPP in its current form.
Given the various issues outlined above, PLDC requests an extension of time in order that it may be properly consulted in respect of the Draft SEPP and allowed a reasonable opportunity to lodge a fully informed and responsive submission in respect of it. PLDC will continue to develop its full submission and will endeavour to lodge it as soon as possible, noting the Christmas break.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Carew Chairman Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited
CC: Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment
REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 1
REPORT PREPARED BY AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 1.doc | 12 August 2009
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd +61 2 8934 0000 tel Level 21, 420 George Street +61 2 8934 0001 fax Sydney NSW 2000 ABN 20 093 846 925 PO Box Q410 QVB Post Office NSW 1230 Australia www.aecom.com
23 December 2016
Ms Carolyn McNally Secretary NSW Department of Planning and Environment PO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
Dear Ms Carolyn
Submission on behalf of Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) - State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Amendment 2016 AECOM has prepared this submission on behalf of Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) in response to the proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Amendment 2016 (Draft SEPP Amendment). While PLDC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft SEPP Amendment, it and other land owners have been given insufficient time with which to consider the full consequences of the amendments proposed. Additionally there has been inadequate consultation with PLDC as to what amendments were likely to be proposed prior to the exhibition, nor has been sufficient justification provided with the exhibited Explanation of Intended Effects (EIE). It is also questioned why this matter will not be referred to the Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) or the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) or Sydney West Planning panel, for advice on the Draft SEPP Amendment. This is particularly given that the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) and the NSW Government own and control land within the Penrith Lakes Site. Additionally they also have a commercial role in respect of the Site due to the Deed of Agreement between themselves and PLDC. Given these circumstances it would seem inappropriate for the Draft SEPP Amendment to proceed without independent evaluation. Reference to the ‘Site’ throughout this submission refers to the land to which the draft SEPP Amendment relates. Principal concerns with regard to the Draft SEPP Amendment are that: The Draft SEPP Amendment fails to realise long held strategic directions set for the Site, being to give rise to comprehensive and integrated land use changes - yet the Draft SEPP Amendment serves to demonstrate further delay to comprehensive land use planning for the Site to a later and unknown point in time. Moreover, the Draft SEPP Amendment does not deliver the expected and intended outcomes sought by A Plan for Growing Sydney and the Draft West District Plan, being for new and additional regional open space and substantial residential development. The proposed Draft SEPP Amendment does not appear to have been founded upon any environmental assessment – detailed assessment that would ordinarily be carried out to justify and demonstrate site suitability for the proposed land use arrangements and to explain why this approach as proposed have not been put forward. Conversely, the impacts of the Draft SEPP Amendment appear to not have been assessed; as would ordinarily be case for other SEPP and LEP amendments of this scale and type.
Standard processes and protocols typically carried out for the making of other SEPPs and SEPP amendments have not been carried for the Draft SEPP Amendment – the lack of assessment supporting the proposal, lack of justification for the Draft SEPP Amendment and insufficient exhibition period are at odds with current practices carried for the making of other SEPPs and SEPP amendments. This hasn’t afforded land owners sufficient time to then fully consider the consequences of the Draft SEPP Amendment. Additionally the Draft SEPP Amendment instrument does not conform to current formatting practices such as standardised clauses under the Standard LEP Template, nor do the selected zones correspond fully with those under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP 2010), nor has the same provisions been applied for ‘unzoned’ land under clause 2.4 of the Standard LEP Template, as would ordinarily be expected to apply to ‘unzoned’ land. Additionally the way in which these land use approaches are sought to be applied to the Site and its development under the Draft SEPP Amendment is totally exceptional to any other SEPP and contributes to making the approval process for any development on the Site more complex than is necessary. The proposed amendments appear only to give rise to a ‘Claytons’ rezoning – the amendment does not generally permit additional development beyond that permitted under the current SEPP in areas to be ‘unzoned’, and yet where development is permitted under zoned lands this is subject to additional stringent site suitability tests before development can proceed. Therefore, it is unclear what the planning purpose for the Draft SEPP amendment is if the land uses sought to be permitted are either currently permitted or permitted development is held in abeyance until site suitability is justified and demonstrated. In this regard these factors result in an extraordinary and strange approach to land use planning that further complicates the land use planning and development of the Site. Most importantly, the draft amendments fail to establish and deliver the long term land use planning intentions for the Site as has been envisioned for a long time.
2 of 11
KEY CONCERNS AND ISSUES Despite the short time with which to review the Draft SEPP Amendment and consider its consequences, the irregularity of the proposed amendments results in what we see as a plethora of issues. This is particularly the case in the practical application of the proposed amendments when new development is sought to be carried out on the Site in accordance with the Draft SEPP Amendment. The following canvases these fundamental concerns regarding the Draft SEPP Amendment.
1.0 The Draft SEPP Amendment fails to realise long held strategic directions and expectations for the Site Since the inception of the Deed between PLDC and the NSW Government in 1987, there have been long held expectations by the community, Penrith City Council and PLDC that the Site would be developed for large scale regional open space and extensive residential development. This intention for the Site has been continued to be canvassed in several local and State land use strategies over the years; but most importantly has continued to be retained in the current Metropolitan Plan for Sydney, A Plan for Growing Sydney, and the very recent Draft West District Plan. The draft Vision Plan for the Site (as prepared was by the Office of Penrith Lakes) also supports these same objectives for the Site and its future development. Therefore and disappointingly after such a long time, the Draft SEPP Amendment falls well short of the expectation to deliver a comprehensive land use framework that will enable these aims and visions for the Site to be finally realised. The intention of the rezoning for the Site is “to establish a zoning regime which best reflects the current development capacity consistent with the Government’s stated objectives of the site”. Yet this intention does not align with what is actually proposed by the Draft SEPP amendment for the Site. Specifically, the Government’s stated objectives for the Site as described in the Draft West District Plan and A Plan for Growing Sydney are clear that is to deliver regional scaled open space and significant residential development. However, the proposed Draft SEPP Amendment fails to deliver either of these outcomes, and does not contemplate when and how this will be delivered later on. In particular: - the expected achievement of residential development resulting from the Draft SEPP Amendment (being for 30 residential allotments) falls significantly short of expected number of residential dwellings expected by both the Draft West District Plan and A Plan for Growing Sydney, but of which expect housing on the Site in the thousands; and - the regional scaled open space expected for the Site is expected to encompass the foreshore lands and the lakes, however these are not reserved or contemplated by the Draft SEPP Amendment. The largely retained aims of the Draft SEPP Amendment under clause 2 do not align with the outcomes sought to be implemented in the provisions. Specifically: The unchanged definition of ‘Penrith Lakes Scheme’ as per Schedule 1 of the SEPP refers to “identification of land for possible future urban purposes”. And yet despite rezoning being sought by the Draft SEPP Amendment, it does not seek to clarify or identify where land for future urban purposes is to be located over the Site. The retained aims of the SEPP seek to identify land that “may be rezoned for urban purposes”, and yet none of the land is identified under the proposed zoning map as such. Although the retained Structure Plan refers to this future intention it can only be assumed that the future urban land may be that that is proposed to be ‘unzoned’. The aims of the amended SEPP are to prevent sterilization of the land, and yet the notion of ‘unzoning’ land and the corresponding limited permitted land uses for this land, would signal a contradiction with this aim of the SEPP.
3 of 11
2.0 The usual Department protocols followed for the making of SEPPs have been not implemented While we acknowledge however that the EP&A Act does not stipulate any specific assessment requirements, it is common and expected practice for the making of SEPPs that: They be based on a tested and well resolved masterplan or similar framework that guides land use planning; They be prepared based on studies and assessment that underpin and substantiate land use changes and assess impacts of those changes; Sufficient time for exhibition of draft SEPP Amendments be afforded to the public and affected land owners to enable proper consideration of the effects of the amendments; and They include where possible standardised land uses zones, clauses and provisions to enable later integration of the SEPP into the local and relevant EPI, which in this case is Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP 2010). Whereas and however, these standard practices have not applied to the Draft SEPP Amendment which results in what we see as a complicated planning instrument that is somewhat contradictory and that is not well founded. 2.1 The Draft SEPP does not appear to be based on good urban design and/or integrated infrastructure delivery The portions of the Site to be ‘zoned’ Employment, Residential, Environment and the like are disconnected from each other. Therefore, it is not clear from the Draft SEPP Amendment or the EIE how these areas are to be integrated with adjoining land (outside of the Site) or how their development is to relate to the ‘unzoned’ portions of the Site. This piecemeal approach to rezoning the Site as proposed by the Draft SEPP Amendment raises a number of issues and does not appear to be based upon any urban design logic that would ordinarily form the basis of proposed land use arrangements. Additionally, there are also aspects of only rezoning parts of the Site very that are impractical. Some of these concerns and implications are explored below: Fundamentally to ascertain the extent of a nominated land use zone and its boundary this is normally based on: - current site characteristics and locational attributes - ‘site suitability’ for any selected zone and/or permitted land uses, being that the permitted uses are suitable for the nominated area and the site is suitable for these uses; and - masterplanning or a general development framework that indicates the intentions for a site. Neither the Draft SEPP Amendment nor the EIE explain how the proposed zoning boundaries have been established as would be the case for other similar SEPP and LEP amendments. Any proposed land uses for a site should be coordinated to ensure integrated infrastructure and service outcomes can be achieved when the development of a site is sought to be developed. Therefore, by only selectively zoning disconnected parts of the Site means that the approach to the delivery of infrastructure, transport, flood evacuation measures is not likely to be well coordinated and could be deficient. Moreover there would detrimental economic, environmental and social impacts associated with the piecemeal approach to partially zoning the site, particularly as there is no clear intension for the adjoining ‘unzoned’ land to then understand what impact development on zoned land may have to unzoned land. By only partially zoning the Site there can’t be contemplation of the future development needs and expectations for unzoned areas of the Site and how the development of these lands will integrate later on with the zoned land. Consequently the resulting urban development outcomes for the zoned parts of the Site may compromise the development potential of the unzoned land. Partial zoning could result in a double up or insufficient delivery of infrastructure to later support the development of unzoned land, thereby adding to the expense of delivery of development within the unzoned land later on.
4 of 11
It has been anticipated that funds to deliver much of the infrastructure to support the entire Site’s development is expected to be derived through profits from the residential development. The development of those areas to be zoned as sought by the Draft SEPP Amendment is only anticipated to partially generate the necessary funds to deliver lead in infrastructure, which will not only support the development within the zoned, but additionally the unzoned lands. Therefore, there could be a significant shortfall in funds to deliver the necessary infrastructure for the Site without the funding brought about by anticipated and sizeable residential development. Because of this, the development of zoned areas of the Site may not proceed because of the high cost to deliver infrastructure being borne by this development, which would result in no development on the Site proceeding despite the rezoning. 2.2 The Draft SEPP Amendment is not based upon any studies and its impacts have not been assessed The Draft SEPP Amendment appears to have been drafted without adequate assessment of the impacts of the proposal, consideration of the Site’s physical and location attributes and without regard to broader strategic intentions for the Site, including that outlined in A Plan for Growing Sydney. This level of comprehensive assessment would be ordinarily expected for such as major proposal and has been expected for other similar large scale amendments. We acknowledge however that the EP&A Act does not stipulate any specific assessment requirements, but again we cannot point to any previous examples where a SEPP amendment of this type was made without suitable assessment. It is more than reasonable to expect that both the effects of and justification for the rezoning of the Site be based upon extensive assessment. This is best practice and would be expected for other Government and land owner initiated planning proposals both under SEPPs and LEPs. Even if the Department has relied upon the studies and assessments prepared and issued to them by PLDC in 2014; these would not have assessed the proposal as sought by the Draft SEPP Amendment and EIE, and are now likely to be out of date. The Draft SEPP Amendment also appears to legitimise the ongoing use of SIRC, and yet this use only has temporary development approval under: - DA 85-4-2004 - DA 175-03-2002 It is concerning that the rezoning of the SIRC land will legitimise this use before that of the adjoining land (specifically land that has been intended by PLDC to be rezoned for residential use). This concern has been expressed in detail to DP&E in PLDC’s correspondence on the proposed amendment No.3 to the DA 85-4-2004 (also known as MOD 3). 2.3 The two week exhibition period is totally insufficient Although there is no legal requirement to publicly exhibit a draft SEPP, the time frame afforded to affected land owners (not just that of PLDC) is considered totally unreasonable. This is on the basis that all similar SEPP amendments are exhibited for at least 28 days, in some cases more in particular over the Christmas holiday period. To compare see the list of draft SEPPs and Policies that DP&E currently has on exhibition at Attachment A. All of these, other than for the current Draft SEPP Amendment, have extended exhibition periods into the New Year. Additionally other recent SEPP Amendments have also been afforded 1 to 2 month exhibition periods - see below: - North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct (exhibited for 2 months) - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct (exhibited for 2 months) - Proposed Amendment to the Growth Centres SEPP - Alex Avenue Precinct (exhibited for 1 month) - Wentworth Point Urban Activation Precinct (exhibited for 1 month) Additionally it is understood that the Department’s policy for some time now is to extend the exhibition period for proposals where the exhibition period extends into school holiday periods. Given that the second week of the exhibition is within school holidays, the exhibition period for this Draft SEPP
5 of 11
amendment should extend into next year and after the school holiday period finishes (being into early February). 2.4 It is not clear why the vast majority of the Site (1,320ha) is proposed to be ‘unzoned’ There is lack of clarify regarding the future purpose for the ‘unzoned’ land as described in the EIE and the Draft SEPP Amendment, marking the future intentions for this land uncertain. Moreover, nor is there any clarification of the timing for land use changes that may occur later to this land. Additionally neither the Structure Plan or the draft Vision Plan for the Site correspond to the land which is proposed to be unzoned, to then give guidance regarding the future intentions for this land. Added to the fact that there are no assessments to underpin the Draft SEPP Amendment, it could be reasonably argued that the proposed pattern of zoning is mostly baseless. It would be reasonable to expect to see justification that the residual and unzoned land would be appropriate for future and alternative uses and to indicate what these may be, even though the rezoning of this land is not proceeding at this time. Otherwise there needs to be justification as to why the retention of the current rural zoning is not appropriate in place of unzoning this land. It is notable that the way in which the large majority of the Site is proposed to be ‘unzoned’ does not conform with the way in which this type of approach is applied under clause 2.4 of the Standard LEP Template, and has been applied under Blacktown LEP 2015 for part of the Scheduled Lands in Riverstone (which is still technically zoned under the Growth Centres SEPP as Conservation Lands). Under clause 2.4 of the Standard LEP Template the following and compulsory provisions apply to ‘unzoned’ land: “1) Development may be carried out on unzoned land only with development consent. (2) In deciding whether to grant development consent, the consent authority: (a) must consider whether the development will impact on adjoining zoned land and, if so, consider the objectives for development in the zones of the adjoining land, and (b) must be satisfied that the development is appropriate and is compatible with permissible land uses in any such adjoining land.” This provision affords flexibility to enable ongoing and reasonable use of the land. However, this same flexibility has not been afforded under the Draft SEPP Amendment. Rather the permitted use of this land within the Site is limited to interim and temporary uses, and that permitted under: State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2001 (S&R SEPP) - which permits development for purposes of extraction, rehabilitation or lake formation (including for the purposes of associated infrastructure on land located within or outside that Site); and the local EPIs still applying to the Site. We understand that where land is generally proposed to be ‘unzoned’ this applies most often to land in rural areas, where the future intention may be for land release. However, the future urban release area as defined under the Draft SEPP relates only to land that is proposed to be zoned Employment, Residential and Tourism. This adds to the confusion about what the purpose is (or are) for land to be ‘unzoned’. 2.5 Land use zones proposed for the Site are extraordinary and unusual Where land is to be zoned by the Draft SEPP Amendment under specified zones, these zones are generic and do not accord with the LEP Template or other zoning protocols followed under any other known Planning Instrument currently in force. The only similarity is to the broad zones under the St Marys SREP 20. However and unlike SREP 20, there are no requirements to further demonstrate site suitability as is required by Part 5 the Draft SEPP Amendment. The zones proposed by the Draft SEPP Amendment do not fully correspond with that under Penrith LEP 2010. This disables the ability to later roll the SEPP into PLEP 2010, as is best practice. And yet the proposed generic zones appear to be a ‘cut-and-paste’ from the corresponding land use table in Penrith LEP 2010, but with some notable land use omissions.
6 of 11
- The Employment zone is really the B7 Business Park zone, but with child care centres, hotel and motel accommodation, industrial retail outlets and respite day care centres omitted. - The Environment zone appears to be identical to the E2 zone in Penrith LEP 2010. - The Parkland zone appears to be identical to the RE2 zone, however excludes child care centres from being permissible development. - The Residential zone is based on the E4 Environmental Living zone, but notably excludes from bed-and-breakfast, schools, secondary dwellings, child care centres, dual occupancies, places of public worship and respite day care centres from being permissible development. - The Tourism zone is based on SP3 Tourist from Penrith LEP 2010. - The Waterway zone is based on W2 from LEP 2010. It is unclear why there appears to be reliance upon PLEP 2010, and yet selected and notable highest and best land uses afforded under the E4 zone under PLEP 2010 have been excluded, particularly for the Residential zone. It is also unclear how the development capacity of the Residential zoned lands is limited to only a maximum of 30 lots. Although a minimum allotment size of 2ha is applied to Residential zoned land the absence of supporting assessments and justification, makes it unreasonable to assume that the development capacity of these lands should be limited in this way. 2.6 Consent Authorities It is interesting to note that the intended consent authority for development on all land zoned Tourism, Residential, Parkland, Employment and Waterway is the Minister. However, PLDC’s request in 2015 for the Minister to be the consent authority for all major earthworks and Englobo subdivision as part of the Site’s rezoning was at that time rejected. Added to the fact that the Exempt and Complying SEPP is proposed not to apply (clause 4), we then interpret the consequences of this to mean that all development (including minor alterations and additions) would require approval from the Minister. Whether this outcome is intended or not, it makes for protracted approval pathway; especially for minor development that would ordinarily be Exempt and Complying Development. Moreover, any development in these lands will be required to then comply with the stringent requirements under Part 5 of the Draft SEPP (ie. the preparation of an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment, the preparation of an evacuation plan, etc) even for what could be minor works (eg. a carport). 2.7 Interrelationship with other EPIs The EIE does not contemplate whether other accompanying amendments may need to be made to other EPIs including the State and Regional SEPP, which also applies to the Site. Given the Draft SEPP amendment does not repeal the current IDOs and LEPs that apply to the Penrith Lakes; this results in conflict between the EPIs even though legally the SEPP prevails. Additionally the current SEPP does not technically zone the Penrith Lakes Site; therefore it is questionable why this intention is sought by the SEPP to zone land, particularly as the draft SEPP does not repeal existing local EPIs applicable to the Site.
7 of 11
3.0 The proposed amendments appear only to give rise to a ‘Claytons’ rezoning The Draft SEPP Amendment does not generally permit additional development beyond that permitted under the current SEPP in areas to be ‘unzoned’, and yet where development is permitted for those lands to be ’zoned’ this is development can only be permitted where it is subject to additional stringent site suitability tests. Therefore, it is unclear what the planning purpose for the Draft SEPP amendment is if the land uses sought to be permitted are either currently permitted or are held in abeyance until site suitability is justified. 3.1 Postponing demonstration of site suitability As expressed above in Section 2.2 regarding the lack of apparent assessment and investigations, there is no evidence to demonstrate site suitability for the land uses and zoning approach proposed by the Draft SEPP Amendment. Site suitability is a fundamental element of substantiating any rezoning of a site, and is well recognised and required by the Department’s own guidelines for State Significant Sites and where amendments are sought under an LEP. Added to the fact that Part 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment delegates site suitability assessments to be carried out prior to development clearly indicates that much is left unresolved (ie. flood evacuation, road infrastructure, impacts to Aboriginal heritage). This clearly signals that ‘site suitability’ has not been established for the Draft SEPP Amendment. Consequently, if the requirements of Part 5 cannot be provided then development on zoned land cannot proceed, thereby sterilising these lands. Given the significance of these matters (most of which are resolved prior to preparation of a SEPP of this kind) this potential scenario could very well eventuate. 3.2 Ad-hoc assessment and infrastructure delivery The implementation of the draft SEPP Amendment only aids in delivering infrastructure and flood evacuation measures on an ad-hoc basis and/or will make the provision of these unviable. The result of implementing Part 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment is that every time development is proposed within the zoned lands, each development application will need to demonstrate that a range of plans (eg. evacuation plans) and assessments have been carried out. The way this is described in this part of the Draft SEPP Amendment is required each and every time development is sought to be approved and could result in piecemeal approach to delivery of infrastructure and assessment of impacts (such as that related to Aboriginal heritage). This approach then overlooks the cumulative impacts and needs for integrated infrastructure for the entire Site, both on zoned and unzoned land. Further, this approach does not also consider or safeguard the future needs of lands that are ‘unzoned’, such that when this land is properly zoned it may need to rely upon these plans and infrastructure. In this regard there is potential for double up or insufficient delivery of infrastructure, thereby adding to the expense of delivery of future development of the unzoned lands later on. 3.3 Flood evacuation planning still totally unresolved after so many years, and yet has been deferred to be resolved at a later time Under the Draft West District Plan it states that: “The potential for residential development has also been part of investigations into the future rehabilitation of the former quarry at Penrith Lakes. As Penrith Lakes is in the Hawkesbury- Nepean Valley floodplain, planning for any future residential development will need to carefully consider risk to people and property informed by the work of the Hawkesbury- Nepean Flood Risk Management Taskforce.” The draft District Plan also addresses the mandate for the Hawkesbury- Nepean Flood Risk Management Taskforce (which is currently in Stage 2 of their review work) to look into flood management and preparedness in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. And yet DP&E informed PLDC late last year that the results of this Stage 2 work by Taskforce’s would be finalised earlier this year and until it was issued they could not consider rezoning the Site.
8 of 11
Key planning principles currently under investigation for future implementation as part of a formal statutory mechanism (such as a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)) include: - “avoiding intensification and new urban development on land below the current 1 in 100 chance per year flood event (1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event) - investigating the benefit of applying flood related development controls at levels higher than the current the current 1 in 100 chance per year flood level. This is in recognition of the higher flood depths above the current planning level (1 in 100 chance per year flood level) applied in this Valley and the potential impact on evacuation planning and property - providing for less intensive development or avoiding certain urban uses in areas of higher flood risk and allowing more intensive development in areas of lower flood risk, subject to an assessment of the cumulative impact of urban growth on regional evacuation road capacity and operational complexity of emergency management - balancing desired development outcomes in centres such as Penrith with appropriate flood risk management outcomes - avoiding alterations to flood storage capacity of the floodplain and flood behaviour through filling and excavation ('cut and fill') or other earthworks - providing for the application of more flood compatible building techniques and sub-division designs.” (our emphasis) This potentially presents a further layer of statutory planning affecting and complicating the future land use of the Site. And yet the draft District Plan does not specify the timing for the finalisation of this potential statutory mechanism or that of Stage 2 of the Taskforce’s review work. It is unclear how this may affect the requirements for evacuation planning sought under Part 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment. Despite the Taskforce’s work and the implementation of the water management system by PLDC over the Site (with the Minister’s consent), there have been numerous studies, in fact a total of 87 studies done since 1981 right up until this year - most of which are understood to have demonstrated that adequate flood evacuation can be achieved under a fuller development scenario for the Site (including that of residential development of some 4,000 dwellings). 3.4 Penrith Lakes Park Management Plan There is no longer any intention for there to be a Penrith Lakes Park within the Site. This original intention prior to this Draft SEPP Amendment was to make a small area of land as Park under the NPWS Act. However, this proposal has now been revoked. Despite this, clauses 23, 24 and 27 of the Draft SEPP Amendment require that development within land to be zoned Environment, Parkland and Waterway be consistent with this same and now redundant management plan. We understand that none of these lands or waterways is to be acquired, dedicated or managed by NPWS; therefore there is no need for this plan. Upon discussion with DP&E, they have confirmed that this plan is still yet to be drafted and implemented by an authority. This has not clarified what this plan is for or who this authority is, or what the plan is likely expected to regulate. Consequently this does not afford PLDC any appreciation of the implications of what this intended management plan may have to its land. 3.5 State Infrastructure Delivery required to be provided upfront for Urban areas but not Parklands, Waterways or Environment zoned areas Proposed clause 34 of the Draft SEPP Amendment requires that “satisfactory” arrangements are to be made for the provision of designated ‘State public infrastructure’ for the ‘urban release area’. ‘Urban Release Area’ includes land zoned for Tourism, Residential and Employment. Therefore, land zoned for Environment, Waterway and Parkland is not subject to the same test, but may be reliant on this same infrastructure (roads, services, etc). Therefore, it is questioned whether the burden of the responsibility and associated costs for these services may be borne by the land owner/s for Tourism, Residential and Employment zoned lands. It is also unclear what is State Infrastructure given that this is not specifically defined under the Draft SEPP instrument or explained in the EIE.
9 of 11
3.6 Drafting of a DCP for the Site and its development Under the note in Part 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment it states that the Secretary may prepare a DCP for zoned land in accordance with Division 6 of Part 3 of the EP&A Act. However, draft clause 21(2) indicates that this clause applies where it is prescribed by a DCP made by the Council. Conversely, the onus to prepare a DCP for the urban release area appears to rest with land owners (draft clause 36). Although not expressly mentioned by the EIE or in the draft SEPP amendments, the generalised zoning and delayed assessment approach is similar to the way in which the St Marys SREP operates. Contrary to the circumstances of the Site and the Draft SEPP Amendment, the St Marys SREP worked well given that: it was guided by a detailed structure plan that included provisions for infrastructure and development controls (ie. roads and filling of land); the land was in single ownership and control; the whole former St Marys ADI was fully zoned, whereas a part of the Penrith Lakes Site is proposed to be zoned. Like the approach to defer assessment of the Site’s suitability under Part 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment, the development of any DCP for the Site after it is rezoned is at odds with good planning practices. This lack of coordinated detail in the Draft SEPP Amendment again demonstrates no concept of site suitability or integrated urban design, delegating the fundamental details underpinning and informing the way the Site is to be developed to the post gazettal stage of the planning process. 3.7 The areas of land noted as Future Urban Release in the Structure Plan and that as defined as “urban release area” under the draft SEPP Amendment do not correspond The use of the term ‘urban release area’ is both confusing when this term is defined to mean different things under the Draft SEPP Amendment. Under clause 5 of the Draft SEPP Amendment “urban release area” is defined as: “land in any of the following zones: (a) Employment, (b) Residential (c) Tourism” Yet, under the definition Penrith Lakes Scheme under Schedule 1, the scheme includes “possible future urban purposes…” and the Structure Plan shows different lands as “Future Urban Release”.
10 of 11
SUMMARY Despite the short time with which to review the Draft SEPP Amendment and consider its consequences, the irregularity of the proposed amendments is seen to result in plethora of issues and uncertainties, as outlined in this submission. However in summary, we are of the view that the missing information and brief documentation supplied with the Draft SEPP Amendment and EIE makes it impossible for it to be comprehensively assessed in terms of its fuller impacts or longer terms intentions for the Site. This absence of information points to the proposed amendments as being baseless, unsubstantiated and result in questioning the Site’s suitability for what is proposed. The high degree of variation from standard and usual practices in both the making and structure of the Draft SEPP Amendment, make for an extraordinary and strange approach to land use planning for the Site. The consequence of this only stands to make the planning scheme applying to the Site much more and unnecessarily complicated. Based on the issues outlined in this submission PLDC fundamentally objects to the proposed Draft SEPP Amendment and requests that more detailed assessment and consultation be carried out with all affected landowners before proceeding with any Draft SEPP Amendment, and that substantial alterations be made to the Draft SEPP Amendment that that would enable realisation of the fuller Penrith Lakes Scheme as was always intended and has been expected for some time, by not only PLDC but also by the community, the Council and the NSW Government.
We trust full consideration will be given to the matters raised in the submission, and that PLDC is kept informed of the progress of the Draft SEPP Amendment. We hope that PLDC may also be provided the opportunity to meet with DP&E to resolve the issues outlined in this and any other written submission that PLDC may represent to DP&E. Should you have any queries about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me on 02 8934 0332 or [email protected].
Yours faithfully
Amanda Harvey Associate Director – Planning [email protected]
Attachment A – List of currently exhibited draft Policy and Plans by DP&E (obtained 22 Dec 2016)
11 of 11 22/12/2016 Department of Planning and Environment - Community Consultations
Your feedback can play a vital role in helping to plan for the future of your local area. We welcome your thoughts on our policies and plans, as well as major development proposals that the Department is assessing. Join others in your community in sharing your ideas through surveys, submissions, events and conversations on social media. Plans for Your Area
Draft New England North West Regional Plan Plans 19/12/2016 20/03/2017
Draft Far West Regional Plan Plans 13/12/2016 13/03/2017
Vineyard (Stage 1) Draft Plans Plans 12/12/2016 28/02/2017
Ingleside Draft Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy Plans 2/12/2016 28/02/2017
Arncliffe and Banksia Priority Precincts, Rezoning Proposal Plans 28/11/2016 28/02/2017
Bayside West Precincts (Arncliffe, Banksia and Cooks Cove) Land Plans 28/11/2016 28/02/2017 Use and Infrastructure Strategy
Previous consultations on plans
Policies
Draft Medium Density Design Guide and Explanation of Intended Policy 12/10/2016 23/12/2016 Effect for the new Medium Density Housing Code
Coastal reforms Policy 11/11/2016 20/01/2017
Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Policy 9/12/2016 23/12/2016 Amendment 2016
Fire Safety Reforms Policy 16/12/2017 31/01/2017
Improving voluntary planning agreements Policy 4/11/2016 27/01/2017
Review of State Environmental Planning Policy 44 (Koala Habitat Policy 18/11/2016 03/03/2017 Protection)
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Have-Your-Say/Community-Consultations 1/4 22/12/2016 Department of Planning and Environment - Community Consultations
Social Impact Assessment - Draft guidelines for State Significant Policy 08/12/2016 03/03/2017 mining, petroleum production and extractive industry development
Ivanhoe Estate - State and Regional Development SEPP listing Policy 07/12/2016 31/01/2017
Previous consultations on policies
Major Projects
06_0309 Trinity Point Drive Part 3A Modification to Mixed use marina/tourist/residential (Concept Plan) 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Mod (06_0309 MOD 3)
Berry and Walker Street, North Sydney Part 3A Modification to MP08_0238 - Commercial and Hotel development 18/11/2016 19/12/2016 Mod Berry/Walker Street
Berry and Walker Street, North Sydney Part 3A Modification to MP08_0238 - Commercial and Hotel development 18/11/2016 19/12/2016 Mod Berry/Walker Street
Cowal Gold Mine Part 3A 18/11/2016 8/12/2016 Cowal Gold Mine Mod 13 - Mine Life Extension Mod
DOOLEYS Lidcombe Catholic Club Hotel and Tourist Related Development - DOOLEYS Lidcombe SSD 16/11/2016 15/12/2016 Catholic Club
Eden Breakwater Wharf SSI 16/11/2016 16/12/2016 Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension
Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre Part 3A MP05_0147 MOD 12 - Modification to Project Application, Enfield 09/11/2016 28/11/2016 Mod Intermodal Logistics Centre
Frazer Park Quarry SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Resource Recovery Facility - Construction and Demolition Waste
Horsley Drive Business Park SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Proposed Warehouse/Distribution & Industrial Facility - Lot 3
Hunter Valley Operations Complex Part 3A HVO North - Modification 6 - Carrington Inâ€Pit Fine Reject 17/11/2016 01/12/2016 Mod Emplacement
Kurri Kurri Battery Recycling Facility SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Pymore Battery Recycling Facility, Kurri Kurri http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Have-Your-Say/Community-Consultations 2/4 22/12/2016 Department of Planning and Environment - Community Consultations
Newcastle Inner City Bypass Newcastle Inner City Bypass Rankin Park to Jesmond SSI SSI 16/11/2016 16/12/2016 Application
Oakdale South Industrial Estate SSD 96 (2) Modification to Oakdale South Industrial Estate - Concept 24/11/2016 09/12/2016 Mod Proposal and Stage 1 (SSD 6917 MOD 1)
Oakdale South Industrial Estate Oakdale South Stage 2 - Toyota Spare Parts Warehouse and SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Distribution Centre
Oakdale South Industrial Estate Oakdale South Stage 3 - Sigma Pharmaceutical Warehouse and SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Distribution Facility
Sandstone Precinct SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Stage 2 DA for tourist and visitor accommodation
Site 9, Sydney Olympic Park SSD 02/11/2016 01/12/2016 Site 9 Sydney Olympic Park - Mixed Use Residential Building
Switching Station and Star City Casino site Part 3A Modification to Switching Station / Star City Casino MP08_0098 03/11/2016 02/12/2016 Mod (MOD 14)
The Sandstone Precinct SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Modification to Tourism and Visitor Accommodation Mod
Walsh Bay Arts Precinct SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Walsh Bay Arts Precinct Stage 2
Wharf 4/5 SSD 17/11/2016 16/12/2016 Refurbishment of Wharf Theatre at Wharf 4/5, Walsh Bay
Previous consultations on major projects
SSD State Significant Development
SSI State Significant Infrastructure
VPA Voluntary Planning Agreement
Jobs NSW Department of Planning & Environment NSW Government
Contact Us Language assistance Copyright & Disclaimer Privacy Accessibility Sitemap http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Have-Your-Say/Community-Consultations 3/4 22/12/2016 Department of Planning and Environment - Community Consultations
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Have-Your-Say/Community-Consultations 4/4 REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 2
SUMMARY PREPARED BY MOLINO STEWART PTY LTD
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 2.doc | 12 August 2009
22/12/2016 Rhett Duncan General Manager Penrith Lakes PO Box 457, Cranebrook NSW 2749
Dear Rhett Re: Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Amendment 2016
Thank you for inviting me to provide an opinion on the flood safety issues in relation to the Penrith Lakes Scheme in light of the exhibition of the Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Amendment 2016.
It is understood that the deferment of the zoning of the potential urban area at Penrith Lakes in the SEPP is due to the State Government’s ongoing investigations into flood safety management throughout the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley and, in particular, the capacity to evacuate the floodplain in the event of an extreme flood.
Flood Evacuation Modelling
PLDC has commissioned evacuation modelling of Penrith Lakes with various stages of development, taking into consideration current and future development elsewhere in the Valley. It includes the potential for Penrith Lakes evacuation traffic to converge with other evacuation traffic in some circumstances.
This modelling suggests that some development of Penrith Lakes is possible without the need to construct new evacuation infrastructure provided that some changes are made to current evacuation arrangements in terms of routes and destinations. Full development of Penrith Lakes may be possible if new evacuation infrastructure is constructed. This is detailed in our report to PLDC of March 2016.
We appreciated that flood evacuation modelling commissioned by the Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Risk Management Taskforce (the Taskforce) reaches different conclusions. However, the Government has not provided the opportunity to review that modelling in any detail.
From what we understand, the two modelling approaches are based on the NSW SES Timeline Evacuation Model but appear to differ in a few key areas.
Evacuation Routes
Our modelling suggests that changes to existing evacuation routes can deal with existing traffic convergence problems and making these changes would not only deal with existing issues but provide capacity for some development at Penrith Lakes.
MOLINO STEWART PTY LTD ABN 95 571 253 092 ACN 067 774 332
PO BOX 614, PARRAMATTA CBD BC, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124 TEL: (02) 9354 0300 FAX: (02) 9893 9806 www.molinostewart.com.au ME_135223781_1 (W2007)
In summary, the existing evacuation traffic convergence issues can be dealt with by:
Rerouting Richmond evacuation traffic along Borrowdale Way through Cranebrook so that it does not block the evacuation of Cranebrook Village or Waterside Maintaining the contraflow lane on The Northern Road as per the NSW SES Flood Plan but extending it from Borrowdale Way to the Great Western Highway Diverting one lane of evacuation traffic from The Northern Road to the M4 via the Great Western Highway and the soon to be completed Kent Road on ramp Enabling the remaining two lanes of evacuation traffic from The Northern Road to enter the M4 via a reconfigured on ramp which allows two lanes to enter simultaneously Sending the relatively small amount of evacuation traffic from Mulgoa Road east on a contraflow lane on the M4 Sending evacuation traffic from Emu Plains and Leonay West on the M4 to accommodation in the Blue Mountains
This would create sufficient capacity on The Northern Road and M4 for about 1,300 dwellings to be evacuated from Penrith Lakes.
Additional evacuation capacity can be provided on The Northern Road for further development of Penrith Lakes by sending all Windsor traffic on the Hawkesbury Valley Way to Windsor Road. This simply requires the widening of this evacuation route in a few key locations.
Further development at Penrith Lakes would be possible if Bligh Park and Richmond traffic is sent east towards the M7 by upgrading sections of existing roads between Berkshire Park and Doonside. We have developed practical, affordable concept designs for these road upgrades.
Future Development
Our modelling allows for future development of the floodplain based on future development scenarios communicated to us by the Department of Planning in 2013. At a presentation to a quarterly meeting of Floodplain Management Australia in November, 2016, Maree Abood intimated that the Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Risk Management Taskforce (the Taskforce) modelling includes an allowance for tens of thousands of new residential lots in Richmond, Windsor, Bligh Park, Marsden Park and Penrith. We can only surmise that the Taskforce is assuming massive infill development in these areas in response to the NSW Government’s minimum lot size policy which was released in late 2014.
Business Vehicles
The PLDC model assumes as the worst case scenario an evacuation being called on a weekday evening when most dwellings would be occupied. We have assumed that 100% of dwellings are occupied and all vehicles at those dwellings need to evacuate. To account for some background traffic on the roads and to account for some people leaving businesses to get home we included some additional vehicles based on the number of business premises in the floodplain.
Any modelling that assumes all business premises would be fully occupied and all residential premises would be fully occupied when an evacuation is called is not realistic and would grossly overestimate the total number of vehicles which would need to evacuate in an actual flood.
PAGE 2 OF 4
Rainfall Distribution
The only government flood modelling which PLDC has been given access to is the one dimensional design flood model results for the Hawkesbury Nepean River. This has been used by PLDC’s flood modellers to calibrate a detailed two dimensional flood model of the Penrith Floodplain which allows accurate estimates of when evacuation routes are cut and development flooded. We have used the 72hr PMF flood in all of the evacuation modelling to represent the greatest number of vehicles which would need to evacuate and the fastest rate of flood rise.
We understand from Maree Abood’s presentation that the Taskforce has commissioned Monte Carlo analysis of a broad range of spatial and temporal rainfall distribution to investigate the full range of potential flood scenarios which need to be responded to and some of the events modelled present a worse case at Windsor than the 72hr PMF which we have used. We have no information as to whether they present a worse case at Penrith.
Emergency Response Classification
We have classified various subsectors on the floodplain in accordance with the NSW SES emergency response classification classes which includes low flood islands (areas which can be cut off by flooding and then overwhelmed), high flood islands (those which get cut off but which have some high ground above the reach of the PMF), those with rising road access (evacuees can drive out ahead of rising flood waters) and those with overland escape routes (evacuees can walk out on a rising pedestrian access ahead of rising floodwaters).
While vehicular evacuation routes from Penrith Lakes will flood before the urban developments do, we have classified Penrith Lakes as having an overland escape route as it is being designed and constructed in this way with paths which have a rising gradient to the flood free escarpment to the east. If Penrith Lakes were classified as a low flood island this would significantly increase loss of life risk estimates at Penrith Lakes.
Discussion
Flood evacuation planning is an important consideration for any proposed urban development in the Hawkesbury Nepean Floodplain and must be considered when rezoning Penrith Lakes. However, the little information we have on the NSW Government’s recent flood evacuation modelling would suggest that it is overly conservative.
We are also concerned that if the incorrect emergency response classification has been used for Penrith Lakes it would make the risk to life of development at Penrith Lakes appear much worse than it would be.
We would also be particularly concerned if unconstrained infill development is assumed as the future development scenario for low flood islands such at Richmond, Windsor and Bligh Park which cannot be developed to enable pedestrian evacuation escape routes as Penrith Lakes can be. If significant infill development is allowed in these areas it would seriously exacerbate the existing evacuation problems that many of these areas already have.
Richmond, Windsor and Bligh Park are low flood islands which must be evacuated in floods as common as a 1 in 30 chance per year event. These locations we expect are also those which would have the greatest risk of having their evacuation compromised if flooding rises more quickly than in the 72 hour PMF which we used in our modelling. There is no way to walk out of these areas to flood free land. Failure to evacuate these areas by vehicle before
PAGE 3 OF 4
their low lying evacuation routes are cut by flooding would necessitate a flood rescue operation at a scale never before attempted in Australia.
It would inconsistent for the State Government to allow these areas to be fully developed without any consideration of flood risk and in doing so decrease the capacity for development in parts of the floodplain with less risk (e.g. Penrith Lakes) which can be constructed with overland escape routes.
We have not been provided with sufficient information about the Taskforce modelling to be convinced that our assessment of the flood risks as Penrith Lakes incorrect. On the basis of the modelling we have undertaken it would be possible to safely evacuate about 1,300 dwellings from Penrith Lakes without the need to construct road infrastructure. We also estimate that carefully designed upgrades of existing roads would enable additional development to take place at Penrith Lakes.
Yours faithfully For Molino Stewart Pty Ltd
Steven Molino Principal
Y:\Jobs\2014\0642 Penrith Lake Flood Evacuation\Reports\Final\0642 planning instrument response letter final.docx
PAGE 4 OF 4 REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVAL OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 3.doc | 12 August 2009
PENRITH LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN : STAGE 1
August 2012 Cover Image: Penrith Whitewater Stadium 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1
Supporting documents by:
Prepared by
PENRITH LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
89 - 151 Old Castlereagh Road • Castlereagh • NSW 2749 PO Box 457 • Cranebrook NSW 2749 Telephone +61 2 4729 0044 • Facsimile +61 2 4730 1462 Contact: Dani Drewry Email • [email protected] Web • http://www.penrithlakes.com.au
Document Issue Date Checked WMP - Stage 1 A 20/07/2012 DD WMP - Stage 1 B 27/07/2012 DD WMP - Stage 1 C 03/08/2012 DD & MO WMP - Stage 1 D 03/08/2012 DD WMP - Stage 1 E 08/08/2012 WMP - Stage 1 F 14/08/2012 WMP - Stage 1 G 15/08/2012 4 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 7
2.0 THE 2012 SCHEME 17
3.0 FLOOD PROTECTION 27
4.0 WATER RETICULATION SYSTEM 41
5.0 WATER BALANCE AND LAKE OPERATING LEVELS 49
6.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 57
7.0 WORKS AND APPROVAL PROGRAM 65
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67
9.0 WATER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULES 71
10.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 81
11.0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND APPENDICES 83
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 5
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Sydney International Regatta Centre
6 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In partnership with the State Government of NSW (Government), Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) is implementing the Penrith Lakes Scheme including the construction of major lakes, infrastructure and associated water bodies under the terms of the 1987 Deed of Agreement (Deed).
Scheme implementation is being undertaken over a 30 year period. During this time the Water Management Plan has been updated and modified on several occasions to reflect changed circumstances, changes in technology, ongoing monitoring results, water management studies and operational experience gained by PLDC through the management of the newly formed water bodies.
PLDC manages the emerging lakes of the Scheme throughout their various stages of development until final dedication. To facilitate the end objectives for the Scheme, PLDC is developing the 2012 Water Management Plan.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The main purpose of the 2012 Water Management Plan is to provide a contemporary, holistic response to water management across the Scheme. This is inclusive of flood management, water supply, water reticulation, water quality and lake operating levels for the Scheme and to enable it to function efficiently within the parameters established by the Deed and development consents.
The Plan will be the final Water Management Plan taking the Scheme through to final dedication currently estimated to be in 2017.
1.2 AGREED APPROVAL PROCESS The 2012 Penrith Lakes Water Management Plan has been prepared to be generally in accordance with the 1998 Penrith Lakes Structure Plan as required under State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 and the Deed.
The 2012 Penrith Lakes Water Management Plan will be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for approval in two (2) stages. Stage 1 outlines the infrastructure to be delivered and lake operating levels to be achieved for the completed Scheme.
Stage 2 sets out the strategy and operational procedures required to achieve the contracted water quality targets and water management obligations for interim and long term functioning of the Lakes system.
1.2.1 Stage 1 - Infrastructure and Lake Operating Levels Stage 1 details the infrastructure works necessary to be implemented to complete the Scheme as well as establishing the optimum operating levels for each of the lakes and associated water bodies within the Scheme. These works complement the existing infrastructure constructed in earlier stages of the Scheme and complete a network of weirs, pipes and flowpaths that successfully manage all water movements. They are designed to meet the 100yr ARI flood event conditions.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 7
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Stage 1 of the Water Management Plan covers:
• Flooding Infrastructure • Water Reticulation • Water Balance • Lake Operating Levels • Water Supply Infrastructure
The Water Management Plan draws upon the most up to date studies and findings by expert consultants to ensure that it achieves a whole of site outcome in line with the objectives and requirements of the Deed and development consents.
Stage 1 will also include a draft Water Quality Strategy which outlines a process to guide PLDC in Government consultation/participation and the technical work necessary to complete Stage 2 of the Water Management Plan.
1.2.2 Stage 2 – Water Quality Stage 2 details the biological and other ecosystem factors which have been taken into consideration to meet the Lake end use water quality criteria. It is concerned with issues related to water quality, aquatic biology, ecosystem development, stormwater management and ground water management.
Stage 2 will be covered in a separate document and will include:
• Water Quality Criteria • Groundwater Management • Stormwater Management • Ecosystem Development • Fisheries Management • Lakes Operations Plan
Stage 2 of the Water Management Plan is to be lodged by 31 December 2012 (or as otherwise agreed) for the Director General’s consideration and ultimate approval.
1.3 STAGE ONE DOCUMENT STRUCTURE The Water Management Plan Stage 1 consists of seven key sections which provide background to components of the Plan and conclusions and recommendations. It also includes a section relating to the Stage 2 process and contains a detailed reference and bibliography section which outlines historical reports and studies, as well as supporting documentation relevant to the development of the 2012 Water Management Plan.
8 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Section 1 – Introduction. Outlines the purpose of the 2012 Water Management Plan and how it is being prepared, summarises the background to the Scheme, and the approval process being followed up to final dedication.
Section 2 – The 2012 Scheme. Discusses the Regional Environmental Study (RES) principles underpinning the Scheme design and the strategic approach that is being taken to deliver the Scheme.
Section 3 – Flood Protection. Describes the infrastructure needed to protect the Scheme during 100 year flood ARI events and to minimise impacts both upstream and downstream of the Scheme. Flood protection works include river to lake weirs, lake to lake weirs and flood outlet pipes.
Section 4 – Water Reticulation System. Describes the system of pipes, flow regulation devices, floodways and open channels that manage the movement of water from south to north though the Scheme.
Section 5 – Water Balance and Lake Operating Levels. Describes the operational levels of the various lakes and the methods by which these are maintained.
Section 6 – Water Supply System. Discusses the relocation of the Nepean river pump and pipeline to provide a suitable source of water to fill and maintain water levels within the Scheme.
Section 7 – Works and Approval Program. Summarises a program of works and time frame for delivery of water infrastructure.
Section 8 – Conclusion and Recommendations.
Section 9 – Water Management Schedules. Provides schedules for water management infrastructure, water quality criteria and lake operating levels.
Section 10 – Reference Documents.
Section 11 – Supporting Documentation & Appendices. Outlines the stakeholder consultation undertaken; provides a copy of the Tracey Brunstrom Hammond (TBH) Works Program and copies of the Cardno reports covering flood infrastructure concept design, flood modelling calibration and water balance and operating levels. The Penrith Lakes draft Water Quality Strategy and draft Concept Masterplan 2012 are also attached.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 9
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Penrith Lakes Scheme was envisaged in the early 1970’s and 1980’s as a ground breaking rehabilitation project which had its genesis in a joint PLDC and Government working party. The outcomes from the working party was a Regional Environmental Study (RES) completed in 1984 by the Department of Environment and Planning. The key considerations for the RES were:
1. Securing the long term orderly extraction of sand and gravel for Sydney’s building needs;
2. Providing significant social, community and environmental benefits for the residents of western Sydney by the creation of a major water-oriented recreation resource.
To give effect to the objectives of both parties as contained in the RES, the 1987 Deed of Agreement and a Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) were finalised to enable delivery of the Scheme and establish parameters for the Scheme’s ultimate completion.
Today these documents and subsequent planning instruments together with the broad principles established by the RES remain relevant in the formulation of the 2012 Water Management Plan.
The Deed outlines the original intentions for overall water management within the Scheme by both the Government and PLDC consistent with the preferred Scheme articulated within the RES. The Deed acknowledges that the effect of those intentions was likely to alter over the course of the development and delivery of the Scheme. The 2012 Water Management Plan represents the culmination of these changes and establishes the blueprint for completion of the Scheme and achievement of the objectives of both PLDC and Government.
The Scheme was envisaged to be sequentially quarried, rehabilitated and dedicated in stages as covered by DA2, DA3 and DA4. To date the land and lakes forming the Sydney International Regatta Centre have been dedicated to Government.
As the Scheme is now nearing completion and significant works have occurred in each stage, PLDC proposes to commence dedication of large parcels of land and lakes with a program to have final dedication by the 2016/2017 financial year.
10 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 1.4.1 The Water Principles Within the Deed, Schedule 7 – Water Principles outlines the original intentions of both the Government (on a long term basis) and PLDC (for the interim period until final dedication) for overall water management and provision of infrastructure within the Scheme. Since 1987 many additional studies, together with changes in technology, site management experience and the emergence of more efficient operational strategies has resulted in the development a contemporary water management plan.
Outside the “Water environment” section (chapter 8) of the RES, Schedule 7 of the Deed is the major guiding document for PLDC in the preparation of the 2012 Water Management Plan. Consequently the 2012 Water Management Plan will effectively update Appendix A of Schedule 7 contained within the Deed as reflected in Schedules 1 – 3 in this Plan.
PLDC is responsible for the preparation and implementation of procedures for the interim management of the lakes and associated water bodies until final dedication and for the preparation of a Completed Lakes Operations Plan to be provided to the Minister on final dedication.
The Completed Lakes Operations Plan will be developed progressively by reviewing and revising an Interim Lakes Operations Plan to reflect changed circumstances and improved knowledge gained by PLDC through the interim management stages. This Plan will be addressed in detail in Stage 2 of the Plan.
PLDC will also undertake all reasonable measures to achieve the water quality criteria appropriate to the end uses identified in the Water Principles or as otherwise agreed with Government.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 11
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS AGNES BANKS UNIVERSITY NORTH TO WEST GREAT RIVER WALK NATURE OF WESTERN RESERVE SYDNEY WINDSOR DOWNS NATURE RESERVE
C
A S CASTLEREAGH T L E FOREST R E C A A G ST YELLOWMUNDIE L H
E E
R REGIONAL PARK S PENRITH E C A
A
G
R LAKES H
P
R PROPOSED WESTERN SYDNEY ORBITAL M
O
E SCHEME A
D N
T ST MARY’S ADI
R CRANEBROOK E IV R N PENRITH A CBD E P E M4 MOTORWAY N Figure 1: Locality Map
PROSPECT THE GREAT WEST WALK RESERVOIR
WESTERN SYDNEY REGIONAL PARKLANDS
Figure 1: Location of the Penrith Lakes Scheme
12 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 1.5 SITE CONTEXT The Penrith Lakes Scheme is located within the Penrith LGA and is approximately 60km west of Sydney and approximately 2km north-west of Penrith. It is bound to the north by Smith Road, to the east by The Cranebrook Terrace and Castlereagh Rd and to the west and south by the Nepean River. The Scheme covers an area of approximately 1,935 hectares is located on the Nepean River floodplain with approximately 11kms of river frontage. The Scheme location within the greater Sydney region is shown in Figure 1.
1.6 SCHEME APPROVALS The delivery of the Scheme is governed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes) 1989 (formerly known as Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 11) and specific development approvals for the project. Works associated with the delivery of the Scheme have been primarily approved under four Development Applications.
Detailed rehabilitation works are approved though a ‘Two Year Plan’ process required by DA’s 2, 3 and 4. Other approvals will be sought as State Significant Development or through Penrith City Council as appropriate.
The 2012 Water Management Plan will replace all previously adopted water management plans for the Penrith Lakes Scheme. Existing and superseded plans are: • DA2 - Water Management Plan, 24 February 1987; • DA3 – Stage 1 Water Management Plan, as outlined in Condition 25 of DA3; Section 4.6 of the Statement of Environmental Effects for DA3 Penrith Lakes Extraction and rehabilitation Programme – April 1994 – Approved 17 February 1995; • DA3 – Stage 2 Water Management Plan, as outlined in Condition 25 of DA3; Section 4.6 of the Statement of Environmental Effects for DA3 Penrith Lakes Extraction and rehabilitation Programme – April 1994 – Approved 27 June 1995; • DA4 –Water Management Plan as outlined in Condition 27 of DA4 - granted consent on 9 September 1998 by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (ref P97/00237 Pt4); Section 5.1 of the Statement of Environmental Effects for DA4 – Penrith Lakes Scheme November 1997 – Approved 24 September 1998.
Of particular relevance to the future works required under the 2012 Water Management Plan is Development Application 4 (DA4), which was granted consent on 9 September 1998 by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (ref P97/00237 Pt4).
Condition 27 of DA4 specifically approved Section 5.1 of the Statement of Environmental Effects for DA4 – Penrith Lakes Scheme November 1997 as the approved Water Management Plan for the Scheme subject to further studies and refinement. This Plan was subsequently amended by Modification Applications 4 and 5 which were granted consent on 6 May 2011. These modifications allow for the construction of a flood discharge pipe and weir within the Wildlife Lake in lieu of Weirs 7 and 8 and its associated flood / reticulation pipeline.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 13
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS A further amendment, Modification 6 to DA4, was approved on 12 August 2012. This Modification contained Condition 27A of DA4 which reads as follows:
27A. By 31 March 2012, or as otherwise agreed by the Director-General, the Applicant shall review and update the existing Water Management Plan for the scheme to the satisfaction of the Director-General. The review and update of this plan must be prepared in consultation with OEH, DPI and Council; and cover the relevant aspects outlined in the Deed of Agreement for the Penrith Lakes Scheme, the proposed development in this consent, and the proposed development of the other development consents for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.
Following approval, the Applicant shall implement the updated plan to the satisfaction of the Director-General.
Note: Prior to approval of the revised Water Management Plan, the pre-existing Water Management Plan for the Penrith Lakes Scheme shall continue to apply to the development.
In consultation with the Department, it was subsequently agreed that the 31 March 2012 deadline date be extended to 29 June 2012 and further extended to 17 August 2012 for Stage 1 and 31 December 2012 for Stage 2.
Once approval of the 2012 Water Management Plan has been gained, Two Year Plan approval for the works needed to complete the Scheme will be sought from the Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DP& I) and where “building works” are involved Construction Certificate approvals will also be sought.
14 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 15
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Sydney International Regatta Centre
16 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2.0 THE 2012 SCHEME
2.1 2012 WATER CONCEPT SCHEME BACKGROUND The 2012 Water Management Plan is the culmination of many years of investigation, study, analysis and computer modelling. In recognising the dual goals of the Scheme, namely to supply the Sydney construction industry with sand and gravel, and to deliver a significant water-oriented recreational asset to the people of western Sydney in a cost- effective way, the RES identified a number of key principles to guide the overall design and delivery of the Scheme and these were incorporated in the Deed.
The 2012 Water Management Plan reflects these principles, the obligations under the Deed and the contemporary solutions for the effective management of water throughout the Scheme.
The RES recognised the significance of the river floodplain to the overall hydrology and health of the Nepean River. Considering the site location the RES states:
“The design of the lakes scheme should, as far as practicable, replicate the natural processes of lake formation usually associated with a river system meandering through a floodplain”
The RES also envisaged a Scheme that achieved diverse landform and landscaping outcomes based around the prior hydrology of the site. The 2012 Water Management Plan strives to achieve these goals and has adopted a design philosophy and approach which PLDC believes will do so.
These goals have been informed over a number of years by technical studies, detail strategies and other informing documents which are described in a work flow chart (refer to Figure 2: 2012 Water Management Plan Process Flow Chart).
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 17
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS INCOMING DOCUMENTS
PLDC SITEWIDE 1998 1984 REGIONAL DRAFT WATER DRAFT ABORIGINAL 1997 DEED OF VISUAL CONCEPT STRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT MASTERPLAN PLAN STUDY STRATEGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PLAN
TECHNICAL STUDIES AND DETAIL STRATEGIES
PROPOSED FLOOD SOUTHERN SCHEME STRATEGY CONCEPT WATER BALANCE INFRASTRUCTURE CALIBRATION WETLANDS DESIGN FRAMEWORK MASTERPLAN REPORT REPORT REPORT PRELIMINARY PRINCIPLES (CARDNO 2012) (CARDNO 2012) DESIGN (JWP 2012) (CARDNO 2012)
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
DRAFT CONCEPT DESIGN
ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT MODELLING INFRASTRUCTURE
FINALISE STAGE 1 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2012 WATER OPERATIONS QUALITY PLAN STRATEGY
Figure 2: 2012 Water Management Plan Process Flow Chart
18 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2.2 SCHEME DESIGN PRINCIPLES The 2012 Scheme has been designed to respect the hydrology of the Nepean River floodplain and to adopt a landscape context which reflects the natural processes and ecosystem as required in the RES. The extent to which this can be achieved will in large part be dictated by the primary objective of quarrying and its impact on the floodplain’s prior natural landscape and hydrology.
The rehabilitation of the floodplain into lakes and landforms following quarrying activities is driven by requirements of the Deed, subsequent development consents and other planning instruments such as the SEPP (Penrith Lakes) 1989 and Structure Plan while retaining the key principles established in the RES.
Among these is the need to deliver the Scheme within a cut-and-fill balance by either eliminating or minimising the importation or export of material. PLDC has largely been able to achieve this in delivering the completed Scheme.
The 2012 Scheme also strives to achieve diverse landforms and landscapes surrounding the series of interconnected lakes in order to deliver a fundamentally natural outcome. This has represented a significant challenge to PLDC over the years and the 2012 Water Management Plan does this as far as is practicable within the constraints outlined above.
2.3 SCHEME DELIVERY To achieve the Scheme delivery PLDC has adopted the following approach in arriving at the 2012 Water Management Plan:
Landform and Lake Construction Principles
• Design and deliver a series of interconnected lakes flowing naturally from south to the north and discharging into the Nepean River in the north of the site in the same way that the floodplain operated prior to quarrying; • Design the flow of water through the lakes by a gravity-fed system which as far as practicable replicates the natural path of water across the floodplain prior to quarrying (refer to Figure 3: Scheme Water Flow and Figure 4a & 4b: Gravity Flow Sections); • Design a system that as far as practicable returns pre-quarry flows to the Nepean River; • Create a number of associated water bodies and wetlands to optimise water quality and establish diverse ecosystems that will attract wildlife and plant species that may have flourished in a floodplain environment prior to European settlement; • Design and deliver the lakes and landforms to accommodate the end uses prescribed in the Deed or as otherwise agreed to optimise the social and recreational objectives of the Scheme; • Design and deliver a Scheme that not only respects but preserves as much of the Aboriginal, European and natural heritage values of the site as is practicable.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 19
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Howell’s House Wilchard Road Wetlands LEGEND
Direction of water flow Wildlife Lake Landers Inn
Lewis Lagoon
Hadley Park
Nepean Park The Escarpment Lagoons Lake B
Duralia Wetlands Duralia Lake
Lake A Cranebrook Lake
The Poplars North Pond Jackson’s Lane
McCarthy’s West Pond Cemetery Upper Wetlands Castlereagh Group Warm-Up Lake Middle Basin Quarantine SIRC Regatta Lake Lake Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
Figure 3: Scheme Water Flow (not to scale)
20 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Nepean River Southern Wetlands Quarantine Lake SIRC Lakes Lake A Lake B Wildlife Lake Nepean River
RL 26.0-20 25 25 20 RL 15.0 RL 15.0 20 RL 14.0 RL 13.5 15 RL 10.0 15 10 RL 6.0 10 05 05 0 0 Nepean River Pump and Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Hunts Gully Outlet Pipe
Southern FLOW
Nepean River Cell A Cell B Cell C Fresh Water Pond Quarantine Lake
2.0m RL 26.0 0.5m RL 25.0 RL 24.0 0.5m 25 0.5m RL 20.0 25 0.5m 20 RL 15.0 20 15 4.6m 15 10 10 05 Nepean River Pump and Pipe 05 0 0
Southern wetlands DETAIL OF TREATMENT TRAIN Figure 4a
Client: 2012 water management plan - stage 1 • penrith S12-0035 SK21 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Gravity Flow SECTIONS Aug 2012 ISSUE G
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS • LEVEL 2, 17 BRIDGE STREET • SYDNEY NSW 2000 • PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • AUSTRALIA • [email protected] • TELEPHONE +61 2 8272 4999 • FACSIMILE +61 2 8272 4998 Castlereagh Escarpment Catchment Castlereagh Road Cranebrook Lake Duralia Lake North Pond Middle Basin Final Basin SIRC Lakes
25 25 RL 18.0 RL 18.0 RL 16.5 20 RL 16.0 RL 15.5 RL 15.0 20 15 15 10 10 05 05 0 Additional catchment Additional catchment Sluice Gate 0 inflow to North Pond inflow to Final Basin
EASTERN FLOW
Escarpment Lagoons Church Lane Lagoon Lewis Lagoons Castlereagh Road Wildlife Lake
20 20 RL 16.6 RL 16.6 RL 14.3 15 15
RL 10.0 10 Additional catchment 10 inflow from Andersons and North Creek 05 05 Pipe Pipe 0 0 ESCARPMENT TO WILDLIFE LAKE FLOW PATH Figure 4b
Client: 2012 water management plan - stage 1 • penrith S12-0035 SK23 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Gravity Flow SECTIONS Aug 2012 ISSUE G
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS • LEVEL 2, 17 BRIDGE STREET • SYDNEY NSW 2000 • PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • AUSTRALIA • [email protected] • TELEPHONE +61 2 8272 4999 • FACSIMILE +61 2 8272 4998 Landscape Principles
• Establish aquatic habitats within the lakes themselves to enable fish, macro- invertebrates and macrophytes to prosper and create a healthy ecosystem for the lakes and ultimately the Nepean River system; • Design and deliver a terrestrial landscape that complements the aquatic ecosystems and assists in the treatment of water that enters the lakes from rainfall run-off; • Design a series of detention basins, wetlands and water quality devices to manage the stormwater inflows from the external catchment before they enter the lakes system to optimise water quality and the opportunities for safe recreational uses by the public as envisaged in the RES and Deed;
Structural Infrastructure Principles
• Minimise the number of man-made structures to manage this water transfer and where possible build these structures from natural materials to more faithfully replicate a natural landscape (see Figure 5 Flood Water Flow 100yr ARI); • Design and deliver a flood protection network which achieves an equivalent or improved flood impact on the Nepean River and surrounding areas in the 100yr ARI event; • Design and deliver a flood protection network which equalises the water levels between the Nepean River and the Scheme in a 100yr ARI event and allows floodwaters to recede at a rate that minimises the risk of scouring and damage to the riverbank and Scheme landforms; • Design and deliver a water supply system from the Nepean River to enable filling and topping up of the lakes for operational purposes as envisaged in the RES. (refer to Figure 5: Flood Water Flow 100yr ARI).
While there may at first glance appear to be a number of competing objectives, PLDC believes that 2012 Water Management Plan and Scheme very successfully achieves these objectives and optimises the targeted outcomes.
PLDC acknowledges that a recreational resource of this scale and complexity which will engender significant community interest will develop over a long period of time in much the same way as Centennial Park has done and Sydney Olympic Park is currently evolving.
Delivery by PLDC in accordance with the Deed and respecting the principles of the RES will provide a solid platform with innate flexibility that will enable the Scheme to successfully evolve over time in a way that meets the objectives of Government and the broader community. The 2012 Water Management Plan has been prepared with this in mind.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 25
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Nepean River Ford at Jacksons Lane
26 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 3.0 FLOOD PROTECTION
3.1 OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the flood protection works is to fill the lakes with water during the early stages of a flood and should there be any overtopping of the river banks, then the water level in the lakes are designed to equalise with the water level in the river. This will minimise the area of bank that would be exposed to scouring flows. Control weirs interconnecting the lakes with the river and to each other are required to achieve this objective (Penrith Lakes Scheme - Regional Environmental Study 1984).
3.1.1 Strategic Framework – Flood Protection In the following goals, objective and policy the abbreviation STS refers to items which PLDC have included in its master program.
GOAL: Minimise potential of flood impacts within the Scheme both upstream and downstream of the Scheme with no adverse effect on flooding in the Nepean River.
Objective: To construct Scheme landforms and structures that are cost-effective and achieve the primary goal of flood protection.
Policy: Weirs and infrastructure to be designed with the capability to meet conditions of a 100yr ARI flood event.
Short Term Strategy (STS): Undertake extensive flood modelling to verify capabilities against the peak water levels for the 100 yr ARI as well as considering the 200 yr ARI and the peak water levels recorded from the 1978 and 1990 floods.
STS: Design infrastructure on a cost effective basis taking into consideration the long term maintenance and capital costs.
STS: Design the infrastructure to minimise flood impacts both upstream and downstream of the Scheme.
STS: Design infrastructure with minimal visual impact on the Scheme.
Policy: Maintain the structural integrity of the banks between the Nepean River and Lakes within the Scheme.
STS: Conduct flood modelling to determine velocity and quantities of water overtopping weirs located along the river.
STS: Design weirs to cost-effectively cope with water velocity and quantity.
STS: Minimise the structures and intrusions on the riverbank to optimise stability and respect natural heritage and Aboriginal heritage areas.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 27
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Howell’s House Wilchard Road Wetlands
LEGEND Wildlife Lake Landers Inn Direction of water in flow during flood Lewis Lagoon event
Direction of water out flow following flood event
Hadley Park Nepean Park
Lake B The Escarpment Lagoons
Nepean River Nepean Duralia Wetlands
Duralia Lake
Lake A Cranebrook Lake
The Poplars
North Jackson’s Lane Pond
McCarthy’s West Pond Cemetery Wetland Upper Castlereagh Middle Group Warm-Up Lake Basin
Quarantine SIRC Regatta Lake Lake Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
Figure 5: Flood Water Flow 100yr ARI (not to scale)
28 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Policy: The Scheme to have capacity for flood storage, and to accept specific frequency flooding into individual lakes. STS: Refine the flood protection concept plan as the lake design is refined. STS: Model movement of flood waters in different flood events to determine specific lake capacities.
Policy: Preclude urban development from lands below the 1:100 year flood level and protect other structures below that level. STS: Conduct flood modelling to determine the limits of 1:100 year flood events. STS: Design and construct flood mitigation works.
3.1.2 Performance Criteria Performance criteria for flood overtopping and filling of the lakes has been developed having regard to principles outlined in the RES and Deed. The details of flood modelling for the Scheme are provided in the Cardno Infrastructure Concept Design Report (July 2012) at Appendix 1. The key performance criteria are as follows:
1:10 yr ARI Event During the early part of the flood event, the Wildlife Lake starts to fill through Wildlife Lake weir in the north. Overtopping of Wildlife Lake weir will occur in events greater than a 10 year ARI. All other lakes will have controlled flows during these events.
Upstream catchment flows will enter the detention basins on the eastern side of the lake and be processed through a series of treatment ponds prior to entering the main lakes system.
1:25 yr ARI Event Weir 3 starts to overtop in events greater than the 25 year ARI. During this event waters will commence the filling of Lake A. Once Lake A reaches the crest level of Weir 4 (RL15), Lake B will commence filling. Once the two lakes equalise, then Lake A and B behave as a singular lake. As the two Main Lakes fill, the Regatta Lake and Quarantine Lake will start to fill through the Regatta Lake flowpaths. Meanwhile, Wildlife Lake is still filling through the Wildlife Lake weir.
1:70 yr ARI Event Once the Main Lakes have filled to the crest level of Weir 6 (RL20), it begins to overtop into the Wildlife Lake. Around this time, the overtopping of Weir 6 fills the Wildlife Lake such that it reverses the direction of flow through Wildlife Lake weir and water begins to flow from the lake into the Nepean River.
1:100 yr ARI Event The peak water levels for 100year ARI within the Lakes and surrounding areas are shown in Table 1. The water level differences to Pre-Quarry flood levels during the 100 year ARI show a reduction in peak levels in the order of -0.3 to -0.7m
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 29
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Figure 6 is an example illustrating the potential durations which landform areas above operating level may be inundated following a 100 year ARI event.
Figure 6: Inundation Period During Flood Events
Table 1: Peak Flood Levels (100 year ARI) LOCATION 100YR ARI PEAK WATER LEVEL Quarantine Lake 22.4 Regatta Lake 22.4 Lake A 22.4 Lake B 22.4 Wildlife Lake 20.5 Waterside Green 22.19 Cranebrook Village 21.74 Penrith Industrial Area 25.88 Emu Plains 24.02
3.1.2.1 Flood Recession As the flood through theNepean River recedes, overtopping of Weir 3 ceases. Following this, Weir 6 ceases overtopping and finally flows through Wildlife Lake weir cease.
After the flood has receded, the Lakes are still elevated above their normal operating levels. Flood outlet pipes located in the Wildlife Lake and combined Main Lakes allow the flood waters to drain to the Nepean River and allow the lakes to return to normal operating levels. The time taken for each lake to return to normal operating levels following the different flood events above the 1 in 10 ARI is shown in Table 2. The 10y ARI affects the Wildlife Lake only.
30 AUGUST 2012 2012 water management plan: stage 1 • Issue G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Table 2: Time Taken To Return To Operating Level
LAKE 1:25 1:50 1:100 Quarantine Lake n/a 14 Days 29 Days Regatta Lake n/a 14 Days 29 Days Lake A n/a 14 Days 29 Days Lake B n/a 14 Days 29 Days Wildlife Lake 15 Days 15 Days 15 Days
3.1.3 Priority Actions The priority actions are: • On approval of the Water Management Plan Stage 1 lodge Two Year Plans for minor variations to the design of Weir 6 (from RL 21 to RL 20) and/or flood cells around Nepean Park and Hadley Park as appropriate and once approval is obtained commence construction of the modified landforms by October 2012; • On approval of the Water Management Plan carry out detail design of Weir 3 (including flood outlet pipes) and Weir 4, lodge a Two Year Plan for these structures and on approval commence construction of Weir 4 by December 2012; • Call for tenders for Weir 3 in January 2013, let tender in April 2013, lodge a Construction Certificate application and commence construction by June 2013.
3.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILS 3.2.1 Concept Design The location of the Lakes Scheme on a floodplain requires the overall Scheme to be designed to adequately cope with flooding from local catchments and the Nepean River system. Local catchment flooding is managed through the Farrell’s Creek diversion works that have been approved and constructed.
Nepean River flooding of the Scheme was assessed in the RES process in 1983 and 1984. A concept plan was developed in 1983 which admitted floodwaters into the Scheme during the early stages of Nepean River flooding. The intended objective was to fill the lakes prior to over-bank flow to eliminate potential damage caused by scouring of the lakeside banks. This concept remains valid for the 2012 Water Management Plan.
In 2005 the Penrith Lakes Water Committee reviewed the Water Principles and the 1998 Water Management Plan. The Committee concluded that ‘The existing lakes have generally performed well under existing conditions, meeting Water Plan standards.’
In relation to flooding the Committee investigated the feasibility of increasing the weir heights to the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 year flood levels as a way to reduce the number of inundations and the impact of the poor water quality of the Nepean River on the ecological values of the Lakes Scheme.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 31
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Advice obtained by PLDC was that ‘this is not a desirable option due to the increased potential for scouring under the higher head conditions involved. However, increasing the weir height in the Wildlife Lake to cater for a 1 in 10 year flood event may be feasible. Given the potential benefits, further advice should be sought on the cost effectiveness of raising the weirs in the Main Lakes’ (PLWC, 2005). This advice was accepted by PLDC and is incorporated in the Water Management Plan.
In 2008, a two dimensional computational model was developed by Cardno to enable better assessment of the impacts of the Scheme design upon the surrounding area and to produce the information which forms the basis of the current flood assessments. A lengthy calibration and verification process was undertaken with a physical model and other computer models for the Penrith area. Participating in the process were Manly Hydraulics Laboratory, Worley Parsons, WMAwater, OEH, and Penrith City Council (Cardno, 2010).
Studies and the extensive modelling carried by Cardno led to a number of changes to flood infrastructure and the reticulation network which provide significant benefits to the Scheme. In particular this process has resulted in a significant reduction in lake to river structures by relocating Weir 7 ( RL10.9) from the riverbank to PLDC owned land in the north west corner of the Wildlife Lake and the capacity to rely solely on Weir 3 into Lake A.
The Calibration and Validation of the hydraulic model developed by Cardno was accepted by the Office of Environment and Heritage (formally DECCW) and Penrith City Council at a meeting in October 2009 as set out over: • The SOBEK model as presented in Cardno’s calibration report is accepted as being calibrated to both the 1978 and 1990 floods. • The SOBEK model has been validated against the physical ‘Alignment’ model for the 100yr ARI and the 200yr ARI design floods. • The SOBEK model is accepted for the purpose of assessing the hydraulic impacts of works planned as part of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. Subsequent investigations and modelling were undertaken by Cardno to develop an optimal flooding concept design for the Scheme given the requirements of the Deed and in particular DA4. This work included:
• Re-assessing interim flood plans. • Updating data for the final design of flood protection structures. • Re-assessing the potential flood risks during major flood events to identify practical solutions to address these risks. • Ensuring Nepean River flooding is not adversely affected. • Ensuring the lake water levels are high prior to over-bank flow occurring to prevent scouring. • Ensuring that weirs located on the riverbank are approximately equivalent to: –– Lake A – 1 in 25 years return period. –– Wildlife Lake – 1 in 10 years return period.
32 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS WMAwater (WMAwater, 2010) undertook an independent peer review of the flood model and Scheme design and concluded the following:
• The SOBEK model has been calibrated and verified appropriately against available data from historical flood observations and physical modelling; • Appropriate sensitivity modelling has been undertaken to determine the influence of varying key model inputs on the estimated flood behaviour; • The model is fit-for-purpose in the investigation of flood impacts resulting from development approaches in the Penrith Lakes Development Area, and the development of a concept design for flood infrastructure at Penrith Lakes. In relation to the flooding infrastructure proposed by Cardno, WMAwater concluded that:
the general simplification of the scheme (fewer lakes, significantly less engineered weir structure between the river and lakes) is likely to result in less complex flow behaviour and reduced reliance on assumed design flood behaviour characteristics than the previous scheme, resulting in more robust flood mitigation performance; and the estimated impacts on flood risk at Cranebrook Village may require further analysis before being deemed acceptable by approving authorities and/or the affected community. The scheme has been optimised to produce a beneficial scenario for the 100yr ARI.
3.2.2 Impacts and Mitigating Measures A comparison of the current design proposals with those of the ‘base case’, namely the pre- quarry situation indicates significantly improved outcomes for the 1 in 100 year flood event:
• A considerable reduction overall in the number of properties likely to have over- floor flooding • A considerable reduction overall in the cost of flood damage • Reduction in peak water levels at Emu Plains and Penrith • Reduction in flood levels by up to 1.3 metres in Cranebrook Village • Reduced peak flow velocities near Nepean Park. As can be seen in Figure 7: Water Management Plan Flood Infrastructure and Reticulation other beneficial outcomes of the revised design include:
• Riverbank intrusions have been reduced and hence there will be less disturbance to the in situ riverbank. • Potential impacts on both natural and Aboriginal heritage areas have been significantly minimised in the Hunts Gully Conservation Zone. • Visual amenity within the Scheme and downstream of the Wildlife Lake weir has been improved.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 33
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 3.2.3 Detailed Design and Further Studies 3.2.3.1 Detailed Design - Infrastructure Table 3 below sets out the remaining flood protection infrastructure required to complete the Scheme as determined by the extensive flood modelling conducted by Cardno over the past 3 years. This is explained in detail in the Cardno Flood Infrastructure Concept Design Report (July 2012) which is provided in Appendix 1.
Table 3: Flooding Infrastructure
ADEQUATE REFERENCE DESCRIPTION CAPACITY CONCEPTUAL DETAILS *
Weir 3 Weir 3 is the primary control for Peak flow of Weir Width 400 – 500m floodwaters entering the Lakes Scheme 1,740 m3/s Weir Crest Height – 20.9 mAHD from the Nepean River Scour Protection – Gabions / Reno Mattress
Weir 4 Weir 4 is a low level broad embankment Peak flow of Weir Width 450 – 550m between Main Lakes A and B. The weir 1,650 m3/s Weir Crest Height – 15.0 mAHD quickly overtops in flood events, allowing Scour Protection - Grass the two lakes to act as a single water body.
Weir 6 Weir 6 is the primary control for the spill Peak flow of Already constructed to: of floodwaters from the Main Lakes into 1,640 m3/s the Wildlife Lake. It controls the water Weir Width: 440m levels within the Main Lakes, as well as Weir Crest Height: 21.0 mAHD Quarantine and Regatta Lakes. Minor amendment recommended to achieve a crest height of 20m AHD. Weir Crest Height – 20.0 mAHD (for approval) Scour Protection - Grass
Wildlife Lake The Wildlife Lake Weir serves two Peak flow of Under Construction Contract: Weir purposes. It conveys inflows from the 490 m3/s Stage 1: Nepean River during the early part of the (stage 1) Central Weir Width: 65m flood, and outflows from the Lakes during 1,110 m3/s Central Weir Crest Height: 16.0mAHD the latter part of the flood. This weir was (stage 2) Stage 2: approved in Modification 5 of DA4. Total Weir Width: 150m Total Weir Crest Height: 18.5mAHD Scour Protection – Concrete / Grass
Regatta Flow The Regatta Flow Path is a low level flow Peak flow of Base Width: 25 - 75m Path path between the Lake and Regatta Lake 590 m3/s Crest Height: 16.5 mAHD that convey floodwaters into the Regatta Flowpath Length: ~ 225 m Lake. Scour protection - Grass
34 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS ADEQUATE REFERENCE DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL DETAILS CAPACITY
Duralia to The Eastern Lakes are a series of lakes Peak flow of 0 Base Width: 250 - 350m Main Lake to the east of the Main Lake. The majority m3/s Crest Height: 22 mAHD Flow path of these lakes are disconnected from the Scour protection - Grass Main Lake during a 100 year ARI flood by high ground levels. There are two flow paths which connect the Eastern Lakes with the Main Lakes: Main Lake to Duralia and Duralia to North Pond.
Duralia to There are two flow paths which connect Peak flow of Base Width: 100 - 200m North Pond the Eastern Lakes with the Main Lakes: 60 m3/s Crest Height: 19.0 mAHD Flow path Main Lake to Duralia and Duralia to North Scour protection - Grass Pond.
Main Lake These pipes are provided to return the Draw down 2 x 1,350mm concrete pipe with Flood Outlet Lakes Scheme to normal operational rate <0.5m appropriate energy dissipation and Pipes levels following a significant flood event. day flood flaps installed
Wildlife Lake This pipe is provided to return the Lakes Draw down Under Construction Contract; Flood Outlet Scheme to normal operational levels rate <0.5m 1 x 1,350mm concrete pipe with Pipe following a significant flood event. day appropriate energy dissipation and As per Modification 4 of DA4. flood flaps installed
Flood Cells The Riverbank flood cell prevents the Peak flow of 0 Length: 5.7km (approximate) inflow of floodwaters into the Lakes m3/s Crest Height Ranges from: 24.7 – Scheme until the lake levels are close to 21.0 mAHD the Nepean River levels. This protects the integrity of the riverbank.
* The conceptual details may vary slightly during the detailed design process.
The proposed flooding infrastructure is shown in Schedule 1 of the Water Management Plan, along with concept design specifications. The exact location and dimensions of flooding infrastructure may change in the detailed design process although based on preliminary modelling undertaken by Cardno it is expected that they will remain generally consistent with those described in Schedule 1.
3.2.3.2 Further Studies No further studies are proposed. PLDC has obtained comprehensive advice from a number of independent experts and consultants which, together with extensive physical and computer modelling, has formed the basis of the Scheme concept developed by Cardno and set out in their report at Appendix 1.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 35
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 3.3 RELEVANT EXISTING APPROVALS Existing approvals for flood infrastructure are contained in DA4. All weirs and flood outlet pipes remaining to be built are approved by DA4. The 2012 Water Management Plan alters the specification of these structures. On approval of the Plan, Two Year Plan approvals and Construction Certificates will be sought for construction of this infrastructure.
The necessary approvals for flood cells and flowpaths will be obtained through the Two Year Plan process under DAs 2, 3 and 4 as appropriate.
3.4 APPROVALS REQUIRED 3.4.1 Water Plan Approval Approval of the 2012 Water Management Plan by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is required.
3.4.2 Two Year Plans and Construction Certificates Two Year Plan approvals and, in some instances Construction Certificate approvals, are required to deliver the flood infrastructure detailed in the 2012 Water Management Plan. Construction Certificates are not required in relation to Weirs 4 and 6 or to the Flood Cells as no works associated with the construction of these items fall within the definition of “building works” under the EP&A Act but are covered under rehabilitation works in DA4. Construction Certificates may be required for a sluice gate in Weir 4 and rip-rap or other edge treatments for flowpaths.
Table 4: Approvals Required PROPOSED DESCRIPTION TWO YEAR PLAN CONSTRUCTION ITEM STATUS CERTIFICATE STATUS Weir 3 400 - 500m long weir set to RL 20.9 Approval Required CC Required between Lake A and the Nepean River. Weir 4 450-500m long weir set to RL 15 between Approval Required Not Required Lake A and Lake B Weir 6 440m long weir set to RL 20.0 between Already constructed - Two Not Required Lake B and the Wildlife lake. Year Plan amendment to reduce crest height from RL21 to RL 20 required Wildlife Lake Stage 1: 65m long weir set to RL 16.0 on Approval Required CC Required Weir the northern bank of the Wildlife Lake at Hunts Gully. Flood cells There are a number of flood cells set to Approval Required Not Required RLs 24.1, 23.9, 23.4, 23 and 21.9m as per Figure 6. Construction method is grass protected earth bund - They were not identified within the 1998 WMP. Weir 3 Flood 2 x 1350 mm concrete pipe located under Approval Required CC Required Outlet Pipe Weir 3 to drain excess flood water from Lake A Wildlife Lake 1350mm concrete pipe located in the Approval Required CC Required Flood Outlet Nepean River bank to drain excess flood Pipe water from the Wildlife Lake.
36 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS L = 65m LEGEND RL = 16.0 Wildlife Lake Weir Reticulation Facilities Indicative Location Flood Cell Wilchard Road 21.9m AHD 6 Wetlands Flood Cell Flood Outlet Pipe Wildlife Lake approx. 110 ha Overland Flow Channel OWL 10m AHD Reticulation Pipe (Gravity) Flood Cell Flood Cell 22.0m AHD 7 23.0m AHD Water Source Pipe (pump) Lewis Pump Station Flood Cell 5 Lagoon Sluice Gate 21.9m AHD Weir 6 16 L = 440m Weir RL = 20.0 Floodway The Escarpment Wetland System Flood Cell Lagoons 22.0m AHD Lake B Flood Cell Flood Cell approx. 121 ha 23.0m AHD 23.2m AHD OWL 13.5m AHD
Eastern Lakes Floodway 19 W = 300m Nepean River Nepean Weir 4 RL = 22.0 Duralia 20 L = 500m RL = 15.0 Wetlands Duralia Lake A Lake 8 Flood Cell approx. 318 ha 17 Cranebrook Lake 24.1m AHD Weir 3 OWL 14m AHD L = 420m 9 RL = 20.9 Floodway 4 W = 140m Flood Cell Regatta Flow Path The Poplars RL = 19.0 24.1m AHD W = 75m RL = 16.5 North Pond 11 10 12 3 McCarthy’s Cemetery West Pond Wetlands Middle Flood Cell Basin 24.7m AHD Warm-up Lake Quarantine Lake approx. 42 ha Regatta Lake approx. 80 ha OWL 15m AHD OWL 15m AHD 14 2 13 18 Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
1 15
Note: lengths and heights shown here may vary, refer to Schedule 1 for approved dimensions
Figure 7: Water Management Plan Flood Infrastructure and Reticulation (not to scale)
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 37
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 3.4.3 Controlled Activity Approvals and Licences In certain instances, particularly in relation to works within the riverbank, separate permits, licences and controlled activity approvals associated with a range of legislation that is relevant to the site may be required. These separate legislative approvals will be identified and sought during the detailed design phase for each item of infrastructure and will cover, although not limited to the following operations and maintenance.
3.5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 3.5.1 Operations and Maintenance Schedule Operations and Maintenance Schedules will be developed during the detailed design phase of each item of infrastructure and delivered to Government (end owner) upon dedication. These Schedules will provide at least the following details:
• Design and Construction Warranties; • Detailed Design, Construction and Works-as-executed drawings; • Detailed operational procedures for each individual item of Infrastructure with specific relevance to the function/role it serves within the overall Flood Scheme Design and contained in the Completed Lakes Operations Plan; • Detailed Maintenance Schedule for each individual infrastructure having regard to the applicable Design, Construction and Supply Insurances and Warranties • Specification/s for each item of infrastructure.
3.5.2 Design and Construction Warranties Where Infrastructure works involve “building works” that necessitate a Construction Certificate approval/s, PLDC will, where appropriate, arrange for Design and Construction warranties to be novated to the Government in accordance with existing industry practices. These Indemnities and Warranties will include those of the Principal Design Consultant (in the form of Professional Indemnity) Insurances, Principal Contractor Warranties and where relevant, Supply Warranties.
3.5.3 Inspections The Operations and Maintenance Schedule will include details of regular inspections where these are required to ensure a proper maintenance regime is in place.
38 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 39
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Duralia Lake on the eastern boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme
40 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 4.0 WATER RETICULATION SYSTEM
4.1 OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the water reticulation system is to maintain the optimum operating levels of the lakes in differing operational circumstances while preventing levels reaching a height which may result in damage to infrastructure. Pipelines, flowpaths and open channels large enough to move the water caught in each lake’s catchment area in storm events are required to achieve this objective (Department of Planning 1984).
4.1.1 Strategic Framework
GOAL: To develop a reticulation system of pipes, flowpaths, sluice gates and open channels to manage the movement of water throughout the site for operating purposes and minimise the potential for localised flooding to damage lake infrastructure.
Objective: To provide lakes with the capacity to maintain desired operating levels and shed water collected during rain events that is excess to that required to maintain operating levels.
Policy: Infrastructure to be installed with the capacity to move water which falls in storm event.
Short Term Strategy (STS): Identify catchment areas that supply water to the Scheme.
STS: Conduct modelling to determine flowpaths, channel and/or pipe locations and specifications to efficiently move water by gravity through the Lakes’ system in various storm events.
STS: Construct or install pipes, flowpaths, sluice gates and open channels in accordance with the Scheme design.
GOAL: Minimise adverse impacts on water quality within the Scheme.
Objective: To manage water that does not meet the water criteria standards through a system of detention basins, wetlands and water quality control ponds before entering the Main Lakes of the Scheme.
Policy: A network of water management structures to be constructed and operated in accordance with the 1987 Deed.
STS: Install and operate pipes, flow regulation devices, flowpaths and channels between water bodies so that sub-quality water can be retained in the detention system before being moved by gravity into the lakes system to maintain operating levels.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 41
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS STS: Conduct ongoing water testing to assess the quality of water prior to opening the flow regulation devices.
STS: Provide the SIRC with operational use of the flow regulation device at the Final Basin during regattas and sporting events.
STS: Design and construct a series of wetlands south of Old Castlereagh Road and a Quarantine Lake to treat water supplied from the Nepean River to the Scheme through the Regatta Lakes.
4.1.2 Performance Criteria The proposed performance criteria of the scheme are based on the above objectives and policies. Cardno has modelled the performance of the reticulation infrastructure and concludes that it is appropriate for maintaining operating levels in the lakes, minimising the impacts of stormwater inflow, achieving optimal protection of scheme assets and in assisting in maintaining water quality (Cardno, July 2012, Water Balance and Lake Operating Level Report).
4.1.3 Priority Actions The priority actions are: • On approval of the Water Management Plan Stage 1, lodge Two Year Plans for the construction of an open channel and sluice gate to Weir 4 by December 2012; • Lodge Two Year Plans for flowpaths between Duralia Lake and Lake A, between Duralia Lake and North Pond, between Lake A and SIRC Warm-up Lake and for the southern wetlands by December 2012 and ; • Obtain S75W approval for use of Lewis Lagoon as a water quality control pond to protect the Wildlife Lake; • Finalise the State Significant Development (SSD) application for the Nepean Pump and Pipeline by December 2012, • Complete the reticulation pipe between Lake B and the Wildlife Lake; • Document procedures for the interim operations of the Final Basin flow regulation device.
4.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILS 4.2.1 Concept Design Reticulation pipelines allow water to pass from lake to lake, from south to north, through a gravity system when individual lakes reach operating level. Water excess to overall Scheme requirements can be discharged at any time to the Nepean River through the Wildlife Lake flood outlet pipe or, in significant storm events, through the two flood outlet pipes in Lake A, all of which are designed for dual purposes.
The flowpaths are designed to manage water flows after significant storm or flood events to mitigate damage to landforms and lake infrastructure. They will be incorporated in the
42 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Scheme landform design as natural features. Open channels and wetlands will be designed to move water through landscaped and vegetated areas to provide treatment for water quality and topping up of the lakes to achieve or maintain operating levels.
Many of these works have been completed under DAs 2 and 3 and corresponding Two Year Plans. The new works proposed in the 2012 Water Management Plan complement these works in a whole of site system.
A system of pipes, flow regulation devices, flowpaths and open channels manages the movement of water throughout the Scheme. Much of the external catchment runoff enters the Scheme through the already constructed Eastern Lakes - a series of small lakes and treatment ponds and basins (Duralia Lake, North Pond, Middle Basin, Final Basin) that lie to the east of Lake A.
Their operating levels vary between 15mAHD and 18mAHD. Two flow paths will be constructed to connect the Eastern Lakes with Lake A (from Duralia) and to connect Duralia to North Pond during flood events greater than the 100yr ARI. The Eastern Lakes also supply the Regatta Lake and flow from these is controlled by a flow regulation device between the Regatta Lakes and Final Basin.
At the northeastern end of the Scheme external catchment runoff flows into Lewis Lagoon and from there into the Wildlife Lake across a floodway west of new Castlereagh Road. Lewis Lagoon has been constructed and operates as a water quality control pond for water entering the Wildlife Lake.
The flows from lake to lake, to achieve desired operating levels and to allow excess water to return to the Nepean River, are mainly by gravity but include flow regulation devices such as sluice gates for operational flexibility. As far as practicable the reticulation system replicates the natural flow of water across the floodplain to the river as recommended in the RES.
The reticulation system is shown in Figure 7 Water Management Plan Flood Infrastructure and Reticulation.
4.2.2 Impacts and Mitigating Measures The reticulation system has been designed following extensive modelling by Cardno. It is based on a gravity flow system that is initially fed from the eastern catchment through a detention system and in the south from the Nepean River by the water supply system discussed in Section 6 of the Stage 1 Plan.
The system design comprises primarily open channel and overland flowpaths. This achieves a natural landscape, more in keeping with a parkland setting, and minimises recurrent maintenance and costly replacements generally associated with metal, PVC or concrete structures such as pipes. The flow regulation devices are designed for easy access for maintenance and operational purposes.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 43
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 4.2.3 Detailed Design and Further Studies 4.2.3.1 Detailed Design - Infrastructure Proposed for Scheme The reticulation system proposed for the Scheme is shown in Table 5. The pipeline and pumping system to supply the Scheme is considered further in Section 6, Water Supply System.
Table 5: Infrastructure and Reticulation Works – Complete and to be constructed
REFERENCE+ ITEM DESCRIPTION STATUS
1 750 – 1100 mm1 Pipeline from Nepean River Pump – to carry a flow of 1.0 m3/s To be constructed 2 1200 mm diameter pipeline to SIRC Complete 3 1500 mm diameter pipeline SIRC to Lake A Complete 2 x 1350 mm2 pipeline Main Lakes to Nepean River (for reticulation and flood 4 To be constructed water draw down) 5 900 mm diameter pipeline Lake B to Wildlife Lake Complete
6 1 x 1350 mm pipeline Wildlife Lake to Nepean River (for reticulation and flood To be constructed water draw down) 7 5 x 3m x 0.9m culverts Lewis Lagoon to Wildlife Lake Complete 8 900 mm diameter pipeline Cranebrook Lake to Duralia Lake Complete 9 900 mm diameter pipeline Duralia Lake to North Pond Complete 10 2 x 900 mm pipes connecting West and North Ponds Complete 11 Overflow weir 20m crest width on Farrell’s Creek Complete 12 1200 mm pipe plus a weir connecting North Pond and Middle Basin Complete 13 3m x 1.8m culvert connecting Middle and Final Basins Complete 14 3m x 1.8m culvert connecting Final Basin and SIRC Complete 15 Pump to deliver 1.0 m3/s Nepean River to Scheme To be constructed 16 Sluice gate to control flows between Lake B and Wildlife Lake Complete 17 Sluice gate to control flows between Duralia Lake and North Pond Complete 18 Sluice gate to control flows between Final Basin and SIRC Complete 19 Channel to convey reticulation water from Lake A to Lake B To be constructed 20 Sluice gate to control flows between Lake A and Lake B To be constructed
+ Reference number locations are illustrated on Figure 7
44 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 4.2.3.2 Further Studies No further studies are required.
4.3 RELEVANT EXISTING APPROVALS Existing approvals for all items to be constructed are under DA4. Further approvals required are set out in Section 4.4 below.
The Nepean Pump and Pipeline will require approval as a State Significant Development and is discussed in Section 6 of this plan.
4.4 APPROVALS REQUIRED 4.4.1 Water Plan Approval Approval of the 2012 Water Management Plan by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is required.
4.4.2 Two Year Plans and Construction Certificates Table 4 items to be constructed which require Two Year Plan approval. The Nepean Pump and Pipeline requires development consent under the SSD provisions of the EP&A Act and a Construction Certificate.
4.4.3 Controlled Activity Approvals and Licences In certain instances, particularly in relation to works within the riverbank, separate permits, licences and controlled activity approvals associated with a range of legislation that is relevant to the site may be required.
These separate approvals will be identified and sought during the detailed design phase for each item of infrastructure.
4.5 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 4.5.1 Operations and Maintenance Schedule Operations and Maintenance Schedules will be developed during the detailed design phase of each item of infrastructure and delivered to Government (end owner) upon dedication. These schedules will provide at least the following details: • Specification/s for each item of infrastructure; • Design and Construction Warranties; • Detailed Design, Construction and Works-as-executed drawings; • Detailed operational procedures for each individual item of Infrastructure with specific relevance to the function/role it serves within the overall Flood Scheme Designs and contained in the Completed Lakes Operations Plan; • Detailed Maintenance schedule for each individual infrastructure having regard to the applicable Design, Construction and Supply Insurances and Warranties.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 45
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 4.5.2 Design and Construction Warranties Where Infrastructure works involve “building works” that necessitate Construction Certificate approval/s, PLDC will, where appropriate, arrange for Design and Construction warranties to be novated to the Government in accordance with existing industry practices.
These Indemnities and Warranties will include those of the Principal Design Consultant (in the form of Professional Indemnity) Insurances, Principal Contractor Warranties and where relevant, Supply Warranties.
4.5.3 Inspections The Operations and Maintenance Schedule will include details of regular inspections where these are required to ensure a proper maintenance regime is in place.
46 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 47
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Duralia Lake on the eastern boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme
48 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 5.0 WATER BALANCE AND LAKE OPERATING LEVELS
5.1 OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the proposed water balance and lake operating levels is to provide the Scheme with the capacity to move water through the Scheme from south to north to maintain water bodies at their desired operational levels and discharging excess water to the Nepean River through the Wildlife Lake in the north.
5.1.1 Strategic Framework
GOAL: To identify the sources of water available to the Scheme and investigate a water balance that could be achieved under various climatic and operating conditions.
Objective: To identify the quantities of water available as input to the Scheme and determine the water balance for an average year.
Policy: Scheme water inputs (groundwater, stormwater, rain and river) and outputs (quarry production requirements in the short term and evaporation and seepage in the long term) to be identified.
Short Term Strategy (STS): Water allocation to be calculated for each water body.
STS: Overall scheme water requirements to be calculated.
STS: Adopt a hierarchy of lakes for operational/management purposes.
GOAL: To maintain desired Lake Operational levels within the Scheme under a variety of different operational circumstances.
Objective: To provide the capability of the lakes to achieve their designated end uses and ecological values through maintaining an operational level particularly during extended periods of low rainfall.
Policy: Infrastructure and gravitational systems to be designed with the capability to move water from non recreational/storage water bodies to recreational water bodies.
Long Term Strategy (LTS): Water bodies to be designed and constructed to be used as a water supply source for the recreational lakes.
LTS: The operational capacity of the Nepean Pump and Pipeline to be determined. to optimise the opportunity to maintain lake operating levels within acceptable tolerances for their desired end use.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 49
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Table 6 - Summary of Lake Details
Table 6 - Summary of Lake Details VOLUME AT TIME TO RETURN TO SIZE AVERAGE OPERATING LAKE OPERATING OPERATIONAL LEVEL (HA) DEPTH (M) LEVEL (M AHD) LEVEL (GL) (POST 100YR ARI) (DAYS)
Primary Lakes
Wildlife Lake 110 4-5 10 3.9 15 Lake B 121 6-7 13.5 7.3 29+ Lake A 318 5-6 14 17.8 29 Quarantine Lake 42 6-7 15 2.4 29 Regatta Lake 80 5-6 15 4.2 29
Treatment Lakes
Duralia Lake 13 10-11 18 0.9 35++ Cranebrook Lake 3 10-11 18 0.13 35++
Detention Basins
Lewis Lagoon 3 5 14 0.08 15 North Pond 7 4 16.5 0.17 35++ Stilling Basin 0.6 2.5 17.7 0.01 35++ West Pond (Pioneer Pond) 5 1-2 17 0.04 35++ Middle Basin 13 4-5 16.0 0.5 35++ Final Basin 7 3-4 15.5 0.07 35++
Lake Totals 723 38.0
WETLANDS SIZE (HA) OPERATING RANGE (M AHD)
Southern Wetlands* 40 26 - 20 Duralia Wetlands 3.7 19 - 18 Cranebrook Wetlands 2.2 24.5 - 18 Eastern Chain of Ponds 3.6 24 - 17
* The Southern Wetlands have not been designed at this stage. The details shown in this table are estimates only and will change following the conceptual design that is being undertaken as part of the SSD application for the Nepean River Pump and Pipeline.
+ Drawdown time is to 0.5m above operational level except for Lake B where it is to 1m above operational level. Increased tolerances are to assist future managers in maintaining water volumes.
++ These drawdown times have been assumed. In reality they are controlled by sluice gates and the draw down will be governed by lake operators.
50 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Table 6 - Summary of Lake Details
5.1.2 Performance Criteria Performance criteria for the proposed water balance relate to the operating levels of the lakes and other water bodies within the Scheme as shown in Table 6. Capacity and licensing conditions of the Nepean River and Pipeline is discussed in Section 6.
5.1.3 Priority Actions The priority actions are: 1. Determine appropriate lake operating levels and respective tolerances for desired end uses and protection of aquatic ecosystems and to guide the operation of the Nepean Pump and Pipeline and flow regulation devices;
2. Determine a hierarchy of lakes to optimise recreational usage and determine management priorities particularly during prolonged periods of dry weather when operation of the Nepean Pump and Pipeline may be significantly constrained;
3. Consider locating a beach or beaches in the SIRC where operating levels and water quality have a much higher capability of achieving acceptable quality and operational levels for more than 90% of the time than the Main Lakes;
4. Design and construct the Quarantine Lake and associated Southern Wetlands to allow for pumped river water to be treated to a standard to enable lakes to be filled upon completion and topped up as required for long term operations.
5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILS 5.2.1 Concept Design The earliest Water Management Plan for the Scheme was presented in the Regional Environmental Study. It was based on the knowledge of management of other water bodies and various studies, including the investigation of potential water sources for the Scheme. It was determined that the Nepean River was the most suitable source of water for the Scheme.
The possibility of using Farrells Creek stormwater as a possible water source for the Scheme was identified in the early 1990s. Predictive studies on lake performance using stormwater as a source in conjunction with Nepean River water were carried out. Stormwater was assessed as being viable provided there were adjustments to facilities and infrastructure where appropriate, and it was approved in the Water Plan for DA3. Diversion works were constructed and have been in operation since June 1995.
The deep excavation of the quarrying operations results in groundwater seepage into the quarry pits, and they also accumulate water following rain. The pits have to be ‘dewatered’ for quarrying to continue. Studies were conducted to dispose of water extracted from quarry operations areas in a manner that would:
• Have no significant impact on the Nepean River system; • Have regard to water management in lakes during the development phase; • Meet the water requirements of the crushing plants; and • Meet the needs of quarry and rehabilitation works.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 51
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS An overall dewatering management plan was developed. The Penrith Lakes Interim Lakes Operations Plan details the rules regarding dewatering of the site and is regularly updated to reflect changes as they occur. Under the plan the dewatering of all quarry pits is contained within the Scheme and all dewatering is in strict accordance with the prevailing Environmental Protection Licences (EPL).
In 2006 Water Research Laboratory (WRL) carried out some initial computer modelling of water balance for the Scheme. It focussed on assessing various pumping regimes and trigger levels for commencement of pumping from the Nepean River, and compared water quality in the Nepean River with that of the Lakes Scheme and local catchment inflows.
WRL reviewed environmental flow aspects and the return of flows from the Lakes Scheme. The findings formed the basis of the water extraction license approved in 2007. They provided the ‘pumping rules’ for the Scheme, setting River flow rates for beginning and ceasing extraction and the rate at which water could be extracted.
Since the WRL studies were undertaken there have been changes to the design of the Lakes Scheme and environmental flows for the Nepean River have been set.
Cardno established a hydrological model (MUSIC) and a hydraulic model (SOBEK) to model the behaviour of the Lakes Scheme under various scenarios. Their work updates the WRL analysis and provides current information on the water balance of the Scheme.
The infrastructure to address the water balance challenges for the Scheme is outlined in Sections 3 and 4 of the Plan.
5.2.2 Impacts and Mitigating Measures The major impacts on water balance and lake operating levels will principally be climatic and environmental particularly given the ability to top up the Scheme with water extracted from the Nepean River. This is discussed further in Section 6 of the Water Management Plan.
5.2.3 Detailed Design and Further Studies 5.2.3.1 Detailed Design – Water Balance Cardno has conducted detailed modelling of the Scheme’s water balance and the analyses are provided in the Water Balance and Lake Operating Levels Report (July 2012) at Appendix 2.
The results of Cardno’s modelling indicate the following: • Operating levels: The lakes are generally within their target operating levels. Target levels within the Regatta Lake are met less often (modelling suggests 80% of the time) but operations over the past 14 years have clearly demonstrated higher reliability because of the increased storage in the Eastern Lakes. The 2012 Water Management Plan requires connection to the Quarantine Lake to achieve the desired reliability. On this basis modelling shows operating levels in the Regatta Lakes are achieved in excess of 90% of the time.
52 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS • Pumping requirements from the Nepean River: The modelling suggests that while 16.4GL/year can be pumped from the Nepean River under current approved license conditions, only 2.5GL is required on average to top up water in the lakes if groundwater inflows are excluded. When groundwater flows are included at the estimated volume of 3GLl/yr then modelling suggests zero net extraction from the Nepean River is required in an average year. • Filling of the Lakes: Pumping from the Nepean River will be required initially to fill the Lakes to their operating levels. Based on the current PLDC water extraction licensing conditions the modelling suggests that on average the Lakes will take about 2.9 years to fill, but during dry periods filling could take more than 8 years. In wet periods filling could take around 1 year. • Flood drainage: Following a significant flood event, the Lakes will be above their normal operating levels, constrained by the flood weirs. Two sets of flood drainage pipes are proposed to drain the Lakes to the River, one from Lake A and the other from the Wildlife Lake. The time estimated for the Lakes to draw down to 0.5 metres above their optimal operating levels following a 1 in 100 year flood event, while complying with the Deed requirement of not more than 0.5m per day, is estimated for Lake A at approximately 29 days and for Wildlife Lake approximately 15 days. Draw down following lesser flooding events will take considerable less time. 5.2.3.2 Further Studies No further studies are required.
5.3 RELEVANT EXISTING APPROVALS No approvals are relevant.
5.4 APPROVALS REQUIRED No approvals are required other than approval of the 2012 Water Management Plan by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 53
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 5.5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 5.5.1 Construction Warranties None required.
5.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Schedule The Interim Lakes Operations Plan will be updated progressively to ensure that water management practices continue to: • Meet the needs of the quarry processing plants (until cessation of processing operations), • Meet the quarry operations until cessation, • Design to the water quality targets set out in Schedule 7 of the Deed as amended subsequently, • Monitor water quality within the SIRC lakes and work with SIRC on its operational requirements; and • Guide future aquatic ecosystem development and long term management.
A Completed Lakes Operation Plan (LOP) will be developed which guides the day to day operational and environmental management of water for the lakes, their ecosystems and landforms on final dedication.
54 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Watercolour rendition of Sydney International Regatta Centre
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 55
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Penrith Weir upstream of the Scheme, eastern bank
56 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 6.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
6.1 OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the water supply system is to supply water from the Nepean River for initial filling of the lakes and to supplement rain, stormwater and groundwater to maintain the desired operating levels of the lakes.
6.1.1 Strategic Framework
GOAL: Provide a permanent supply of water to the Lakes Scheme.
Objective: To pump water from the Nepean River when water inflow from other natural sources is insufficient to maintain the desired operating levels and environmental requirements in the lakes.
Policy: Pump facilities and pipeline to be located, designed and constructed to meet water balance targets for the Scheme in the most cost effective manner.
Long Term Strategy (LTS): Extract water at a flowrate of no greater than 1.0 cubic metre/sec.
Policy: Obtain a Water Extraction Licence to meet the operational and environmental needs of the Scheme.
LTS: Extract water only when flowrate of water exceeds the minimum level for commencement of pumping as required under the water extraction licence.
LTS: Cease extraction if flowrate of water is reduced to the limit set by the water extraction licence.
LTS: Extract water only to fill up and maintain lake water levels within operating limits and to maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
6.1.2 Performance Criteria The proposed performance criteria for water supply of the Scheme are based on the above objective and strategies and to meet licence requirements when pumping is necessary.
6.1.3 Priority Actions The priority actions are: 1. Obtain Development Consent for the location, construction and operation of the Nepean River pump and pipeline with a capacity of 1.0 cubic metre per second under the SSD provisions of the EP&A Act; and
2. Obtain a Construction Certificate to construct the facility; and
3. In conjunction with OPL, seek a Water Extraction Licence that will meet the needs for initial filling of the Scheme and for long term operations.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 57
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILS 6.2.1 Concept Design After extensive research and analysis the RES concluded that the most suitable source of water to supplement natural sources of water to the Scheme was the Nepean River. It also indicated that given the impacts of the Penrith STP the most suitable location for a pump facility was above the Penrith weir, however alternative locations might be suitable if the Penrith STP issues were resolved.
In 2007a licence was issued to PLDC under the Water Act 1912 to divert water from the Nepean River (Schedule 7 of Water Principles) from upstream of the Penrith Weir, and the infrastructure of a pump and pipeline was approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. This approval was sought as a suitable alternative water supply option was not available. The DIPNR Water Committee in 2005 commented that:
“The only reliable alternative lake water supply in the longer term for Penrith Lakes and Water side Green developments is the use of treated effluent for the Penrith STP which is situated nearby.
This alternative would necessitate upgrading the STP to a level where water quality is appropriate to the lakes. The treated effluent could be further polished in wetlands located in the area currently occupied by the existing tailings ponds located on the southern boundary of the site. This area could be developed as parkland incorporating the treatment wetlands but the area will not be available until the completion of the quarrying operations.”
The Water Committee also recommended that should the Penrith STP issue be resolved that an alternative location closer to the Quarantine Lake should be investigated.
At the time the Corporation lodged the Part 3A Application for the Nepean River Pump and Pipeline in June 2006, the water quality from the STP was not suitable to be pumped into the Penrith Lakes Scheme and therefore the Part 3A Application to construct the pump upstream of Penrith Weir was submitted.
Since then there have been a number of changes that have occurred and these have led to a reconsideration of the location of the water extraction site.
The 2006 NSW Metropolitan Water Plan committed to the release of new variable environmental flows from the water supply dams and weirs in the upper Nepean River. These flows began in July 2010. The variable environmental flows on the Nepean River are to be protected and hence the operational rules for pumping may require reassessment.
At the end of 2010, the St Marys Water Recycling Plant was completed and now returns a very high quality recycled water into the Nepean River via Boundary Creek. The quality of this water has been assessed as appropriate for the Scheme and hence the relocation of the infrastructure was investigated as recommended by the DIPNR Water Committee.
58 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS In 2011 AECOM carried out the investigation into the most suitable location for the Nepean River Pump and Pipeline from environmental, and capital and operating cost perspectives. The AECOM report is the main supporting study accompanying the new development application for relocation of the infrastructure.
The study has concluded that the new location will access water of a suitable quality, will result in less expensive operating costs over the long term, and as it is situated on land owned by PLDC, will avoid the compulsory acquisition of privately owned land. The pipeline will link to a wetland treatment train approximately 3kms in length feeding into the Quarantine Lake to improve the quality of water before it enters the Regatta Lakes.
The use of recycled water from the Penrith/St Mary’s STP and the relocation of the Pump and Pipeline (refer to Figure 8: Proposed Nepean Pump and Pipeline Location) give effect to the recommendations of the DIPNR Water Committee (2005).
The AECOM report and other related studies by Cardno indicate that the amendments proposed are complementary to the proposed flooding infrastructure set out in Section 3, and the water reticulation system outlined in Section 4 of the Plan and the works that have already been delivered.
SIRC Regatta Lake
Southern Wetlands
Pump Location
Figure 8: Proposed Nepean Pump and Pipeline Location
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 59
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 6.2.2 Impacts and Mitigating Measures The Water Supply System plays a significant role in the long term operations of the Scheme and is an integral component of the reticulation system for the management of the Scheme’s overall water balance and protection of the aquatic ecosystem. The conditions of the Water Extraction Licence will be critical to developing operating plans for the Scheme covering a variety of climatic conditions.
The quality of water in the Nepean River is likely to be of a standard suitable for use in the lakes. Pumping of water from the river has the potential to introduce unwanted species of weed and aquatic life and therefore design and operation of this system will need to take these impacts into consideration.
To mitigate these impacts PLDC has designed a “treatment train” of interconnected wetlands (the Southern Wetlands) of approximately 3kms for the water pumped from the Nepean River to pass through before entering the Quarantine Lake. Similarly the Quarantine Lake design will need to be carefully considered to enhance the water polishing process commenced through the wetlands system. The modelling completed by J Wyndham Prince (JWP) indicates that the water entering the Regatta Lake will be of superior quality than that currently entering from the Eastern Lakes and will be of a primary contact standard prior to entering the Quarantine Lake. The JWP report is at Appendix 6.
Regular monitoring of flowrate limits and water quality will be included in the completed Lakes Operations Plan to guide effective management of this system so that the Scheme is both protected and supported in its long term operational stage
6.2.3 Detailed Design and Further Studies 6.2.3.1 Detailed Design - Infrastructure proposed Studies undertaken for the Nepean River Pump and Pipeline have indicated that two axial flow line shaft driven pumps with fishtail intake strainers is suitable to deliver the 1.0 m3/s required to maintain the lakes. Figure 9 shows the current concept design.
60 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Figure 9: Conceptual Detail of Nepean River Pump And Pipeline Intake
6.2.3.2 Further Studies No further studies are required for the Water Supply system other than to address the Director-General’s Requirements in respect of the Development Application under the SSD provisions of the EP&A Act.
6.3 RELEVANT EXISTING APPROVALS PLDC was issued a licence (Licence No 10SL047922) to extract water from the river under Section 12 of the Water Act 1912 for a period of 5 years in 2010. This licence allows PLDC to pump water from the Nepean River for recreation purposes until 17th April 2015. Condition 10A of the licence stipulates that the extraction point is to be upstream of the weir and as such PLDC will seek to have it transferred to the new location or a fresh licence issued.
Development approval for the construction and operation of a pump and pipeline to extract water from the Nepean River to facilitate the initial filling and long-term water supply of the Penrith Lakes Scheme was given under section 75B(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on 4 June 2007. This approval has now expired.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 61
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 6.4 APPROVALS REQUIRED 6.4.1 Water Plan Approval The new location requires approval of the 2012 Water Management Plan
4.4.2 Major Project Approval - EPA Act 1979 Approval to construct and operate the Nepean Pump and Pipeline is required as a State Significant Development under State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. This process is well advanced and will involve detailed consultation with the Water agencies and other stakeholders now likely to take place in August/September 2012.
6.4.2 Water Licence Approval for a variation to Condition 10A of the current licence or issue of a fresh licence is required to allow water to be extracted from the new location.
6.4.3 Two Year Plan and Construction Certificates Two Year Plan approval and Construction Certificate approval will be sought for this infrastructure.
6.4.4 Controlled Activity Approvals and Licences In certain instances, particularly in relation to works within the riverbank, separate permits, licences and controlled activity approvals associated with a range of legislation that is relevant to the site may be required. These separate approvals, if required, will be identified and sought during the detailed design phase for each item of infrastructure, operations and maintenance.
6.5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE Operations and Maintenance Schedules will be developed during the detailed design phase of each item of infrastructure and delivered to Government (end owner) upon dedication. These schedules will provide at least the following details:
• Specification/s for each item of infrastructure; • Design and Construction Warranties; • Detailed Design, Construction and Works-as-executed drawings; • Detailed operational procedures for each individual item of Infrastructure with specific relevance to the function/role it serves within the overall Water Balance and Lake Operating Levels, Flood Scheme Design and contained in the Completed Lakes Operations Plan; • Detailed Maintenance Schedule for each individual infrastructure having regard to the applicable Design, Construction and Supply Insurances and Warranties.
62 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 6.5.1 Design and Construction Warranties Where infrastructure works involve “building works” that necessitate Construction Certificate approval/s, PLDC will, where appropriate, arrange for Design and Construction warranties to be novated to the Corporation in accordance with existing industry practices.
These Indemnities and Warranties will include those of the Principal Design Consultant (in the form of Professional Indemnity) Insurances, Principal Contractor Warranties and where relevant, Supply Warranties.
6.5.2 Inspections The Operations and Maintenance Schedule will include details of regular inspections where these are required to ensure a proper maintenance regime is in place.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 63
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Constructed wetlands across the Scheme
64 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 7.0 WORKS AND APPROVALS PROGRAM
The works programmed by PLDC have been affected by a number of factors including lack of approvals. The currently revised program of works has been prepared by Tracey Brunstrom Hammond (TBH) to reflect the current circumstances impacting on delivery including extending the mining program to accommodate these delays and rescheduling of works to reflect a more achievable time frame for approvals and construction times.
This program is shown in Appendix 7.
The main features of this Program are:
1. Quarry operations extended to 31 December 2014;
2. Rehabilitation works including construction of all flood, reticulation and water supply infrastructure by 30 September 2014; and
3. Completion of the Quarantine Lake and commencement of lake filling from the Nepean River Pump and Pipeline by June 2015.
This Program is indicative and based upon the best information available to PLDC as July 2012 and could change depending on a number of factors.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 65
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Image: Water quality has improved encouraging the natural return of native birdlife to the constructed wetlands across the Scheme
66 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 CONCLUSION The Scheme is being implemented under the Deed, SEPP (Penrith Lakes) 1989, development consents and other relevant approvals. The 2012 Water Management Plan is being submitted to the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under Condition 27A of DA4.
The Plan will be submitted in two (2) stages. The first will focus on the infrastructure to be provided to successfully manage the flow of water into and out of the Scheme in all conditions including in a 100yr ARI event and to establish optimal lake operating levels to support the end uses envisaged under the Deed.
The second stage will focus on water quality criteria and the operational requirements for the short and long term management of the quality of water before and after it enters the lakes to achieve the recreational and environmental objectives of the Scheme. While connected, Stage 1 can be approved and implemented separately to Stage 2. Stage 2 will be submitted to the Director-General for approval by 31 December 2012.
The 2012 Water Management Plan has been prepared by PLDC with the assistance of external experts following many years of study, analysis and modelling to provide a contemporary strategy for the completion of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. It has also been the subject of extensive consultation with Government agencies, Penrith City Council and other stakeholders to ensure the Water Management Plan will deliver a successful outcome for both the short and long term objectives of PLDC and the New South Wales Government as the parties to the Deed.
Following approval of the Water Management Plan it is proposed to seek modifications to DA2, DA3 and DA4 to refer to the Water Management Plan to ensure consistency across the Scheme.
The 2012 Water Management Plan:
1. Provides a robust and cost-effective structural solution to manage flows during flood events as well as the day to day management of water throughout the Scheme,
2. Optimises the flood, reticulation and water supply infrastructure to meet long term operational requirements,
3. Provides management options for a range of climatic conditions from prolonged dry periods through to wet periods,
4. Establishes a hierarchy of lakes which optimises the recreational and end usage outcomes for patrons of Penrith Lakes,
5. Delivers the best opportunity to achieve desired water quality targets in the individual lakes,
6. Minimises ongoing maintenance and operations costs,
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 67
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 7. Minimises disturbance to the riverbank zone thereby preserving the natural stability of the riverbank,
8. Minimises intrusions into sensitive Aboriginal, European and natural heritage areas,
9. Optimises the use of landscaped and aesthetically pleasing structures in keeping with a recreational and parkland setting, and
10. Optimises flexibility for recreational uses of the Scheme.
The 2012 Water Management Plan details the infrastructure and associated works necessary to complete the Scheme, sets operating levels and water quality targets for each of the lakes and establishes a format and process for the preparation of a Completed Lakes Operations Plan. The specifics are included in three (3) schedules contained in the Plan. Schedule 1 of the Plan details the flood, water supply and reticulation infrastructure required to meet the objectives set out in the Deed and deliver a completed Scheme that successfully performs in a variety of climatic situations.
Schedule 2 of the Plan contains the draft Water Quality Strategy which will form the basis of Stage 2 of the 2012 Water Management Plan. It also commits to the update of the Interim and preparation of the Completed Lakes Operations Plan. It also commits to a process and timetable to submit Stage 2 of the Plan to the Director-General of Planning and Infrastructure by 31 December for approval.
Schedule 3 of the Plan sets lake operating levels suitable to achieve desired flexibility for recreational uses, water storage capability and the environmental management of the Scheme for long term operations.
Stage 2 will also provide for the necessary licensing for the interim and long term operational needs of the Scheme. It is proposed to pursue the licensing in conjunction with OPL to ensure that the end owner’s requirements are appropriately addressed in this process.
The 2012 Water Management Plan contains the relevant technical and analytical reports prepared by independent experts that have led to the design decisions PLDC have made.
68 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 8.2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure approves this 2012 Water Management Plan and the specific works and targets contained in:
• Schedule 1 – Water Management Infrastructure; • Schedule 2 – Draft Water Quality Strategy includes consultation process and timetable for submission to the Director General of Department of Planning and Infrastructure for approval; and • Schedule 3 – Lakes Operating Levels. It is also recommended that the Director General approves the submission of Stage 2 of the Water Management Plan as contained in Schedule 2 for approval by 31 December 2012.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 69
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS LEGEND Reticulation Facilities Indicative Location Wilchard Road 6 Wetlands Flood Outlet Pipe Overland Flow Channel Wildlife Lake Water Source Pipe (Pump) Pump Station Sluice Gate Lewis Lagoon Weir Wetland System
The Escarpment Boat Lagoons Ramp Lake B
19 Nepean River Nepean 20 Duralia Wetlands Duralia Lake Lake A Cranebrook Lake 4 The Poplars North Pond
McCarthy’s West Pond Cemetery Wetlands Middle Basin Warm-up Lake Boat Ramp Quarantine SIRC Regatta Lake Lake Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
1 15
Figure 10: Water Supply and Reticulation Works to be Completed
70 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 9.0 WATER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULES
SCHEDULE 1: WATER MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE The Water Management Infrastructure is to be constructed by PLDC. Figure 10 shows the water supply and reticulation which is to be completed by PLDC.
Table 7: Water Supply & Reticulation Works to be completed REFERENCE ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 750 – 1100 mm1 Pipeline from Nepean River Pump – to carry a flow of 1.0 m3/s
4 2 x 1350 mm2 pipeline Main Lakes to Nepean River (for reticulation and flood water draw down)
6 1 x 1350 mm pipeline Wildlife Lake to Nepean River (for reticulation and flood water draw down)
15 Pump to deliver 1.0 m3/s Nepean River to Scheme
19 Channel to convey reticulation water from Lake A to Lake B
20 Sluice gate to control flows between Lake A and Lake B
1 Sizing to be determined in final design following approval for revised location. 2 Final size to be determined following detailed design process.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 71
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS LEGEND Reticulation Facilities Indicative Location Wilchard Road Wetlands Overland Flow Channel Reticulation Pipe (Gravity) Wildlife Lake Sluice Gate Wetland System 7 Lewis 5 Lagoon 16
The Escarpment Boat Lagoons Ramp
Lake B Nepean River Nepean Duralia Wetlands
Duralia Lake A Lake 8 17
9 Cranebrook The Lake Poplars North Pond 11 10 12 3 McCarthy’s West Pond Cemetery Wetlands Middle Boat Ramp Basin Warm-up Lake
Quarantine SIRC Regatta Lake Lake 14 2 13 18 Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
Figure 11: Completed Water Supply and Reticulation Works
72 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 9.0 WATER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULES
Figure 11: Completed Water Supply and Reticulation Works shows the water supply and reticulation works already completed by PLDC.
Table 8: Completed Water Supply and Reticulation Works REFERENCE ITEM DESCRIPTION
2 1200 mm diameter pipeline to SIRC
3 1500 mm diameter pipeline SIRC to Lake A
5 900 mm diameter pipeline Lake B to Wildlife Lake
7 5 x 3m x 0.9m culverts Lewis Lagoon to Wildlife Lake
8 900 mm diameter pipeline Cranebrook Lake to Duralia Lake
9 900 mm diameter pipeline Duralia Lake to North Pond
10 2 x 900 mm pipes connecting West Pond and North Pond
11 Overflow weir 20m crest width on Farrell’s Creek
12 1200 mm pipe plus a weir connecting North Pond and Middle Basin
13 3m x 1.8m culvert connecting Middle and Final Basins
14 3m x 1.8m culvert connecting Final Basin and SIRC
16 Sluice gate to control flows between Lake B and Wildlife Lake
17 Sluice gate to control flows between Duralia Lake and North Pond
18 Sluice gate to control flows between Final Basin and SIRC
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 73
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS L = 65m LEGEND RL = 16.0 Wildlife Lake Weir Reticulation Facilities Indicative Location Flood Cell Wilchard Road 21.9m AHD Wetlands Flood Cell Flood Outlet Pipe Wildlife Lake Weir Floodway Flood Cell Flood Cell 22.0m AHD 23.0m AHD Wetland System Lewis Flood Cell Lagoon 21.9m AHD Weir 6 L = 440m RL = 20.0
The Escarpment Flood Cell Boat Lagoons 22.0m AHD Ramp Flood Cell Lake B Flood Cell 23.0m AHD 23.2m AHD
Eastern Lakes Floodway W = 300m Nepean River Nepean Weir 4 RL = 22.0 Duralia L = 500m RL = 15.0 Wetlands Duralia Lake Lake A Flood Cell Cranebrook 24.1m AHD Weir 3 Lake L = 420m Floodway The W = 140m Flood Cell RL = 20.9 Regatta Flow Path Poplars RL = 19.0 24.1m AHD W = 75m RL = 16.5 North Pond
McCarthy’s West Pond Cemetery Wetlands Middle Boat Basin Flood Cell Ramp 24.7m AHD Warm-up Lake
Quarantine SIRC Regatta Lake Lake Final Basin
Southern Wetlands
Note: lengths and heights shown here may vary, refer to Schedule 1 for approved dimensions
Figure 12: Flood Protection Works to be Completed
74 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 9.0 WATER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULES
Figure 12 Flood Protection Works to be Completed shows the flood protection works to be completed by PLDC.
Table 9 - Flood Protection Works to be completed
ADEQUATE REFERENCE DESCRIPTION CAPACITY CONCEPTUAL DETAILS *
Weir 3 Weir 3 is the primary control for floodwaters Peak flow of Weir Width 400 – 500m entering the Lakes Scheme from the 1,740 m3/s Weir Crest Height – 20.9 mAHD Nepean River Scour Protection – Gabions / Reno Mattress
Weir 4 Weir 4 is a low level broad embankment Peak flow of Weir Width 450 – 550m between Main Lakes A and B. The weir 1,650 m3/s Weir Crest Height – 15.0 mAHD quickly overtops in flood events, allowing Scour Protection - Grass the two lakes to act as a single water body.
Weir 6 Weir 6 is the primary control for the spill Peak flow of Already constructed to: of floodwaters from the Main Lakes into 1,640 m3/s the Wildlife Lake. It controls the water Weir Width: 440m levels within the Main Lakes, as well as Weir Crest Height: 21.0 mAHD Quarantine and Regatta Lakes. Minor amendment recommended to achieve a crest height of 20m AHD. Weir Crest Height – 20.0 mAHD (for approval) Scour Protection - Grass
Wildlife Lake The Wildlife Lake Weir serves two Peak flow of Under Construction Contract: Weir purposes. It conveys inflows from the 490 m3/s Stage 1: Nepean River during the early part of the (Stage 1) Central Weir Width: 65m flood, and outflows from the Lakes during 1,110 m3/s Central Weir Crest Height: 16.0mAHD the latter part of the flood. This weir was (Stage 2) Stage 2: approved in Modification 5 of DA4. Total Weir Width: 150m Total Weir Crest Height: 18.5mAHD Scour Protection – Concrete / Grass
Regatta Flow The Regatta Flow Path is a low level flow Peak flow of Base Width: 25 - 75m Path path between the Lake A and Regatta 590 m3/s Crest Height: 16.5 mAHD Lake that convey floodwaters into the Flowpath Length: ~ 225 m Regatta Lake. Scour Protection - Grass
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 75
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS ADEQUATE REFERENCE DESCRIPTION CAPACITY CONCEPTUAL DETAILS *
Duralia to The Eastern Lakes are a series of lakes Peak flow of 0 Base Width: 250 - 350m Main Lake to the east of the Main Lake. The majority m3/s Crest Height: 22 mAHD Flow path of these lakes are disconnected from the Scour protection - Grass Main Lake during a 100 year ARI flood by high ground levels. There are two flow paths which connect the Eastern Lakes with the Main Lakes: Main Lake to Duralia and Duralia to North Pond.
Duralia to There are two flow paths which connect the Peak flow of Base Width: 100 - 200m North Pond Eastern Lakes with the Main Lakes: Main 60 m3/s Crest Height: 19.0 mAHD Flow path Lake to Duralia and Duralia to North Pond. Scour protection - Grass
Main Lake These pipes are provided to return the Draw down 2 x 1,350mm concrete pipe with Flood Outlet Lakes Scheme to normal operational rate <0.5m appropriate energy dissipation and Pipes levels following a significant flood event. day flood flaps installed
Wildlife Lake This pipe is provided to return the Lakes Draw down Under Construction Contract; Flood Outlet Scheme to normal operational levels rate <0.5m 1 x 1,350mm concrete pipe with Pipe following a significant flood event. day appropriate energy dissipation and As per Modification 4 of DA4. flood flaps installed
Flood Cells The Riverbank flood cell prevents the Peak flow of 0 Length: 5.7km (approximate) inflow of floodwaters into the Lakes m3/s Crest Height Ranges from: 24.7 – 21.0 Scheme until the lake levels are close to mAHD the Nepean River levels. This protects the integrity of the riverbank.
* The conceptual details may vary slightly during the detailed design process.
76 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 77
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS Wilchard Road Wetlands
Wildlife Lake approx. 110 ha OWL 10m AHD
Lewis Lagoon OWL 14.0m AHD
The Escarpment Boat Lagoons Ramp Lake B approx. 121 ha
OWL 13.5m AHD Nepean River Nepean Duralia Wetlands
Duralia Lake A Lake OWL 18m AHD approx. 318 ha OWL 14m AHD Cranebrook Lake OWL 18m AHD
The Poplars North Pond OWL 16.5m AHD
Stilling Basin West Pond Wetlands OWL 17.7m AHD McCarthy’s OWL 17.0m AHD Cemetery Middle Basin OWL 16.0m AHD Boat Ramp Warm-up Lake Quarantine Lake SIRC Regatta Lake approx. 80 ha OWL 15m AHD approx. 42 ha OWL 15m AHD Final Basin OWL 15.5m AHD Southern Wetlands approx. 55.3 ha OWL range 26.0 - 20.0m AHD
Figure 13: Water Operating Levels
78 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 9.0 WATER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULES
SCHEDULE 2: WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Schedule 2 – Draft Water Quality Strategy is provided at Appendix 4. The submission is to be lodged by 31 December 2012.
SCHEDULE 3: LAKES OPERATING LEVELS Table 10 below shows the lakes and Wetlands water operating levels and is further illustrated in Figure 13: Water Operating Levels.
Table 10 - Water Operating Levels
LAKE OPERATING LEVEL (M AHD)
Primary Lakes
Wildlife Lake 10
Lake B 13.5
Lake A 14
Quarantine Lake 15
Regatta Lake 15
Treatment Lakes
Duralia Lake 18
Cranebrook Lake 18
Detention Basins
Lewis Lagoon 14
North Pond 16.5
Stilling Basin 17.7
West Pond Wetlands 17
Middle Basin 16.0
Final Basin 15.5
Southern Wetlands 26 - 20
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 79
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 80 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 10.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
10.1 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS The following documents have been used in the development of the 2012 Water Management Plan.
Department of Planning (1984) Regional Environmental Study
Department of Planning (1987) Deed of Agreement
Department of Planning (1989) Deed of Agreement
Patterson Britton (2001) Report on Floodplain Management Issues
Bowdens (Patterson Britton) (2004) Lakeside Village, Penrith Hawkesbury-Nepean Flooding
Patterson Britton (2005) Castlereagh Road Relocation Flood Study
Patterson Britton (2007) Waterside South Precinct (Ver 2) Flood Impacts
Water Research Laboratory (2007) Penrith Lakes Flood Scheme Concepts
Cardno (2010) Flood Infrastructure Concept Design
Cardno (2010) Two Lakes Alternative Flood Analysis
Cardno (2010) Penrith Lakes Flood Model Calibration and Verification
WMAwater (2010) Penrith Lakes Scheme Peer Review of Hydraulic Modelling
Cardno (2011) Assessment of Wildlife Lake Weir
Cardno (2011) Flood Infrastructure Concept Design (Rev 4)
Cardno (2012) Letter on Proposed Flood Infrastructure and Scheme Design
J Wyndham Prince (2012) Southern Wetlands Water Quality Modelling
AECOM Report (2011) Nepean River Pump and Pipeline
PLDC (2012) Strategic Framework
PLDC (2012) Water Quality Strategy
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 81
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 82 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 11.0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND APPENDICES
11.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PLDC completed a consultation process which is reflected in the flowchart below. Ongoing consultation between PLDC and OPL and Department of Planning and Infrastructure continued up to submission of the Plan.
11.1.1 Consultation Flowchart
STAGE 1: NOTIFICATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGISTRATION OF INTEREST
List of stakeholders compiled and who may The notification includes the consent condition 27A: have an interest in the Water Plan, and hold knowledge relevant to determining issues By 31 March 2012 or as otherwise agreed by the Director- of concern from reasonable sources of General, the Applicant shall review and update the existing information, which includes writing to: Water Management Plan for the Scheme to the satisfaction • DP&I, DT&I and OEH of the Director-General. The review and update of this plan must be prepared in consultation with OEH, DPI and • Penrith City Council. Council; and cover the relevant aspects outlined in the Deed of Agreement for the Penrith Lakes Scheme, the proposed development in this consent, and the proposed development of the other development consents for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.
PLDC writes to the people whose names Following approval, the Applicant shall implement the were provided by the above organisations updated plan to the satisfaction of the Director-General. to notify them of the proposed plan and Note: Prior to approval of the revised Water Management Plan, the pre-existing opportunity to be involved in consultation. Water Management Plan for the Penrith Lakes Scheme shall continue to apply to the development.
Interested parties confirmed attendance at Concept presentation.
PLDC records the names of people who have registered an interest in being involved in consultation and make this record available upon request.
Consultation meetings between stakeholders and PLDC on the 12th and 14th of March 2012
Figure 14: Consultation process Stage 1.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 83
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS STAGE 2: PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLDC provides proposed WMP information PLDC provides an opportunity for registered to registered parties (8th May 2012). parties to visit the site.
PLDC records that information on the proposed WMP has been received by the agencies. PLDC records any written comments it receives from agencies prior to the proposed consultation meetings (where applicable).
Consultation meetings between stakeholders and PLDC on the 12th and 14th of March 2012
Figure 15: Consultation process Stage 2.
STAGE 3: GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT PROPOSED WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Second consultation meetings with Registered parties have two weeks after respective stakeholders on the 16th and the consultation meetings to provide written 17th May 2012. comment (being 30th/31st May 2012) .
PLDC presents proposed WMP to the PLDC considers input provided from meetings and seeks comment/feedback registered parties and finalises methodology from registered parties to identify issues for implementation. PLDC documents how for consideration. the input has been considered.
PLDC seeks follow up input from registered parties.
Figure 16: Consultation process Stage 3.
84 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS STAGE 4: SUBMISSION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLDC finalises Water Management Plan. The final plan is submitted to DP&I for approval no later than 29th June 2012 or as otherwise agreed with the Director General.
If approved: PLDC proceeds to deliver the If not approved: PLDC proceeds to deliver Scheme in accordance with 1987 Deed the current approved water management obligations. plan.
Figure 17: Consultation process Stage 4.
11.1.2 Registered Stakeholders The stakeholders that have been included in the consultation process to date are: • Department of Sport and Recreation (Office of Penrith Lakes) • Department of Planning and Infrastructure • Office of Environment and Heritage • Department of Finance and Services (NSW Public Works) • Department of Primary Industry (Office of Hawkesbury Nepean, NSW Office of Water) • Penrith City Council • Office of Communities (SIRC)
11.1.3 Issues Raised Issues raised in the consultation process together with responses are contained in Consultation Issues Log at Appendix 8
11.1.4 Consultation Pack The PLDC presentation material and Consultation Pack were issued to all stakeholders in March and May 2012 and for further reference should be read in conjunction with the 2012 Water Management Plan.
2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G AUGUST 2012 85
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS 11.2 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - CARDNO FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT AUGUST 2012
APPENDIX 2 - CARDNO WATER BALANCE AND LAKE OPERATING LEVELS REPORT AUGUST 2012
APPENDIX 3 - CARDNO FLOOD MODELLING CALIBRATION REPORT
APPENDIX 4 - DRAFT WATER QUALITY STRATEGY
APPENDIX 5 - PENRITH LAKES DRAFT CONCEPT MASTERPLAN 2012
APPENDIX 6 – JWP SOUTHERN WETLANDS MODEL
APPENDIX 7 - TBH WORKS PROGRAM
APPENDIX 8 – CONSULTATION ISSUES LOG
86 AUGUST 2012 2012 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: STAGE 1 • ISSUE G
CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 4
TABLE A: STUDIES
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 4.doc | 12 August 2009
Table A - Studies
Key Study The following issues will be considered and assessed as AECOM Requirements part of the study to be undertaken: 1) The State or regional planning significance of the site (having regard having regard to the Guidelines for SSSs under the Major Development SEPP); 2) The suitability of the site for any proposed land use taking into consideration environmental, social or economic factors, the principles of ecological sustainable development and any State or regional planning strategy; 3) Consideration of any alternative options for the site which were considered in determining the preferred option; 4) The implications of any proposed land use for local and regional land use, infrastructure, service delivery and natural resource planning; 5) The means by which developer contributions should be secured in respect of the site; 6) The local and regional economic impacts of the proposed development; and 7) The recommended land uses and development controls for the site.
The Study must address the following key issues: AECOM
1. Vision, Strategic Context and Justification Outline the vision, strategic context and justification for the proposal. Demonstrate how the development will commit to ecologically sustainable development principles. Undertake an economic assessment to identify opportunities for development to complement and diversify the economic base of the Penrith area and increase the level of services and facilities and employment. Undertake an assessment of the community profile to identify the quantity, density and range of housing typologies that accurately reflects the characteristics and likely needs of the future population. Provide details of how the proposal will support and reinforce the role of the Penrith town centre.
2. Land Use and Planning Controls Based on the findings of the specialist studies AECOM required by these study requirements, undertake a land use suitability / capability assessment and provide constraints mapping identifying the developable and environmental conservation areas of the site. Based on the land use capacity assessment, outline the proposed land use zones (using the Standard Instrument zones).
Clarify which parts of the site and/or types of
development which should be subject to Part 4 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979 with Council as consent authority.
2019650_1
Identification of what supporting amendments (if any) are required to State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. Outline appropriate arrangements for the dedication of land to Council and other authorities for public open space, utilities and road purposes. Demonstrate that proposed zoning and planning controls will complement surrounding existing land uses and incorporate any required buffers including (but not limited to) buffers for odour, noise, vibration, bushfire, adjoining areas of high conservation value. Details of proposed planning controls e.g. height limits, minimum lot sizes, gross floor areas, minimum setbacks, heritage items etc. Demonstrate how proposed residential development will deliver an appropriate mix of housing types. Urban design principles and how they have informed the proposed distribution and connections between land uses. The proposal should respond to the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Prepare a Development Control Plan (DCP) for
the site which includes controls and urban design
guidelines to regulate the future development,
including:
Controls that address edge effects between residential / commercial development with both parklands and the lakes. Outlining the indicative staging of development (if appropriate).
3. Transport and Accessibility JWP / TTM Provide a road network plan identifying the indicative proposed road layout and hierarchy including cycle ways, footpaths and car parking. Provide a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) prepared with reference to: RTA’s ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’;
NSW Department of Transport ‘Integrated
Public Transport Service Planning
Guidelines – Sydney Metropolitan Area’;
‘NSW Planning Guidelines for Walking and Cycling, Ryde Bicycle Strategy and Master Plan 2007’; and NSW Department of Transport ‘Draft Interim Guidelines on Transport Management and Accessibility Plans’. The TMAP is to include: a) estimates of the total trips generated by the proposal and measures to manage travel demand, increase the use of public and non- car transport modes, and assist in achieving
Page 2
2019650_1
the objectives and targets set out in the Plan for Growing Sydney; b) an analysis of public transport provision and cycling connections within the vicinity of the proposed site and address the potential for improving accessibility to and from the site and connections to the wider region via sustainable transport modes; c) identify appropriate staging of the development to allow early provision of accessible transport links and an activated public domain; d) assessment of the cumulative regional traffic impacts associated with the development; and e) a package of traffic and transport infrastructure and demand management measures to support future development including infrastructure for walking and cycling. Identify traffic and transport infrastructure measures and funding responsibilities, required to support future development. It should identify regional and local intersection and road, pedestrian and cycleway network improvements, public transport needs, the timing and cost of infrastructure works and the identification of funding responsibilities. ECOLOGICAL 4. Biodiversity Provide an ecological study and assessment which identifies existing native flora and fauna and their habitats, including identified threatened species, within and adjoining the site. Assess the potential impact of development on identified populations and recommend measures to mitigate any impact in line with: OEH threatened species and assessment guidelines including the Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities Working Draft November 2004; and
Guidelines for developments adjoining land and water managed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, DECCW 2010.
Identify where and how much native habitat should be protected including existing and possible habitat linkages. Discuss the development of, and impact on, ecological corridors that link flora and fauna both on and adjoining the site. Identify opportunities for offsetting biodiversity impacts and propose the mechanism to deliver and secure biodiversity offsets. Identify the ecological attributes of the lands proposed for dedication and how the potential dedication of these lands would mitigate the impacts of the development. GML Heritage
Page 3
2019650_1
5. Heritage Assessment Provide a heritage assessment addressing both European and Aboriginal heritage impacts in line with: Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation 2005; and
Code of Practice for Archaeological
Investigations of Objects in New South
Wales 2010
Identify the nature and the extent of impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage values across the project area and clearly articulate strategies proposed to avoid/minimise these impacts. The study must provide documentary evidence to demonstrate that effective community consultation with local Aboriginal communities has been undertaken in accordance with: Aboriginal cultural consultation requirements for proponents, Office of Environment and Heritage, 2010. Clouston Associates 6. Visual Assessment Provide a visual assessment of the study area, which identifies scenic qualities and the landscapes’ capacity to absorb change without significant detriment. The assessment should consider visual prominence visibility and areas where change in vegetation or appearance would be particularly noticeable. Tony McAlister / 7. Impact of Flood processes Steve Molino and Undertake a flood risk assessment for the site. BMT WBM This assessment should be conducted in accordance with: NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy as set out in the Floodplain Development Manual (2005); and
SES Information Requirements from the
FRM Process.
Identify and map the extent and depth of a
suitable range of flood events on the site and
wider area including, but not limited to, the1%
AEP and PMF flood events.
Review and assess any changes to flood behaviour and characteristics, based on the potential urban development of the site, and consider appropriate flood evacuation strategies (where required). Provide detailed description of water quality standards applied for each lake, their interaction and water quality management (including monitoring programs) particularly in relation to proposed land and lake uses, algae and mosquito control.
Page 4
2019650_1
Outline details of the short and long term management of aquatic flora and fauna and maintenance of aquatic weeds. Dr Michael Barry BMT WBM 8. Water Quality Prepare a Concept Stormwater Management Plan that outlines the general measures for stormwater and effluent management in relation to climate, topography, soil types and local geology and identify potential risk issues. Provide details, and an assessment of, impacts of the proposal on any watercourses, wetlands, coastal and riparian land located on or adjacent to the site. Identify riparian corridors and associated buffers in accordance with:
Guidelines for riparian corridors on
waterfront land NSW Office of Water (July
2012).
Assess impacts of the proposal on ground water.
Identify any potential degradation to the
groundwater resource and any impacts on DLA Environmental / ground water dependant ecosystems. Coffey / SESL
9. Contamination and Geotechnical Assessment
Assess the suitability of the site for the proposed land uses in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) and outline any proposed measures for remediation if required. Identify areas with risk of soil instability, high erosion potential or potential acid sulphate soils which would render them unsuitable or at risk for urban development and filling. Cityscape
10. Bushfire Undertake a bushfire assessment of the land in accordance with: Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines, 2006. Paul Grech
11. Community Infrastructure Undertake an assessment of the current and future community profile of Penrith to identify community infrastructure, including public open space, community facilities, educational and health that will be required to support the future population in the study area and the broader Penrith area. Paul Grech
12. Development Contributions Detail the proposed future ownership and management arrangements for land proposed as open space, drainage reserve, and nature reserves. Identify local and State infrastructure upgrades required to support the development, the estimated cost and timing of these works and the
Page 5
2019650_1
mechanism for making the contribution (works in kind or monetary contribution). Details of consultation and/or agreements with relevant agencies for lands proposed to be dedicated. Identify the likely scope of any planning agreement and/or developer contributions between the proponent, Council and Qualchek / Endeavour other agencies are to be detailed. Energy / Design IT
13. Utilities and Infrastructure Prepare a preliminary utility and infrastructure servicing report and plan for the site that assesses the capacity of existing utility and infrastructure servicing the site and identifies all necessary augmentation works to service the site. Address water sustainability and efficiency principles including opportunities for waste water re-use within the development.
Page 6
2019650_1 REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 5
REPORT FROM ECO-LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 5.doc | 12 August 2009
Dani Robinson Environment and Community Manager Penrith Lakes Development Corporation ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD PO Box 457, ABN 87 096 512 088 Cranebrook NSW 2749 www.ecoaus.com.au
Ref/Job No: 16MUD-4172
23 December 2016
Dear Dani,
Re: Technical response to the Penrith Lakes SEPP proposed amendment
Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) to review the proposed amendment to the State Environment Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 (Draft SEPP) and provide specialist advice on:
The Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) known to exist within Penrith Lakes Scheme area. Consistency with conservation and rehabilitation works that have been undertaken through the development of the Scheme. Environmental factors generally taken into consideration during the rezoning process.
In undertaking the review of proposed land zonings, permitted uses and planning controls contained within the Draft DEPP, ELA also considered the existing objectives and provisions for the Scheme contained in the Penrith Lakes Scheme - Regional Environmental Study 1984, the existing State Environment Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989, 2012 Water Management Plan and the 2012 and the associated approved 2012 Wildlife Lake Two Year Plan and the Design Principles contained within it.
ELA also reviewed equivalent Biodiversity and Riparian assessments under taken by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for State Environmental Planning Policy amendments and land rezoning at comparable sites within Western Sydney.
DISCUSSION
Two Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC) are found within the Lakes Scheme. Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest is present the length of the Scheme along the 11km riparian corridor of the Nepean River and at a location within the Wildlife Lake Precinct while approximately 18Ha of Shale Gravel Transition Forest can be found along the Cranebrook Escarpment. See Attachment 1.
A number of species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and/or the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as threatened and/or migratory have been known to frequent the Penrith Lakes Scheme and its surrounding environment. This has primarily being in association with the Nepean River Riparian Corridor but some species have been observed in the open areas of the scheme as well.
Under Section 34A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, consultation is to occur with the Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage in regards to threatened species.
Special consultation procedures concerning threatened species (1) In this section, the "relevant authority" means: (a) in the case of a proposed SEPP-the Secretary, or (b) in the case of a proposed LEP-the relevant planning authority.
(2) Before an environmental planning instrument is made, the relevant authority must consult with the Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage if, in the opinion of the relevant authority, critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will or may be adversely affected by the proposed instrument.
(3) For the purposes of the consultation, the relevant authority is to provide such information about the proposed instrument as would assist in understanding its effect (including information of the kind prescribed by the regulations).
(4) The consultation in relation to a proposed local environmental plan is to commence after a decision under section 56 (Gateway determination) that the matter should proceed, unless the regulations otherwise provide.
(5) The Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage may comment to the relevant authority on the proposed instrument within the following period after the consultation commences: (a) the period agreed between the Chief Executive and the relevant authority, (b) in the absence of any such agreement, the period of 21 days or such other period as is prescribed by the regulations.
(6) The consultation required by this section is completed when the relevant authority has considered any comments so made.
(7) In this section, a reference to the Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage includes, in the application of this section to fish and marine vegetation, a reference to the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Skills and Regional Development. It is not clear from the exhibited material that such consultation has been undertaken, what consideration was made by the relevant authority nor the applied effect. ELA cannot comment on the adequacy of the Draft SEPP provisions and implications of land zonings in this regard.
Due to the limited consultation period ELA is only able to provide preliminary comments on the proposed rezoning as outlined in the draft SEPP.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED ZONINGS
As a preliminary ELA provide the following commentary on the proposed zonings within the Draft SEPP.
Environment zone
One of the key objectives of the Environment land use zone is “To protect, manage, restore and enhance the ecology, hydrology and scenic values of riparian corridors and waterways, wetlands, groundwater resources, biodiversity corridors, areas of remnant indigenous vegetation and dependent ecosystems.”
Remnant Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest is present the 11km length of the Scheme along the riparian corridor of the Nepean River, yet it is not zoned as ‘Environment’ under the proposed SEPP. There are also a number of lakes and wetlands which provide biodiversity and ecological benefits to the region which fall within the Unzoned lands of the proposed SEPP. See Attachment 1.
The rehabilitated Wildlife Lake Precinct at the northern end of the Scheme is approximately 190 ha, and comprises remnant Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest and habitat for threatened and migratory species. Under the proposed SEPP it appears that only 170 ha at this location have been zoned as Environment. This implies that there will be a loss of around 20 ha of habitat at the Wildlife Lake Precinct. See Attachment 2
2
The Eastern Lakes Precinct’s primary function is the polishing of stormwater runoff from the adjacent Cranbrook urban area as per the Stage 2 Water Management Plan for the Penrith Lakes Scheme. None of the key recommendations or conservation principles from either the Stage 1 or Stage 2 Water Management Plan for the Penrith Lakes Scheme relating to water quality or quantity are contained within the objectives for the Environment zone. In particular Design and deliver a terrestrial landscape that complements the aquatic ecosystems and assists in the treatment of water that enters the lakes from rainfall run-off.
The 2012 Wildlife Lake Design Principles were endorsed by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in 2013. These design principles unify the Natural and Cultural heritage objectives of the 190 Hectare site. The Plan also identifies activities and access policies for within the Wildlife Lake Precinct which recognise its relatively high conservation values. Further clarification is needed for the definition of permissible uses within the Environment zone under the proposed SEPP to ensure the complex conservation values of this area continue to be supported.
Waterway zone
A number of wetlands and water bodies identified in the 1998 Structure plan and the Water Management Plan (PLDC 2012a) are not zoned as Waterways but would most likely fall within this zoning type. The zoning criteria should take into consideration the water quality, water balance and flood mitigation criteria as outlined in the 2012 Water Management Plan.
Employment zone
Despite its proximity to the EEC community Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest or the Nepean Riverbank, the Draft SEPP is silent on the restrictions on development within this Zone. It is recommended that there are limitations placed on industries with potential for pollution runoff should be considered within the Scheme to minimise environmental risk and potential to impact on the interconnected nature of the water bodies within the Scheme
Parkland zone
Parkland zoning has only been applied to areas within the Sydney International Regatta Centre (SIRC) and the Sydney White Water Stadium. The permitted land use table is consistent with its current use of the lands within SIRC and therefore potentially will have little to no effect. It is recommended that the interconnected nature of the Lakes are recognised through planning controls and potential permitted uses limited to those which will are sensitive to the Waterways as a whole..
Residential zone
The Residential zone aims to provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic value. No evidence is provided as to which of these criteria or combination of criteria apply to which residential lot. As such, some areas may have the potential for a smaller lot size without impacting on areas of value.
This zoning type is currently restricted to lands along the outskirts of the scheme. It does not differentiate between lands which have been quarried and reinstated or natural landforms. As such the relevance of some of the criteria outlined in Clause 25 (2) will vary.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER LAND REZONING PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS
In early 2016 it was proposed that land at Mamre West in Orchard Hills be rezoned from rural to industrial employment purposes under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009. As part of the community consultation process which occurred over a five week period from the 26/2/2016 till the 1/4/2016 the following plans and assessments were displayed;
A development Control Plan (DCP) which addressed environmental impacts and proposed control methods. An Ecological and Riparian Assessment which addressed threatened species and Ecological communities, riparian corridors, and fish habitat.
3
A Land Use and Infrastructure Delivery Plan which investigated the constraints and opportunities resulting from traffic and transport, flooding and stormwater management, biodiversity and riparian corridors, Indigenous heritage, Non Indigenous heritage, Acoustic and vibration, utility services and land contamination. An Overland Flow Report which developed flood models to assess the pre development overland flow patterns and compare them to post development overland flow pattern to determine the potential impacts of a 1:100 year ARI flood event and a Probable Maximum Flood storm event on the proposed development. An Environmental Site Assessment which reviewed the potential for contamination to occur as a result of past and proposed land uses. and A Public Utility Infrastructure Servicing Report which reviewed the potable water, waste water, electrical supply and telecommunications requirements of the site. The public exhibition process for the proposed draft SEPP amendment contains none of these reviews or assessments despite the site containing various threatened species, EECs and being located on a flood plain.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion the proposed amendment does not adequately address issues related to EEC TS, and is inconsistent with conservation and rehabilitation works conducted within the Penrith lakes Scheme.
No assessments of potential impacts upon these EECs or threatened species have been conducted as would be typically expected for a project of this scale and importance to conservation in Western Sydney.
Please contact the undersigned should you have further inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Justin Russell Restoration Ecologist Mudgee Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Unit 1, Level 1, 79 Market St Mudgee NSW 2850. PO Box 949 Mudgee NSW 2850. Mob 0419 678943 | F +61 2 9542 5622 [email protected] http://www.ecoaus.com.au
References
Clouston Associates 2009. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Draft Wildlife Lake Concept. Report prepared for PLDC.
Department of Environment and Planning 1984. Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study. NSW Government
PLDC 2012a. Water Management Plan Stage 1. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
PLDC 2012b. Wildlife Lake Precinct Landform and Landscaping Two-year Plan. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
Department of Planning and Environment 2016 Plans to rezone land at Mamre West. Website accessed 21/12/2016 http://planspolicies.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=7527
4
5
ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ABN 87 096 512 088 www.ecoaus.com.au
REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 6
GML HERITAGE PTY LTD REVIEW
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 6.doc | 12 August 2009
22 December 2016 Sydney Office Level 6 372 Elizabeth Street Ms Dani Robinson Surry Hills NSW Australia 2010 Environment and Community Manager T +61 2 9319 4811 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation E [email protected] PO Box 457 Canberra Office Cranebrook NSW 2749 2A Mugga Way Red Hill ACT Australia 2603 T +61 2 6273 7540 Our Ref: 14-0212drc10 F +61 2 6273 8114 E [email protected] Re: Public Consultation Draft SEPP (Penrith Lakes Scheme) Amendment GML Heritage Pty Ltd 2016 ABN 60 001 179 362 Dear Dani,
Thank you for commissioning GML Heritage (GML) to review the draft amendment 2016 of the Penrith Lakes Scheme SEPP currently on exhibition.
GML has provided heritage advice on the Penrith Lakes Scheme since 2004, when we prepared the Penrith Lakes Urban Lands Scheme—Concept Masterplan—Non-Indigenous Heritage Report and we have prepared numerous studies and analyses since for the Penrith Lakes Development corporation (PLDC) to ensure appropriate conservation management of the scheme area’s heritage resources.
We have reviewed the draft SEPP amendment, the Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) and associated map which form the exhibition documentation and find a number of matters inconsistent with good heritage planning practice. This has been a very swift desktop assessment undertaken over just a few days, for the purposes of Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) making a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the suitability of the provisions of the draft SEPP amendment for achieving heritage conservation outcomes.
We note that PLDC will be objecting to the seasonal timing of the exhibition, the lack of time available to prepare a comprehensive submission and the absence of effective stakeholder consultation and we endorse this objection. The period for public consultation closes on 23 December, immediately before the Christmas holiday closure period, a timing which is both inadequate and against the spirit of the EP&A Act and Department of Planning and Environment policies for fair and reasonable consultation with the public and impacted stakeholders.
The EIE and draft SEPP amendment fail to recognise the value of the extensive heritage research and documentation available to guide the post-mining phase of development of the Penrith Lakes Scheme area, all of which was made available to the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the Urban Instrument proposal in 2015. The draft SEPP amendment therefore fails in its stated aim to identify and protect items of environmental heritage.
www.gml.com.au
Extensive heritage assessment and planning work has been commissioned by PLDC and is in the public domain, but it does not appear to have informed the draft SEPP amendment. Key documents include GML’s site-wide Conservation Management Plan (CMP), 2010, an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP), 2015, and an Interpretation Strategy (IS), 2015, as well as numerous heritage impact assessments, archaeological research designs and excavations in advance of quarrying and rehabilitation activities undertaken over the last 12 years. GML has worked in close collaboration with Clouston Associates to develop an integrated landscape approach to the sites’ holistic rehabilitation and development for future use, recognising the cultural landscape values of this unique area. GML Heritage provided inputs to the overarching Landscape Heritage Strategy and the Visual Management Strategy developed by Clouston, which provides a clear framework to conserve critical heritage sites, views and historic relationships across the Scheme area. These represent best practice documents to guide future planning.
Since the PLS began in 1987, more than 100 professional heritage reports have been prepared to guide development. Some have been associated with specific DAs, others have been prepared to guide management approaches to specific heritage places within the site, and provide conservation policies to direct conservation works and development in the vicinity of heritage items, such as the CMPs for Hadley Park and McCarthy’s Cemetery and the archaeological sites handbooks of the AMP.
Recently, GML has assisted PLDC in preparing a comprehensive schedule of the entire range of conservation planning documentation prepared for the site (Appendix A, the Penrith Lakes Scheme Heritage Outcomes Summary, December 2015) which provides an update on many of the sites listed in the 1983 Regional Environmental Study (RES) for the scheme area. These reports are an extraordinarily rich array of heritage technical content and professional assessments, vital resources to be used to inform planning of the Scheme area, which have been uploaded to the new PLDC website.
Three key documents have guided the conservation of the heritage values of the site overall: the site-wide Conservation Management Plan, the site-wide Archaeological Management Plan and the site-wide Interpretation Strategy. We understand that these documents (some in draft form) were all provided to Planning NSW and passed to the Office of Environment and Heritage as part of the PLDC Urban Instrument proposal on 28 August 2014 and have been accessible in final form on the PLDC website since March 2015.
These documents are not referenced or reflected in the SEPP amendment, nor are any of the key heritage studies and assessments documents mentioned.
We note with concern the following aspects of the 2016 proposed SEPP amendment, which will have adverse heritage impacts:
The SEPP fails to update Schedule 3 to include all potential heritage items identified in the RES and subsequent heritage studies. It appears that of the six heritage items listed in Schedule 3 of the original SEPP, Nepean Park, Hadley Park and McCarthy’s Cemetery are now to be located in the unzoned area where the management of their future conservation, and very importantly their curtilages has not been resolved. Other important heritage items, arguably of state significance, such as Lander’s Inn are left unzoned and unlisted.
Part 5—miscellaneous provisions add standard heritage clauses to the SEPP including controls for development in the vicinity, but only for the six heritage items listed in Schedule 3, yet there are other heritage items and archaeological sites that require management and protection.
14-0212drc10 www.gml.com.au 2
So, although a new aim is proposed to be added to the SEPP—Clause 2(c) to identify and protect items of environmental heritage, the proposed SEPP amendments will fail to achieve such an outcome, as the heritage values of the site are neither identified or protected by Schedule 3 alone.
The map provided at Appendix B overlays the six sites listed in Schedule 3 of the 1989 SEPP and carried through in the 2016 SEPP amendment, with the additional sites for which PLDC have commissioned CMPs and the sites covered by the 15 archaeological handbooks of the AMP. This demonstrates the inconsistency of approach to heritage identification and protection which the proposed SEPP amendment and zoning changes create.
The items belonging to the State Heritage Register listed Upper Castlereagh Group appear to be located in tourism or parkland zones—the basis for this designation is unclear and not documented. The expectations of tourism uses that are raised by such a zoning may bring inappropriate pressure to bear on these heritage items and their sensitive curtilages.
Clause 6 makes the Minister the consent authority for the majority of zonings, employment, parkland, residential, tourism and waterways—but not for the majority of the scheme area which is identified as unzoned for which Penrith City Council is the consent authority, yet an integrated planning and consent process is needed to deal holistically with such a cultural landscape.
There is no basis provided as to how these zones or the boundaries to these zones were determined or what studies have been done to justify these.
Clause 6(b)—suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments may mean that SHR listings, heritage orders and agreements under the Heritage Act are set aside, since these are not listed for exemption under 6(b)(2). It is not clear whether suspension of instruments via Clause 6(b) would affect existing SHR listings the Upper Castlereagh Group. It would certainly affect any future heritage agreements under the Heritage Act, which was the recommended mechanism for managing the conservation and management of sensitive sites such as Hadley Park going forward.
Clause 17—the SEPP amendments require that temporary use of land must not impact on natural features, but there is no mention of likewise considering impacts on cultural heritage, which should be similarly managed.
Clause 18—the Development Standards for certain zoned land contain no specific provisions relating to the heritage values of the site and the full range of items and archaeological sites that require management and forward planning consideration.
Clause 21(7)—restrictions on tree clearance and tree ring barking applies only to the six SEPP listed heritage items, but should apply equally across the other heritage items of the Scheme area.
Clause 25(2)—development on land zoned for residential use requires an Aboriginal cultural assessment but should also require a heritage or historic archaeological assessment.
Clause 28(6) allows the consent authority to require a CMP before granting consent for works on the six SEPP listed heritage items. However, PLDC has already prepared CMPs for the nine heritage items in the Scheme area. Further, PLDC has also prepared 15 archaeological handbooks for the archaeological sites within the site-wide Archaeological Management Plan. These reports should be reflected and referenced in the EIE and SEPP amendment.
14-0212drc10 www.gml.com.au 3
Clause 28(9) allows the Minister to grant consent to the demolition of state heritage items (the Upper Castlereagh Group) provided he has notified the Heritage Council of the proposal and considered their response. This is a weakening of the provisions under the Heritage Act whereby the Heritage Council must refuse an application if the demolition is for the whole of the state heritage item (except where there is a risk to public safety). Allowing the Minister to provide consent to the demolition of state heritage items and reducing the Heritage Council to an advisory role is against the requirements of the Heritage Act, which requires that such applications must be refused and this provision is thus contrary to the objectives of the Heritage Act to conserve the environmental heritage of the state.
Clause 32—Council infrastructure development may not be carried out without consent on land containing one of the six SEPP listed heritage items but provides no such protection for the other heritage items and archaeological sites in the scheme area.
Clause 36—the Development Control Plan provisions fail to mention the importance of considering the heritage values of the scheme area and the need to take into account development in the vicinity of heritage items beyond the six listed heritage items in the SEPP.
The range of heritage studies already undertaken provide the necessary background documentation about the history of settlement and development of the scheme area and its heritage values, and included specific management recommendations for all the heritage items with CMPs and the archaeological sites which are covered by individual management handbooks within the AMP.
We recommend that the Department take up the opportunity to integrate into any SEPP amendment this well documented body of research and best practice landscape planning that has been created by PLDC’s long-standing commitment to documenting and conserving the heritage of the Scheme area.
Yours sincerely
Sheridan Burke
Partner
GML Heritage Pty Ltd
Attachments:
Appendix A: Penrith Lakes Scheme Heritage Outcomes Summary, December 2015
Appendix B: Overlay of heritage items with CMPs and archaeological handbooks over SEPP amendment’s proposed zonings
14-0212drc10 www.gml.com.au 4 Penrith Lakes Scheme Heritage Outcomes Summary December 2015 This summary of Heritage outcomes for the Penrith Lakes Scheme has been prepared by GML Heritage with input from Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC). This document seeks provide a comprehensive summary of the heritage items identifed within the Scheme lands, and the current status of each, based on information provided by PLDC, and reports sighted by GML. References are provided to assist with the ongoing management of conserved items and as evidence of compliance with Conditions of Consent under Development Applications issued by Penrith City Council and archaeological excavations carried out in accordance with the Heritage Act (NSW), 1977. The item names used reflect those found in statutory documents, with additional titles included in the instances where different names have previously been used for an item.
GML Item name Statutory Portion Non-statutory Department of Referenced in Retained/removed Summary of Conservation References Reference Planning Title listing Environemnt and Bently F and J Outcomes Number summary Planning, 1984, Birmingham 1981, (refer Penrith Lakes Penrith Lakes attached Scheme Regional Scheme Regional Heritage Environmental Environmental Outcomes Study, prepared Study: History of Summary by Blake and European Map) Hargreaves Pty Settlement, report Ltd Sydney prepared for PLDC.
1 The Poplars - Penrith LEP1991 80 None 1 12 Y In NSW Government State Heritage Inventory number 2260044 old slab CR8 Ownership - SHI form GML, ‘Poplars Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2008 cottage, pise Draft Penrith LEP recommendations regarding house and 2010 i2260044 landscape, plantings and Refer also: garden weed management, setting, Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Urban Lands Scheme—Concept Masterplan—Non-Indigenous Heritage Report, 2004. and interpretation. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), Lot 2, DP Archaeological resource to be 2006. 229462, managed under Archaeology ARUP, The Poplars—Structural Conditional Assessment Report, 2007. Wrights Lane Handbook Stedinger Associates and Hughes Truman, Remediation Works Prior to Dynamic Compaction in the vicinity of McCarthy's Cemetery and the Poplars, 2007. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010.
2 Inn site 69 None 2 13 N Item not retained as part of Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. (As marked on DA3 Gyford, GFB 1993, A Report on Vellas Farm at Wrights Farm Complex, Castlereagh Nepean District Historical Archaeology 1873 "Crown Group. Plan) 3 Vine Cottage 56 None 3 22 N Excavated under Excavation GML, ’Vine Cottage Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. complex Permit Exemption 10 GML, Penrith Lakes Scheme, Vine Cottage—Historical Archaeological Excavation Report, 2013. November 2008, in accordance with Archaeology Refer also: Handbook Gyford, GFB 2013, A Report on Site 3, Vine Cottage Complex, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
4 Methodist Deed 1987 71 National Trust 4 26A Y In private ownership - GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Church SREP11/SEPP NSW conserved through Site GML, ‘Methodist Church Group Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management 1989 Register of the specific CMP Plan, 2014. Lot 2, DP Penrith LEP 1991 National 196573, Old UC1 Estate Refer also: Castlereagh Draft Penrith LEP (ID103815) Travis Partners, Penrith Lakes Scheme Development Application No 2—Items of Environmental Heritage, report prepared for Road 2010 i2260240 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1987. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Sonneman, T and Gibbs, M, Geophysical Survey at Castlereagh Methodist Church Penrith Lakes, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. 5 Nepean Park SREP11/SEPP 48 National Trust 5 39A Y In private ownership - no site GML, Hadley Park—Revised Conservation Management Plan, 2013. 1989 NSW specific CMP, conserved and Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Lot 482 DP Penrith LEP 1991 Register of the managed under site wide 849952 C9 National CMP Refer also: Deed 1987 Estate Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), Draft Penrith LEP (ID3118) 2006. 2010 i2260025 Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, December 2015 6 Hadley Park SREP11/SEPP 47 National Trust NSW6 40 Y Conserved through Site GML, ‘Hadley Park Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. complex 1989 specific CMP GML, Hadley Park—Artefact Report, 2013. Penrith LEP1991 GML, Hadley Park—Revised Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Part lots 1 and C8 GML, Hadley Park Conservation and Reuse Opportunities—Heritage Advice, 2013. 2 DP 87060 Deed 1987 Godden Mackay Logan, Hadley Park—Results of Archaeological Investigation, 2010. Draft Penrith LEP Godden Mackay Logan, Hadley Park Stabilisation Works, Test Excavation report, 2010. 2010 i2260024 Refer also: McKay Architects, Hadley Park Homestead, Castlereagh Restoration Study, 1993. Graham Edds and Associates, Hadley Park RMB 113 Castlereagh Rd, Castlereagh NSW Conservation/Management Plan, 1996. Graham Edds and Associates, Hadley Park Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh—Report on Urgent Stabilisation Works completed on: RES No 11—Item No 6 Hadley Park Complex Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, 1999. Lander, R 2003, Hadley Park Conservation Plan, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. French, BA, Re-Appraisal of the Penrith Lakes Scheme and a Conservation Plan for Hadley Park, Castlereagh, University of Western Sydney, 1996. Puplijovski, R, The Invasive Potential of Cultural Plantings at Hadley Park—A response to proposed conservation of PLDC historic precinct gardens, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 2002. Eden Pty Ltd, Hadley Park Conservation Report—Summary of Management Plans 1990–2001. Eden Pty Ltd Stedinger Associates, Hughes Truman, Truman Zaniol and Associates, and Geoffrey Britton Environmental Design, Conservation/Restoration works at Hadley Park—Archaeological Assessment and Excavation Permit Application, 2007. Stedinger Associates, Hadley Park A Conservation management Plan and Schedule of Works, 2007. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Sonneman, T and Wilson, A, Ground penetrating Radar survey of sites in the Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith lakes Scheme —Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 5 (Portions 47, 64, 65, 66, 293 and part of 67), Parish of Castlereagh County Cumberland, 2011. 7 Cottage and 46 None 7 41 N Item not retained under DA4 outbuildings Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 4 (Portions 46 & 300), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland. Dr Terry Kass Historian & Heritage Consultant, 2011. Gyford, GFB 2000, A report on Site 7 Cottage and Outbuildings, Castlereagh Road Castlereagh, Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997, DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 8 Georgian 300 None 8 43 N Item not retained under DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997, DALavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997, DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith cottage and Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.4 Management outbuildings Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW , draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 9 Ruins of stone Penrith LEP1991 43 None 9 46 Y Conserved and managed GML, ‘Landers Inn Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. stables (House C6 under site specific CMP, and Godden Mackay Logan, Landers Inn Stables—Essential Conservation Works Outline Schedule, draft report, 2011. and Barn - Draft Penrith LEP managed under Archaeology Godden Mackay Logan, Landers Inn and Stables—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Landers Inn) 2010 i2260022 Handbook Godden Mackay Logan, Landers Inn and Stables, Special Element Interpretation Plan Stage 1: Strategic Overview, Draft Report, November 2007 Part Lot 43, DP752021, Old Refer also: Castlereagh Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997, DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh Road NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Godden Mackay Logan, Landers Inn and Stables-Special Element Interpretation Plan Stage 1: Strategic Overview, draft report, 2007. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 3 (Portions 44, 43, 62 & 63), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Sonneman, T and Wilson, A, Ground penetrating Radar survey of sites in the Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme —Conservation Management Plan, 2010.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 10 Upper SREP11/SEPP 54 None 10 25A Y Item in NSW State GML, Upper Castlereagh School and Schoolmasters Residence Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Castlereagh 1989 Government ownership - Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. School House State Heritage Conserved and managed GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Register 5000920 under site specific CMP, and Lot 1, DP Deed 1987 managed under Archaeology Refer also: 735602, Old Penrith LEP 2010 Handbook Travis Partners, Penrith Lakes Scheme Development Application No 2—Items of Environmental Heritage, report prepared for Castlereagh Rd i2260243 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1987. Brown, A, Nagle, M, Connor, W and Rice, J, Castlereagh Learning Centre Upper Castlereagh: A Conservation Plan, report prepared by Heritage Group, State Projects, 1993. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 and 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Sonneman, T and Wilson, A, Ground penetrating Radar survey of sites in the Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme —Conservation Management Plan, 2010
11 Schoolmasters SREP11/SEPP 54 None 11 25B Y Item in NSW State GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. residence 1989 Government ownership - GML, ‘Upper Castlereagh School and Schoolmasters Residence Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A—Penrith Lakes State Heritage Conserved and managed Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2008. Lot 2, DP Register 5000920 under site specific CMP, and 735602, Old Deed 1987 managed under Archaeology Refer also: Castlereagh Rd Draft Penrith LEP Handbook Travis Partners, Penrith Lakes Scheme Development Application No 2—Items of Environmental Heritage, report prepared for 2010 i2260243 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1987. Brown, A, Nagle, M, Connor, W and Rice, J, Castlereagh Learning Centre Upper Castlereagh: A Conservation Plan, report prepared by Heritage Group, State Projects, 1993. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Sonneman, T and Wilson, A, Ground penetrating Radar survey of sites in the Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010.
12 Methodist Deed 1987 71 National Trust 12 26B Y Conserved through Site GML, ‘Methodist Church Group Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Church hall SREP11/SEPP NSW specific CMP Plan, 2014. 1989 Register of the GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Lot 2, DP LEP1991 UC2 National 196573, Old Draft Penrith LEP Estate Refer also: Castlereagh 2010 i2260240 (ID103815) Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), Road 2006. Sonneman, T and Gibbs, M, Geophysical Survey at Castlereagh Methodist Church Penrith Lakes, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. GML, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
13 Jacksons 54 None 13 29A N Item not retained as part of Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. house DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
14 Weatherboard 51 None 14 34 N Item not retained as part of Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. cottage DA4 Gyford, GFB, A report on site 14 weatherboard cottage, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by the Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 2000. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
15 Harris cottage 49 None 15 37 N Item not retained as part of Lavelle, S and NDHAG, ‘Archaeological and Heritage Assessment, RES Site 15, ‘Minnaville’, Penrith Lakes Scheme Area’, complex/Minna DA4 report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1996, in Statement of Environmental Effects Penrith Lakes ville Scheme Development Application 4 (DA4), Appendices. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Gyford GFB, A report on Site 15 ‘Minnaville’ Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 2004. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 16 Slab cottage Penrith LEP1991 44 None 16 45 N Ruin managed under the GML, ‘Puddledock Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. (Puddledock C7 dismatleing and salvageable Annie Bickford —Archaeology And Heritage, Exception Application under Section 139 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) for Cottage) Penrith LEP 2010 Materials Strategy prepared ‘Puddledock’ 1268 Old Castlereagh Road, Castlereagh. i2260023 by Architects Truman, Zaniol Stedinger Associates, Assessment and Relocation Plan for the Cottage Puddledock, 2007; 1991 LEP: Lot & Associates Graham Brooks and Associates, Photographic Archival Record, 2010. 1, DP 120872, Castlereagh Refer also: Road Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Rosen, S, History Report for Puddledock, report prepared for the Penrith lakes Development Corporation, 2010. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 3 (Portions 44, 43, 62 & 63), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Truman, Zaniol and Associates, Puddledock Dismantling and Salvageable Materials Strategy, 2010.
17 Christchurch, Penrith LEP1991 N/A None 17 48 Y Outside of scheme and not Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Urban Lands Scheme—Concept Masterplan—Non-Indigenous Heritage Report, 2004. Anglican C12 covered by a DA Clousten Associates, Penrith Lakes Visual Management Strategy, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Company, Church Draft Penrith LEP 2010. 2010 i2260028 Lot 27, DP 581747, Church Lane 18 Straithcairns 86 None 18 57 N Item not retained under DA2 Gyford GFB, A report on Strathbains Cottage, report prepared by Castlereagh Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, cottage 1994. 19 Allen Longs Draft Penrith LEP 89 None 19 16 Y Conserved and managed GML, Longs Cottage—Conservation Management Plan Report, 2013. house complex 2010 i2260877 under site specific CMP, and GML, ‘Long's Cottage Archaeology Handbook’, part of Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, managed under Archaeology 2014. Handbook Refer also: GML, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. 20 Bungalow (at 89 None 20 19A N Item not retained under DA2 corner of Castlereagh and Carter's lane) 21 Crushing plant Penrith LEP1991 55 None 21 23 Y Archival recording undertaken GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part of Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological (Penrith quarry UC5 prior to demolition. Management Plan, 2014. complex, Site to be managed under Former BMI Archaeology Handbook Refer also: plant) Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Stedinger Associates, The BMI Plant: An Archival Recording of the Blue Metal Industries Sand and Gravel Plant, 2005. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
22 Federation 55 None 22 24A N Item not retained - Pre Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh cottage Scheme Development NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Gyford, GFB, A report on site 22 federation cottage, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 2000. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
23 Parkers Penrith LEP1991 70 None 23 30 N Item not retained under DA2 Davis, T and Gyford, GFB, A report on Parkers Slaughteryard—Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Slaughter UC6 Archaeology Group, 1994. Yard—various Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. structures Excavation permit 1/11/2006 Old Castlereagh Road and Parkers's Well_#2006/S140/037 (Parkers Stedinger Associates, Parker’s Slaughteryard, Excavation report, 2010 homestead)
1991 LEP: Part Lot 1, DP 215435, Castlereagh Road
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 24 Parkers Penrith LEP1991 70 None 24 31 N Item not retained under DA2 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh slaughteryard UC6 NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. 1991 LEP: Part Gyford, GFB, A report on Site 23, Parkers Homestead, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Lot 1, DP Historical Archaeology Group, 2002. 215435, Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Castlereagh Excavation Permit under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) for 1/11/2006 Old Castlereagh Road and Parkers's Road Well_#2006/S140/037
25 Federation 52/298 None 25 32 N Item not retained under DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh cottage NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Gyford, GFB, A report on site 25 federation cottage, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 2000. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
26 Weatherboard 68 None 26 33 N Item not retained under DA3 Gyford, G.F.B (1993) A report on site 26 Weatherboard cottage William Wright's Farm, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh. Nepean cottage District Historical Archaeology Group. Kass, T. (February 2011) A history of PLDC Group 7 (Portions 67, 297, & 322), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland. Dr Terry Kass Historian & Heritage Consultant. 27 Bungalow 300 None 27 42 N Item not retained under DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 4 (Portions 46 & 300), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. 28 Bungalow 44 None 28 44 N Item not retained under DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Gyford, GFB, A report on site 28, Bungalow, Castlereagh Rd Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 1999. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 3 (Portions 44, 43, 62 & 63), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. 29 Farm complex 42 None 29 47 N Item not retained under DA4 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 1 (Portion 42), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. 30 McCarthys Deed 1987 82 National Trust 30 15 Y Conserved and managed GML, McCarthy's Cemetery—Conservation Management Plan Report, June 2015. Cemetery, SREP11/SEPP NSW under site specific CMP, and GML, ‘McCarthy's Cemetery Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management 1989 managed under Archaeology Plan, 2014. Lot 82, DP Draft Penrith LEP Handbook 1129226, Old 2010 i2260049 Refer also: Castlereagh Rd Travis Partners, Penrith Lakes Scheme Development Application No 2—Items of Environmental Heritage, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1987. Wharton, S, McCarthys Cemetery: photographic record of fencing and maintenance works, report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1991. Nepean Family History Society Inc 1994, Heritage Photographic Collection: McCarthy's Lane Catholic Cemetery, books 1 and 2, record series No 47. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Urban Lands Scheme—Concept Masterplan—Non-Indigenous Heritage Report, 2004. Stedinger Associates and Hughes Truman, Remediation Works Prior to Dynamic Compaction in the Vicinity of McCarthy's Cemetery and the Poplars, 2007. Stedinger Associates, McCarthy's Cemetery: A Conservation Management Plan., 2008. Sonneman, T and Wilson, A, Ground penetrating Radar survey of sites in the Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared by the Archaeological Computing Laboratory, The University of Sydney, 2008. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010.
31 Methodist SREP11/SEPP 71 National Trust 31 26C Y Conserved and managed GML Heritage, ‘Methodist Church Group Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Cemetery 1989 NSW under site specific CMP, and Management Plan, 2014. Deed 1987 Register of the managed under Archaeology GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Lot 2, DP Draft Penrith LEP National Handbook 196573, Old 2010 i2260240 Estate Refer also: Castlereagh (ID103815) Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), Road 2006. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 32 Rev. Fultons Draft Penrith LEP 99 None 32 51 Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘Fulton's Parsonage Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, parsonage 2010 A2260881 Archaeology Handbook, and 2014. condition 38 of DA3 Refer also: Lavelle, S, Historical Archaeological Assessment, Site 32, Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Cranebrook, NSW, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group to meet development application obligations,1995. GML, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. 33 Purcells 72 None 33 20 N Item not retained under DA2 Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. cottage Gyford, GFB and Turner, M. A Report on Purcells Cottage—Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 1994.
34 Lee's house Draft Penrith LEP 71 None 34 27 Y Conserved and managed GML, ‘Upper Castlereagh School and Schoolmasters Residence Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix , Penrith Lakes 2010 A2260884 under site specific CMP, and Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. Lot 2, DP managed under Archaeology GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. 196573, Old Handbook Castlereagh Refer also: Road Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
35 Kerry Lodge 71 None 35 28 N Item not retained under DA2 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Kass, T, A History of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
36 Barn dairy and 69 None 36 35 N Item not retained under DA3 Gyford GFB, A report on Site No 36—Barn and Dairy, report prepared by Castlereagh Nepean District Historical Archaeology house Group, 1994. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 and 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
37 Ruins of pise Penrith LEP1991 280 None 37 49 Y Site to be managed under Godden Mackay Logan, Mass Concrete House Ruins, Castlereagh—Heritage Assessment, 2012. house C13 Archaeology Handbook, with GML, ‘Mass Concrete House Ruins Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A—Penrith Lakes SchemeArchaeological (Mass Concrete Draft Penrith LEP archival recording under Management Plan, 2014. Ruins) 2010 i2260029 condition 38(ii) of DA3 Refer also: Lot 109, DP Gyford, GFB, A Report on the Pise House—Castlereagh, report prepared by Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group, 1143931, 1996 Church Lane Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. 38 Allens mill 309 None 38 1G Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Archaeology Handbook Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 39 Weatherboard 307 None 39 18 N Predates Scheme cottage ( at development possibly DA1 corner of Castlereagh and Longs Lane) 40 Weatherboard 304 None 40 19B N Predates Scheme cottage and development possibly DA1 palms (cottage at corner of Castlereagh and Carter's Lane)
41 Hunters 301 None 41 21A,B,C&D N Predates Scheme homestead and development possibly DA1 plantings Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 42 Jacksons mill 53 None 42 1J&29B Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part of Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Archaeology Handbook Management Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Section 5.5.2, p 13. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54,69,70 & 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
43 McCarthys Penrith LEP1991 82 None 43 14 N Destroyed by fire. Predates Gyford GFB 1995, A Report on McCarthy Farm—Cranebrook, Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. Farm, tree and CR9 scheme archaeological remains
1991 LEP: Portion 82, McCarthys Lane
44 Mouquet farm 321 None 44 17A&B N Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part of Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Archaeology Handbook Management Plan, 2014. 45 Michael Longs 321 None 45 17C N Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part of Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological cottage Archaeology Handbook Management Plan, 2014. 46 Inn site 54 None 46 24B N Predates Scheme Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh (As marked on development NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 1873 "Crown Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 8 (Portions 53, 54, 69, 70 and 71), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Plan) 47 Early slab 50 None 47 36 N Item not retained under DA4 Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. cottage Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
48 Minnaville 48 None 48 39B N In private ownership - no site Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. (incorrectly specific CMP, conserved and Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. named. School managed under site wide Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh site on Nepean CMP NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Park) 49 Fraser's house 280 None 49 50 N Item not retained under DA3 Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 50 Castlereagh Rd Draft Penrith LEP N/A None 50 3 Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘Old Castlereagh Road Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A—Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management 2010 i2260261C Archaeology Handbook, Plan, 2014. partially excavated under Variation 2009/S144/02 of Refer also: Excavation Permit Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—(Old) Castlereagh Road Archaeological Excavation Report, 2010. 2006/S140/037 Stedinger Associates, Excavation of a Colonial Road in Castlereagh, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 2008. Parkes, R, Castlereagh Road Relocation: Cultural Heritage Assessment, Navin Officer Heritage Consultants, 2004. Stedinger Associates, Easement survey of Old Castlereagh Rd, archaeological assessment, 2008. Stedinger Associates, Excavation of Old Castlereagh Rd and Parkers Well in the Penrith Lakes Scheme Area, archaeological assessment and excavation permit application, 2006. Excavation Permit under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 for Old Castlereagh Road and Parkers's Well_2006/S140/037 Variation to Excavation Permit Old Castlereagh Rd and Parkers Well 2006/S140/037, 2009. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
51 McCarthys N/A None 51 5 Y Partially retained in vicinity of GML, McCarthy's Cemetery—Conservation Management Plan Report, under preparation. Lane McCarthy's cemetery. GML, ‘McCarthy's Cemetery Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. 52 Farrells Lane N/A None 52 6 N Archival recording under GML, Penrith Lakes, Farrell’s Lane—Historical Archaeological Test Excavation Report, 2015. condition 38(ii) of DA3 Gyford, GFB 1996, A Report on Farrells Lane, Castlereagh Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. 53 Church Lane N/A None 53 7 N Archival recording under Gyford, GFB 1996, A Report on Church Lane, Castlereagh Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. condition 38(ii) of DA3 54 Wrights Lane N/A None 54 8A N Archival recording under condition 38(ii) of DA3 55 Carters lane N/A None 55 8B N Archival recording under condition 38(ii) of DA3 56 Longs Lane N/A None 56 9 Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 57 Sheens lane N/A None 57 10A Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. GML, Penrith Lakes, Sheen's Lane—Historical Archaeological Test Excavation Report, 2013 Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme, Purcell’s and Sheen’s Lanes—Archaeological Test Excavation, Summary of Preliminary Results, 2012.
Refer also: Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011.
58 Purcells Lane N/A None 58 10B Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014. GML, Penrith Lakes, Purcell's Lane—Historical Archaeological Test Excavation Report, 2013. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme, Purcell’s and Sheen’s Lanes—Archaeological Test Excavation, Summary of Preliminary Results, 2012.
Refer also: Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
59 Jacksons Lane N/A None 59 10C Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared for Penrith Council,1998. 60 Longs Lane N/A None 60 1B Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme ford Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 61 Sheens Lane N/A None 61 1C Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme ford Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. . 62 Jacksons Lane N/A None 62 1D Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme ford Archaeology Handbook Archaeological Management Plan, 2014.
Refer also: GML, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 63 Singles ford N/A None 63 1E N Cannot be relocated, removed GML, ‘The Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneway Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme by quarrying in 1960s or Archaeological Management Plan, 2008. 1970s. Refer also: Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 64 Nepean River Various None 64 1 Y Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management bank Archaeology Handbook Plan, 2014.
Refer also: Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. 65 Cranebrook Various None 65 2 N Archival recording under Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh Creek condition 38(ii) of DA3 NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. Gyford GFB 1996, A report on Cranebrook Creek—Castlereagh, Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. Kohen JL, Archaeological sites along Cranebrook Creek: Test excavations of open sites and monitoring after removal of topsoil, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, 1988.
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015 66 Kinghorns mill Unknown None 66 1H Outside of scheme and not Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 9 (Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73 & 301), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011. (site) covered by a DA 67 Howells ford N/A None 67 1F Outside of scheme and not covered by a DA 68 Cranebrook Rd N/A None 68 4 Outside of scheme and not covered by a DA 69 Anglican N/A None 69 52 Outside of scheme and not cemetery covered by a DA 70 Church and N/A None 70 53 Outside of scheme and not school house covered by a DA 71 MJ Foultons N/A None 71 54 Outside of scheme and not house (site) covered by a DA 72 Former N/A None 72 55 Outside of scheme and not Cranebrook covered by a DA Public School (1883 buildings)
1991 LEP: Lot 22, DP 809521, Cranebrook Road
73 St Thomas N/A None 73 56 Outside of scheme and not Church covered by a DA 74 Rev. Fultons 99 None 74 11 N Item destroyed by fire, GML Heritage, ‘Fulton's Parsonage Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological parsonage predates Scheme Management Plan, 2014. (site) (slab cottage ruins, to the south of Parsonage) 75 Gothic Brick 89 None 75 58 N Ruins predate Scheme cottage (site) 76 Mass Concrete Draft Penrith LEP 42 None 76 Y Conserved and managed GML, ‘Smith Road Residence Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management House 43 2010 i2260876 under site specific CMP, and Plan, 2014. Truman, Zaniol and Associates, 43 Smith Road, Castlereagh—Conservation Management Plan, 2012. Smith Rd managed under Archaeology Handbook Refer also: Kass, T, A history of Group 1 Portion 42 Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, Final Report, 2011. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme, 43 Smith Street, Castlereagh-Results of Archaeological Monitoring, 2010. Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Stedinger Associates, Mass Concrete House at 43 Smith Road, Castlereagh: A Conservation Management Plan and Schedule of Works, 2007. Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006. Wright, W and Gyford, GFB 2002, A Report on the Mass Concrete House at 43 Smith St, Castlereagh, Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group. Lavelle, S and Bickford, A 1997 DA4 Management Study—Heritage Assessment—Penrith Lakes Scheme Area Castlereagh NSW, draft report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation.
77 Power - Gravel 298 None 77 N Site to be managed under GML, ‘Nepean River Foreshore Archaeology Handbook’, part Appendix A, Penrith Lakes Scheme Archaeological Management plant Archaeology Handbook Plan, 2014. Kass, T, A history of PLDC Group 6 (Portions 48, 49, 50, 51 & 298), Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, 2011 Stedinger Associates, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme—A Conservation Management Plan (Masterplan), 2006.
78 Cottage 143 298 None N/A N Item not retained under DA4 Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, Position Paper on Items of Heritage Interest Penrith Lakes Scheme, report prepared Castlereagh Rd for Penrith Council,1998.
79 Upper Penrith LEP 1991 None N/A Y Conserved and managed GML, Upper Castlereagh Group—Conservation Management Plan, 2013. Castlereagh UC4 under site specific CMP, and War Memorial Draft Penrith LEP managed under Archaeology Refer also: 2010 i2260244 Handbook Godden Mackay Logan, Penrith Lakes Scheme—Conservation Management Plan, 2010. Lot 1, DP 735602, OldCastlereagh Road
Penrith Lakes Scheme, Heritage Outcomes Summary, Decemeber 2015
REPORTTITLE | 1
ATTACHMENT 7
REVIEW UNDERTAKEN BY CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
c:\users\kylie\dropbox (pldc)\draft sepp (penrith lakes scheme) amendment 2016 (draft sepp)\attachment 7.doc | 12 August 2009
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 65-69 KENT STREET • SYDNEY NSW 2000 PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • AUSTRALIA [email protected] www.clouston.com.au TELEPHONE (02) 8272 4999
Penrith Lakes Development Corporation PO Box 457 CRANEBROOK NSW 2749
Attention: Dani Robinson, Environment and Community Manager
S16_0155_Penrith Lakes Draft SEPP Amendment_CLOUSTON Associates_Rev 1 22.12.16 Dear Dani,
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (PENRITH LAKES SCHEME) AMENDMENT 2016 – LANDSCAPE PLANNING, LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT REVIEW CLOUSTON Associates has been engaged by Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) to review the proposed 2016 amendment to the State Environment Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 and provide specialist advice on the proposed draft SEPP provisions in relation to: . Landscape Planning, Landscape Design and Urban Design . Landscape Character, Visual Impact and Landscape Heritage Consequently, this review draws on CLOUSTON’s knowledge of the scheme and the practice’s contributions since 2008 to the development of an integrated landscape strategy for the future of this highly significant site.
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE STRATEGY The following brief chronology of CLOUSTON’s involvement in the Penrith Lakes Scheme over the last eight years is set out in order to illustrate the extent of work that has been commissioned by both PLDC and the NSW State Government to develop a coherent and integrated vision for the site’s future – a vision which this review suggests is neither reflected in - nor secured by - the Draft SEPP amendments currently on exhibition.
In 2008 CLOUSTON Associates was first commissioned by PLDC to undertake a review of the landscape and recreation planning of the Nepean River riparian corridor that runs along the Scheme’s southern and western boundaries.
It soon became evident that, despite numerous technical studies having been undertaken for the whole Scheme during the previous 20 years, there had been no development of a coherent landscape strategy that would draw together these studies and provide a clear vision for the site’s future uses.
In the ensuing years PLDC commissioned CLOUSTON to prepare a series of integrated landscape strategies that included the following: . Landscape Heritage Strategy (in association with GML Heritage), this included an overarching landscape strategy for all of the Lakes Scheme’s non-Aboriginal cultural heritage and subsequently a series of detailed strategies for individual heritage sites (eg Hadley House, Landers Inn, Castlereagh Village etc) . Visual Management Strategy – a comprehensive review and update of the detailed visual management proposals contained in the Upper Castlereagh Study that identified critical views to be protected and conserved . Recreation Overlay Strategy – development of an integrated recreation strategy that draws on the site’s environmental, heritage and scenic values and that meets local and regional recreation needs
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • URBAN DESIGNERS • LANDSCAPE PLANNERS • SYDNEY • DARWIN • GOLD COAST • ABU DHABI CLOUSTON ASSOCIATES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD • ACN 003 049 616 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS URBAN DESIGNERS LANDSCAPE PLANNERS . Wildlife Lake Strategy – development of the design scheme, habitat creation and native plantings that have subsequently been implemented . Landscape Elements Strategy – a detailed like-for-like update and cost plan for the landscape elements required by The Deed for the site’s adaptive reuse . Urban Design and Landscape Strategy for a potential urban lands precinct. . Landscape Structure Plan – while PLDC was not required under the Deed to prepare a master plan as such for the Scheme’s future the Corporation commissioned this critical plan to assist in their progressive rehabilitation of the site towards a coherent landscape outcome, that reflects the intent of The Deed. The Plan was progressively updated as new information came to hand.
Given CLOUSTON’s extensive knowledge of the Scheme and involvement in preparing the Landscape Structure Plan for PLDC, the practice was approached by the Government Architect’s Office (now OGA) to assist in facilitating a design charrette, involving a number of Sydney’s most eminent design practices to develop concepts towards a concept master plan.
The design charrette outcomes informed the development of the Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes 2014 (Draft) prepared by the former Office of Penrith Lakes (OPL).
PLDC supported CLOUSTON’s involvement in assisting the State Government in the facilitation of the design charrette in the belief that shared knowledge would result in shared strategies that were robust, integrated and sustainable.
The extent of alignment between the strategies prepared by PLDC and those of the former OPL contained in the Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes 2014 vindicate that common approach.
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SEPP AMENDMENT DRAFT The above chronology of outputs for the Scheme illustrate the critical importance of an integrated approach to landscape - which is of its nature systemic - if its values are to be conserved and enjoyed by future generations.
Furthermore, it is landscape that lies at the heart of the site’s past and most importantly its future – its environmental rehabilitation, its cultural heritage narrative, its recreational opportunities, its scenic values and above all its ongoing role as a dynamic river landscape.
Conversely, by their nature landuse zoning maps tend to segment and oversimplify such integrated approaches. Over recent years the DP+E has, like many similar organisations in Australia and overseas sought to address this issue through regularising and reducing the numbers of zones (LEP templates) and adding more objectives-based and less prescriptive landuse controls that recognise the contextual values of given landscapes, supported by specific studies.
Regrettably, the Draft 2016 SEPP Amendment for Penrith Lakes appears to reflect none of these best practice initiatives towards an integrated landscape and public realm outcome. The shortcomings of the SEPP in this regard include: . unconnected environmental zones that make no reference to the critical ecological and recreational value and connectivity of the Nepean River riparian corridor (see Eco Logical Australia’s submission for details in this regard), which comprises and important section of The Great River Walk and that will also form a key part of the Green/Blue Grid proposed by the Greater Sydney Commission . a complete absence of any reference in either the zoning map or the EIE to the extensive and thoroughly documented cultural heritage values of - and strategies for -
65-69 KENT STREET • SYDNEY • PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • [email protected] • TEL +61 2 8272 4999 pg. 2
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS URBAN DESIGNERS LANDSCAPE PLANNERS the site (see also GML submission) and how these are intended to be integrated into the future planning of the Scheme . The absence of any recreational intent for the substantial majority of the site other than for the existing uses in the SIRC precinct . No references to or strategies through planning controls for conserving and integrating the extensively documented scenic qualities of the site and in particular the significant views and vistas.
Of mots concern - in terms of either integrated outcomes or any sense that the extensive body of technical and strategic work commissioned by PLDC since 1987 towards the site’s adaptive reuse for recreation is either recognised or reflected in the SEPP – is the extent of the lands that are designated ‘Unzoned’.
The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) document suggests that the principal reasoning behind this absence of zoning is ‘the concerns over risk associated with flooding’. This rationale appears to be at odds with best practice planning throughout much of Sydney where many regional recreation spaces with high environmental and cultural heritage values and which adjoin major rivers and waterways are subject to periodic flooding and yet which have specific zonings that readily reflect and accommodate those characteristics.
From an integrated landscape perspective the consequences of such a large area of the Scheme being designated Unzoned are numerous and problematic, including: . an ‘in limbo’ impact that effectively separates out the planning of this area from the adjoining areas, fragmenting rather than integrating the main lakes into the overall scheme . permitting progression of development or embellishment on zoned lands in the absence of any clear picture on how the boundaries and interfaces with Unzoned lands will be planned, designed or managed . precluding any opportunity to establish a coherent pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access and circulation network for the whole of the site . encouraging fragmented future management of the Scheme by permitting specific areas to proceed whilst placing the majority of the site in a hold position with no clear intent . postponing any likelihood of an early release of any part of the main lakes for public recreation, despite the expressed need for such opportunities in the West District Plan prepared by the GSC. The seeming ‘hold’ option also comes at a cost with no return on investment, as the main lakes are already largely rehabilitated and will require extensive maintenance and yet appear now unlikely to be available to the community for recreational use for some years yet.
VISION PLAN FOR PENRITH LAKES 2014 The SEPP appears to be at odds with the State Government's own proposals for the Scheme's future as set out in the strategic planning vision document Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes 2014 (VPPL 2014).
This Plan draws on the significant body of studies and strategies prepared for this site to establish seven distinct precincts for the Scheme that reflect current values and characteristics and which direct intended land uses.
The SEPP zoning reflects none of these proposed precincts nor the land use intent that underpins them. In this regard is notable that the VPPL 2014 specifically defines the ‘Riverbank’ as one of the seven distinct precincts, a clear omission in the SEPP as outlined above.
65-69 KENT STREET • SYDNEY • PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • [email protected] • TEL +61 2 8272 4999 pg. 3
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS URBAN DESIGNERS LANDSCAPE PLANNERS
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Finally, as a practice that has more than 20 years’ experience in open, transparent and active stakeholder engagement, it is of significant concern to note that the Department has chosen to place this Amendment on exhibition for a very brief period immediately prior to Christmas, the timing and duration of which run counter to best practice in stakeholder engagement and the spirit and intent of the EP and A Act.
The Department will be aware of both the perception and reality of this timing, precluding any realistic opportunities for comprehensive submissions from the numerous public and private stakeholders that have a real and relevant interest in the future of such an important site for the community of Western Sydney and indeed Greater Sydney.
If you require any clarifications on any aspect of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully CLOUSTON Associates
CROSBIE LORIMER Managing Director
DIP LA, MSc LEDM, FAILA, CMLI Registered Landscape Architect 891
65-69 KENT STREET • SYDNEY • PO BOX R1388 • ROYAL EXCHANGE NSW 1225 • [email protected] • TEL +61 2 8272 4999 pg. 4