A Planning Proposal Which Nominates High Conservation Protection For

A Planning Proposal which nominates high conservation protection for former 7d zoned lands and a cost effective exit strategy for owners of lots without developments rights

Addendum

Prepared by

Otford Protection Society Incorporated

14 July 2010

Page 1 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 The Hon. Tony Kelly, ALGA MLC Minister for Planning, Infrastructure and Lands Governor Macquarie Tower Level 34 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Minister Kelly,

Re: Planning Proposal: WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL - A PLANNING PROPOSAL WHICH NOMINATES HIGH CONSERVATION PROTECTION FOR FORMER 7D ZONED LANDS AND A COST EFFECTIVE EXIT STRATEGY FOR OWNERS OF LOTS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTS RIGHTS

I refer to the following correspondence in relation to the above Planning Proposal;

1 Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 submitted to the Director-General Planning NSW (CD 1 attached) or may be seen at: http://www.otfordeco.com/planning/GatewayApplicationfor2508.pdf 2 Email from NSW Premier’s Office dated 08/07/2010 (Referenced Document 1) 3 Open Letter to the Premier of NSW dated 20/06/2010 (Referenced Document 2)

I refer to the following correspondence and the request for additional information;

4 Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter dated 03/06/2010 requesting the Planning Proposal be entered onto the LEP Tracking website (Referenced Document 3) 5 Letter from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 07/06/2010 (Referenced Document 4) 6 Email from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 09/06/2010 (Referenced Document 5)

As the documentation attests, Mr. Petty of Helensburgh wrote to the Premier on 20 June 2010 by way of an OPEN LETTER TO THE NSW PREMIER (Referenced Document 2) by Registered Express Post and included a copy of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Gateway Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 (CD1 attached).

By email dated 08/07/2010 (Referenced Document 2), the Premiers office replied to Mr Petty that the matter of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal had been referred to you, as the responsible Minister.

The Otford Protection Society Incorporated on 11/05/2010 lodged with the Director- General Planning NSW a Gateway Planning Proposal and therein requested you, as Page 2 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 the Minister responsible, invoke your powers under s54(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to:

(i) Enter the Otford Protections Society Incorporated Planning Proposal on the LEP Planning Tracking Website; (ii) Process the application for exhibition; and after exhibition, (iii) Appoint the Director General as Regulated Planning Authority, or has been the case in other instances in the Wollongong LGEA have demanded independent, impartial without bias, appoint Sutherland Shire Council as the Regulated Planning Authority.

As Minister, you are authorised to make this appointment as stated in the email from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 09/06/2010 (Referenced Document 5).

Before proceeding to respond to the matters currently requested, it is important to note the background upon which the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal is based. Wollongong City Council prepared and advertised the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 wherein these 7(d) lands were designated to be reclassified as E2 Environmental Conservation. This E2 Environmental Conservation classification had the full support of Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW.

This is the same basis that the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal was submitted, with the additional benefit of an exit strategy for disenfranchised owners. The switch of zoning from E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 Environmental Management is in need of explanation (Appendix 1).

In support of the original Otford Protection Society Incorporated’s application, the responses herein to the Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 07/06/2010 clearly demonstrate the full and complete responses to all information requested (Appendix 2).

It is therefore requested that the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal be forwarded to the LEP Review Panel for a gateway determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

We request this as a matter of urgency because the Wollongong LEP 2009 allowed a building right under the E3 Environmental Management zonation, a building right that never existed before.

Our call is repeated in the strongest terms to prevent further environmental destruction to these lands whilst this matter is before you for approval. Part 3 A 2 of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 stated: Assessment of Development Applications in the ‘7d’ area be suspended until this planning proposal is determined.

We look forward to this historic community group Planning Proposal being entered on the LEP Tracking website without further delay.

Page 3 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 If you have any further enquiries on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs Pauline Smith on (02) 4294 1243.

Yours sincerely OTFORD PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (Registration Number 1585513702)

N Watson – Secretary C/o 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive OTFORD NSW 2508

14 July 2010

Distribution

N.S.W. Planning – Head Office GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2000

N.S.W. Planning - Southern Region - Wollongong PO Box 5475 Wollongong NSW 2520

Sutherland Shire Council Locked Bag 17 Sutherland NSW 2232

Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500

Note: All correspondence names deleted but originals available on request.

Page 4 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Type Description Page Cover Front Cover 1 Letter Planning Proposal Notification 2 Contents Table of Contents 5 Appendix 1 Switch of zoning from E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 6 Environmental Management Appendix 2 Responses to the Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW 8 dated 07/06/2010 Appendix 3 Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW Email dated 14 02/12/2008 Appendix 4 Media Release Illawarra Land Supposedly at Record Levels 15 05/05/2010 Hon T Kelly Appendix 5 Amendment Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 No. 242 17 Appendix 6 Review of Commercial Uses on 7(D) Land at Helensburgh 18 02/10/2007 Appendix 7 Impact of Proposed Urban Development of Helensburgh and its 20 Surrounds upon Nature Conservation Values in the area. National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 January 1984 Appendix 8 East coast corridor to protect wildlife 45 Appendix 9 “Royal National Park” World’s First National Park 46 Appendix 10 Hansard 22/09/2004 47 Appendix 11 Wollongong City Council Community Survey – Management 58 Report – March 2010 – IRIS Research Appendix 12 Sample community responses to Preliminary Review 16/08/2010 59 Appendix 13 Council Minutes 22/03/2004 60 Appendix 14 Registered Post – SENDER TO KEEP 563313763012 61 Appendix 15 Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2010 62 Appendix 16 Copy of letter from Wollongong City Council dated 31/5/2010 63 Appendix 17 Copy of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter 64 01/06/2010 Appendix 18 Copy of Administrator McGregor’s letter dated 06/07/2010 65 Document 1 Email from NSW Premier’s Office dated 08/07/2010 66 Document 2 Open Letter to the Premier of NSW dated 20/06/2010 67 Document 3 Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter dated 03/06/2010 68 Document 4 Letter from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 69 07/06/2010 Document 5 Email from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 70 07/06/2010 Map 1 Current Gazetted Wollongong City Council 2009/10 Zoning Map 71 Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map 72 Map 3 Conservation Corridor 74 CD 1 Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated Rear 30/04/2010 Cover CD 2 Responses to Willana Report obtained by FOI Rear Cover

Page 5 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 Switch of zoning from E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 Environmental Management

Wollongong City Council prepared its Wollongong DLEP 2009 with the former 7(d) lands as E2 Environmental Conservation.

This was obviously approved and signed off as acceptable to Planning NSW as evidenced by Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW email dated 02/12/2008 (Appendix 3).

Herein from, quote:

“the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 was certified by the NSW Department of Planning on Friday 28/11/08, enabling it to be publicly exhibited” and

“the 7(d) lands at Helensburgh and Otford - as previously advised, the 7(d) zone has been translated into the E2 Environmental Conservation zone”

Clearly, without any qualification Wollongong City Council was proposing the same basis upon which the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal is now based and Planning NSW AGREED with that basis, without any qualification.

The Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal therefore cannot be without merit, lack any technical default or be indefinable as it has been the subject of detailed and rigorous review of Wollongong City Council and Planning NSW.

The question now becomes how the E2 Environmental Conservation recommended and advertised draft Wollongong LEP 2009 became E3 Environmental Management which is now being considered for further development.

Otford Protection Society Incorporated calls on the Minister to seek release of all documents held by Wollongong City Council on this change in recommendation. The point in issue was the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 was never presented to the residents of Wollongong City Council for consultation or comment.

This option of wider development is contrary to the Minister’s own “Media Release Illawarra Land Supposedly at Record Levels 05/05/2010 Hon T Kelly” which primarily targets West Dapto as the area for expansion in Wollongong LGEA (Appendix 4).

The change in zoning recommendation from E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 Environmental Management was stated by Administrator Kibble as “legal advice” on “right to rebuild after fire”. Again this statement is contrary to Wollongong City Council’s own policy document, “Amendment Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 No. 242” (Appendix 5), a fact that no resident could draw to Council’s attention because the change was NEVER available for public comment.

Close ties between pro-development and council seems evident and unsatisfactory. An example is an email shown as Appendix 3.

Page 6 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 The only true transparent action will be if Wollongong City Council releases all documentation associated with the 7(d) rezoning process, including minutes of all meeting, including “non disclosure meetings”.

Page 7 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 2 Responses to the Southern Regional Director – NSW Department of Planning dated 07/06/2010

Otford Protection Society Incorporated herein responds to the matters outlined in our opinion “that the request does not satisfy the Department’s requirement as stated in the practice note for the following reasons” fully satisfy any issue and therefore overcome any perceived barriers to the approval of its Planning Proposal as originally lodged.

The further information requested was: 1) The land that would be affected by the proposal is not sufficiently identified 2) There is insufficient justification as to why the Minister should form the opinion that the matter is of State or regional environmental planning significance. 3) You have not justified why the planning proposal should be prepared by someone other than Wollongong City Council 4) It has not been demonstrated that a request for your proposal has been made to Wollongong City Council.

1) The land that would be affected by the proposal is not sufficiently identified

In brief: We rely upon the maps issued by Wollongong City Council being accurate, to "identify" the subject lands.

If those maps upon which we rely are NOT accurate, then that is a BIG problem, due to Council incompetence, or similar.

Similarly, the term/phrase “7(d) lands” has been in common usage associated with Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops since the 1994 Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry – a state government initiated inquiry.

In detail:

This question does not address if the issue is the wording of the application, a map of the area under review or existing common use of the phrase “former 7(d) lands”.

Wording of the Application:

Redefine the section “former7d lands” as “all land in the 2508 post code where water flow off that land would flow into the Hacking river and pass through Royal National Park or through a nationally significant environmentally feature like the Hanging swamp at Stanwell Tops, the closure of Wildlife Corridors and destruction of riparian corridors” and the remainder of the application title remains intact.

Page 8 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 NOTE WELL – The Stanwell Tops “Hanging Swamp” off Bendena Gardens is NOT 7(d) land – it receives the headwaters of Hargreaves Creek which flows through the old 'Mineral Pool' to Stanwell Park Beach. There is a watershed ridge behind Plateau Rd, and the northern side drains to Kelly’s Creek hence was zoned 7(d).

The Hanging Swamp at Bendena Gardens is the higher environmental protection classification of 7(a) and a small portion probably still 7(b)(ii), thus the reason to include in this definition to recognise the higher level of protection needed, not forgetting the adjacent “Royal National Park” now officially recognised as the “WORLD’S OLDEST NATIONAL PARK”.

Map of the Area:

The maps included in the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 are original maps obtained from Wollongong City Council used in its definition of “former 7d lands” to describe the area under review.

These maps are the same as specified in “the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 was certified by the NSW Department of Planning on Friday 28/11/08, enabling it to be publicly exhibited”.

Existing common use of the phrase “former 7(d) lands

The phrase “former 7(d) lands” is well documented in Wollongong City Council and Planning NSW. The “Review of Commercial Uses on 7(D) Land at Helensburgh 02/10/2007” (Appendix 6) clearly demonstrates the phrase has specific physical, geographic and demographic meaning within the parameters of this application that is clearly understood by ALL interested parties.

7(d) zoned lands are exclusive to the 2508 district, the zoning classification created to protect the Hacking River catchment. So all the lots within the 7D zone have always been referred to collectively and wholly for over twenty years, and easily identified as such by the respective Council planners, and Planning NSW.

2) There is insufficient justification as to why the Minister should form the opinion that the matter is of State or regional environmental planning significance.

In brief: The matter is obviously of State AND regional environmental planning significance – else why would Council be doing a similar (and MUCH INFERIOR) work.

And why would have Nationals Parks and Wildlife Service recently bid at public auction on large parcels of 7(d) land for amalgamation into the now proclaimed “WORLD’S OLDEST NATIONAL PARK” and more recently, approaching other land holders for similar parcels of land.

In detail:

Page 9 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 This statement implies that “Royal National Park” is of no State or regional significance and that in the Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW’s opinion “Royal National Park” has no “cultural, heritage or historical significance” (quoting from the Department’s own practice note).

In support of the Cultural, heritage or historical significance of “Royal National Park” is the following documentation:

The area upon which this Planning Proposal is based has a long history of sensitivity, indeed by its closest and most affected neighbour, National Parks and Wildlife Service land as “Royal National Park” is clearly shown in the report “Impact of Proposed Urban Development of Helensburgh and its Surrounds upon Nature Conservation Values in the area - National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 January 1984” (Appendix 7). Whilst written in 1984, the application of this document retains pertinent, relevant and totally applicable.

Most currently, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, sought the establishment of a conservation corridor spanning 2800 kilometres along the east coast of Australia, which would allow wildlife to relocate as the climate warms, is vital for the survival of many species, a report has found.

A report “East coast corridor to Protect wildlife” (Appendix 8) details the conservation corridor. How can a corridor exist next to “Royal National Park” if we seek to close the corridor on the adjoining lands.

The surrounding Sydney Metro and Wollongong suburbs have consumed and fragmented so much natural bushland with development and freeway networks, that the only remaining wildlife corridor between the National Heritage Listed "Royal National Park", Garawarra, State Conservations area and to the Illawarra is through Helensburgh, Otford, Stanwell Park and Stanwell Tops, the very area that other proposals plan too close.

To ensure the environment of the Northern Illawarra continues to be protected, any 7(d) zoned land should all be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation, but allowing replacement of existing legally erected buildings and uses, in the event of disaster.

As significant as these lands were, they are described as “Royal National Park” World’s First National Park (Appendix 9) and proponents are currently seeking world heritage listing.

Of course, the comments in “Hansard 22/09/2004” (Appendix 10) clearly demonstrate that a motivated government can stop inappropriate development when it so chooses.

Is the Minister choosing not to save “Royal National Park” because it is not worthy of saving?

3) You have not justified why the planning proposal should be prepared by someone other than Wollongong City Council

In brief: Page 10 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Council issued a mere Desktop Study, derided by most informed (and intelligent) Groups, and totally devoid of detailed studies as demanded by the Findings of the 1994 COI (which was adopted by BOTH Wollongong City Council AND State Government).

Clearly, Wollongong City Council Planners and Administrators are COMPLETELY out- of-step with widespread public sentiments and perceptions. Even the ICAC-proven CORRUPT version of Council was capable of resisting the continual tug of speculators and pro-developers.

In detail:

Wollongong City Council's own survey in March, 2010 showed that over 88% of residents place a high importance on the protection of natural environment (Appendix 11). Clearly the decision to proceed with a change from E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 Environmental Management is clearly against Council’s own study results. Surely it begs the question why the dogged determination to proceed with a plan so contrary to public opinion.

The results of the Willana Study indicated 3,447 submissions were received, with some 95% against. Again why would Council proceed in the face of such public opposition? A disk containing the 3,447 submissions obtained under Freedom of Information is enclosed (CD 2) showing the widespread opposition to any pro- development action.

A précis of some of the comments received in the current “Report on the Preliminary Review” is also attached (Appendix 12).

By way of Council Minutes 22/03/2004, it is clearly established “Council initiate discussions with the Regional Manager – Planning NSW – in regard to Council to commence immediately the preparation of a Development Control Plan covering….7D i.e. reflecting current environment protection and development planning instrument standards in these environmentally sensitive zones” and “Council commence immediately to gain exemptions….7D zones on the grounds of environmental sensitivity…..for proposals which are totally inconsistent with establishing Council planning instruments…..is not permitted on environmental grounds” (Appendix 13).

Clearly Wollongong City Council has failed in its duty of care and representation of the public interest to its residents, and non residents. As one example, Wollongong City Council has failed its environmental responsibility expected by the broad public for water flowing in to The Royal National Park by not monitoring the run off that flows into the Hacking River. Another Planning Authority, Sutherland Shire Council, has requested that the water flowing into the Hacking River be protected.

Similarly, it is contended that Wollongong City Council commissioned a “flawed desktop study” and by refusing to undertake the environmental studies recommended by the 1995 Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry.

Page 11 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 4) It has not been demonstrated that a request for your proposal has been made to Wollongong City Council.

In brief: A ridiculous suggestion, showing further incompetence by Wollongong City Council. First, a receipt was ISSUED by the Federal Government agency, Australia Post, on behalf of Wollongong City Council, and second, the Planning Proposal was tabled at the Council meeting of 25 May, 2010.

As can be seen at any Wollongong City Council meeting there is no representation for the residents and their opinions. Was not the 1995 Helensburgh Commission of Inquiry a request for Wollongong City Council to a planning proposal for the 2508 post code area? Where is it then?

In detail:

Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 clearly states that the Planning Proposal was forwarded to Wollongong City Council (CD1 attached – Page 3 refers).

On page 90 of the same document, the Registered Post – SENDER TO KEEP 563313763012 is shown (see Appendix 14).

A copy of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal was tabled at the Wollongong City Council own council meeting on 25/05/2010 (Appendix 15).

A copy of letter from Wollongong City Council dated 31/5/2010 (see Appendix 16) acknowledges receipt of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010.

A copy of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter 01/06/2010 (see Appendix 17) acknowledges receipt of the copy of letter from Wollongong City Council dated 31/05/2010 and requests that the Planning Proposal be considered as it predates the Wollongong City Council Preliminary Report.

A copy of Administrator McGregor’s letter dated 06/07/2010 (see Appendix 18) acknowledges the tabling of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal dated 30/04/2010 at the Council Meeting of 25/06/2010 – such actions indicates that a request has been clearly on various occasions been made to Wollongong City Council.

CONCLUSION

Otford Protection Society with the support of many other groups, including National Parks Association of NSW, a long term defender of Royal National park, felt that it had to produce a community-driven LEP Planning Proposal application through the gateway process to counteract the continual refusal of Wollongong City Council to initiate detailed environmental studies BEFORE any consideration of effective dilution of previous 7d environmental protection provisions were made.

Page 12 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 The Otford Protection Society's proposal is significantly superior to the continual vacillating of Council deliberations. Wollongong City Council has compromised the strength of the 7d zonings in unnecessarily providing increased development rights to some landowners who bought lands speculatively (seemingly at the behest of vested interests), and indicates EXIT strategies for a permanent resolution to this matter far superior to anything Council has issued.

The Otford Protection Society's proposal shows the obvious pathway for Council (and State) to follow, as the community has become more aware of medium term risks to biodiversity and habitat corridors that will provide long term sustainability to plants and animals of the region, and retain its national and international biotic, historic and recreational values.

The challenge for the Minister will be whether the environment has a higher priority and ranking than the developer and almighty dollar.

Page 13 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 3 Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW Email dated 02/12/2008

From: David Green To: The O'Tooles Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: RE: exhibition of LEP.

Alan, the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 was certified by the NSW Department of Planning on Friday 28/11/08, enabling it to be publicly exhibited. The draft LEP will commence exhibition on 10/12/08 (although maybe on Council's website earlier). The exhibition will conclude on 13/3/09. As well as the website, the documents will be available on a free CD (not yet available), or a hard copy will be able to be accessed at Helensburgh library.

In terms of the 7(d) lands at Helensburgh and Otford - as previously advised, the 7(d) zone has been translated into the E2 Environmental Conservation zone, as an interim measure pending the completion of the 7(d) review. I acknowledge that this zone will not resolve any of the 7(d) issues.

As you are aware, a separate review of the 7(d) lands has been underway , examining the appropriateness of the 7(d) / E2 Environmental Conservation zone, alternate zones, and the minimum lot size requirement for a dwelling house . The 7(d) review is progressing, although has been delayed and is now expected to be completed early next year. Following which it be be separately exhibited for community comment.

A letter will be sent to all 7(d) landowners in the next couple of weeks advising of the the exhibition of the draft Wollongong LEP 2009 and the status of the 7(d) review.

I trust this info is of assistance. Please feel free to distribute to your members.

I'm sure that you will get a reply from the Administrators in the near future.

David 4227-7465

Page 14 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 4 Media Release Illawarra Land Supposedly at Record Levels 05/05/2010 Hon T Kelly

Page 15 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Page 16 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 5 Amendment Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 No. 242

Page 17 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 6 Review of Commercial Uses on 7(D) Land at Helensburgh 02/10/2007 Environment and Planning Committee 2 October 2007 Page 1 Wollongong City Council ITEM 1 REF: BD64/07 REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL USES ON 7(D) LAND AT HELENSBURGH Report of Acting Manager City Strategy (BM) 14/09/07 PROGRAM City Leadership FUNCTION Strategic City Planning STRATEGY Finalise the Wollongong (City Wide) LEP PRECIS On 2 April 2007, Council resolved that a report be submitted examining existing commercial activities within and around Helensburgh on lands that are currently zoned 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River. The existing commercial activities located on lands zoned 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River, under Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990, will be rezoned E2 – Environmental Conservation in accordance with draft Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2007. This may result in the existing land uses for the subject areas to be deemed non-com- pliant with the objectives of this zoning. It is recommended that Council undertake further studies that identify and address potential environmental and economic impacts resulting from rezoning the identified existing industrial and commercially used lands. RECOMMENDATION 1 The findings of the review of commercial uses in the 7(d) Environmental Protection Hacking River be noted. 2 The proposed translation of the 7(d) Environmental Protection Hacking River zone to the E2 Environmental Conservation zone not be reviewed at this time. 3 The City Strategy Division and the Environment and Health Division undertake further investigation into the environmental characteristics of the area. 4 Letters to be sent to known commercial operators, the Helensburgh Cham- ber of Commerce and other stakeholders advising of the investigations and seeking any feedback. 5 A further report be submitted to the Environment and Planning Committee following the completion of resolutions 3 and 4 and after a Councillor Brief- ing Session. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting on 2 April 2007, considered a report on the proposed rezoning at No’s. 200- 206 Parkes Street, Helensburgh from 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River to IN2 Light Industrial and E2 Environmental Conservation. The report noted that there were other sites that may also warrant rezoning and sought dir- ection as to whether the issue should be addressed strategically. Council resolved that: “A report be submitted to Council which examines existing commercial activities within and around Helensburgh with a view to – 1 Regularising zonings for any existing enterprises, if appropriate.

Page 18 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 2 Examining the capacity of the Helensburgh region to provide an adequate Supposedly of industrial, commercial and employment lands in the future. 3 Reviewing commercial land uses occurring in the 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hack- ing River zone.” The Helensburgh 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River zoned land is located on the southern and western outskirts of Helensburgh’s urban centre (Attach- ment 1). The objectives of 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River zone, under Local Environmental Plan 1990, are: (a) to identify and protect the conservation value of the relatively pristine tributaries of the Hacking River catchment and thereby safeguard the natural qualities of the area to compli - ment the Royal National Park; and (b) to allow some diversity of activities on degraded land that will not prejudice achievement of the objective referred to in paragraph (a) or detrimentally affect the environmental quality or character of the locality or amenity of any existing or proposed development in the locality. Permitted and prohibited developments for this zone can be found at Attachment 2. The current 7(d) zone under Wollongong LEP 1990 will be translated to E2 Environ- mental Conservation upon the adoption of draft Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2007. The objectives of E2 Environmental Conservation are: • to protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic value. • To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values. • To maintain the quality of Sydney’s and the Illawarra’s water Supposedly by protecting land forming part of the Sydney Water Catchment area and to enable management and appropriate use of the land by the Sydney Catchment Authority. • To provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of native vegetation on highly environ - mentally significant lands. Permitted and prohibited development for this zone can be found at Attachment 2. At the Councillor Briefing Session on 10 September 2007, the commercial land uses and minimum lot size for a dwelling house in the 7(d) Environmental Protection Hacking River zone were discussed with Councillors. It was agreed that further information was required prior to Council making a decision on the two issues and that a further Councillor Briefing Session occur. This report presents the findings to date of the review of commercial land uses in the 7(d) land at Helensburgh. PROPOSAL The review of commercial uses, identified that there are presently seventeen (17) properties in Helensburgh and three (3) in Otford/Lilyvale (Table 1) that are zoned 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River that have a commercial use. A significant proportion of these sites have existing uses which are not consistent with the objectives of the land use policy. Additionally, there have been initial discussions on a further six (6) sites (Table 2), which are zoned 7(d) Environmental Protection – Hacking River, seeking Councils feedback on the potential rezoning of individual sites to permit expanded commercial uses.

Page 19 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 7 Impact of Proposed Urban Development of Helensburgh and its Surrounds upon Nature Conservation Values in the area. National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 January 1984 M3/1

Report to: The Director, Department. of Environment and Planning

For: Discussion at Urban Planning Development Committee Meeting, February 1985

Impact of Proposed Urban Development of Helensburgh and its Surrounds upon Nature Conservation Values in the area.

National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 January 1984

Prepared by Acting Chief Ranger Bob Crombie 9.1.84

Page 20 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 A quick note about this report.

This report was prepared as a result of a telephone request from Percy Wyles of the Department of Environment and Planning to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Acting Chief Ranger Bob Crombie in January 1984 to supply information about the proposed urban development of Helensburgh that could be used in the planning process and presented at an Urban Planning Development Committee meeting to be held in Wollongong and scheduled for early February 1985. Bob Crombie had less than 4 days to prepare the report and it was a presented in person on the deadline hour in Wollongong. There was not time to type the material and it was presented as a cut and past affair containing typed segments borrowed from the report, “IMPACT OF HELENSBURGH, OTFORD AND STANWELL TOPS ON THEIR SURROUNDING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT”, Bob Crombie, 30 April 1985, FILE M3/1, to the Dept of Environment and Planning for the study and comparison of urban development proposals for Helensburgh and West Menai, interconnected with additional handwritten segments, and all pasted sequentially on to foolscap sheets to make this report. This typed copy of the original report was prepared on 14th JULY 2010.

Page 21 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS page number

Map Index 4 Synopsis 5 Recommendations 6 The Report 7 1. Introduction 7 2. The Study Area 7 2.1 Water Catchment 7 3. Royal National Park 8 3.1 Conservation values of Royal National Park 8 3.2 Historical Perspectives and implications 9 4. Significant Land-Use changes in the study area affecting Nature Conservation 11 4.1 Historic and established changes 11 4.2 Recent Land-Use changes 12 4.3 Proposed land-Use changes 12 5. Impact of Land-Use changes on Royal National Park 12 5.2 Isolation of Royal National Park 13 5.3 Effective population number 14 5.4 Wildlife corridors 15 6. Water pollution in Royal National Park 16 6.1 The Hacking River and its tributaries 16 6.2 Urban runoff 17 6.3. Sewer overflows 18 6.4 Animal drinking and living water 18 6.5 Accidents, negligence, etc., polluting waters 19 6.6 Involvement of NPWS in water quality control activities 19 7. Erosion and sedimentation 22 8. Increased predation upon fauna by urban pets 22 9. Fauna road kills 23 10. Rare and endangered wildlife 23 11. Increased recreational demand upon Royal National Park 23 12. Dumping of rubbish 23 13. Fire 23 14. Unwelcome and unauthorized access to Royal National Park 24 15. Environmental protection around Helensburgh 24

Four maps were attached at the end of this report. (NB The maps are not yet available.)

Page 22 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Map Index

All maps are attached at the end of this report.

Map 1 Hacking RiverCatchment

Map 2 - Urban development areas acceptable to the Service (interim planning) - No urban development areas

Map 3 Distribution of major vegetation units in Royal National Park and southern wildlife corridors.

Map 4 Wildlife corridors connecting Royal National Park with Heathcote National Park, Woronora River Water Catchment Area and the Illawarra Escarpment.

Page 23 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 SYNOPSIS

Royal National Park and naturals lands of high conservational value lie within close proximity to or within lands proposed for rezoning and urban development around Helensbrugh. The Service is concerned with many aspects of the proposed rezoning and urban development.

1. The location of the proposed urban development; 2. Destruction of land of high conservation value; 3. Destruction of wildlife corridors contributing to the isolation of Royal Nation- al Park with its concomitant effects (e.g. local extinction of many species of wildlife). 4. Destruction uncommon, rare and endangered wildlife species; 5. Increased fire frequency to adjacent natural lands withs its concomitant effects on wildlife; 6. Protection of new urban developments adjacent to naturally vegetated lands from fire and the probable requirement of the N.P.W.S. to carry out increased fire [protection activities; 7. Increased public visitation to Royal National Park to – (a) areas already operating at capacity or beyond; and (b) to an area of the park which is neither physically nor environmentally suitable for such visitation; 8. Intrusion into the park of domestic dogs and cats hunting fauna; 9. Unwelcome and unauthorized access to Royal National Park by horse riders, motor cyclists, and four-wheel drive vehicle operators; 10.The effects of urban runoff, sewer overflows and other water pollutions problems affecting the Hacking River and its tributaries; 11.waste disposal problems; 12.Erosion and sedimentation control during construction; 13.View shed interference.

Page 24 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A local environmental plan for the Helensburgh area should be prepared. 2. Approval for all further urban development plans for Helensburgh area should npt be given until they have been submitted, considered properly and incorporated into a local environmental plan. 3. Special attention should be given to the design of all new subdivision so that the principles of urban erosion and stormwater management are incorporated so as to minimize the environmental impact of urban runoff. 4. Protection zoning measures should be applied to the lands marked as wildlife corridors on map 4. 5. Further urban development, if it is determined as necessary, should be confined to area marked out in yellow on map 2. 6. A special waste disposal strategy be developed for the Helensburgh area in- volving the removal of waste from the Hacking River Catchment.

Page 25 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Impact of the Proposed Urban Development of Helensburgh and its Surrounds upon Nature Conservation Values in the area. ______

1. Introduction 1.1 It has come to the attention of the Service that large areas of land around the town of Helensburgh have been proposed for urban development. It is of the opinion of the Service that this development if carried out without due consideration of the environment, would have a considerable detrimental impact upon important nature conservation values in the area and upon the Royal National Park, a nationally important, established land use.

1.2 Many factors need to be considered in the planning for this project so that the impact upon the important natural values of the area can be minimized. This calculus should be a basic part of the process underlying all policy decisions upon developments in the area.

1.3 To assist this planning, the Service has prepared this report.

2. The Study Area

The area reported upon includes Otford, Stanwell Tops, Blue Gum Forest, Helensburgh, Helensburgh West, Lilyvale, Garrawarra Hospital and the lands surrounding these developments including Royal National Park.

2.11 Water Catchments

The study area is almost wholly contained within the upper catchment area of the Hacking River. A small area on the western edge drains into the M.W.S.D.B. Woronora Catchment Area, in the south into Hargraves Creek and into the sea at Stanwell Park and small portions drain into the sea in the east. (see map 1 Hacking River Catchment)

Major tributaries receiving runoff from developed lands include: a) The Hacking River itself b) Gill’s Creek c) Gardiner’s Gully d) Camp Gully Creek e) Garbage Tip Creek (drains the garbage tip and sanitary depot) f) Wilson’s Creek g) Cawley’s Creek

All of these creeks drain into the Hacking River, which then flows north through Royal National Park and out into Port Hacking in Sutherland Shire.

Page 26 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 3. Royal National Park Royal national Park is immediately downstream of the area proposed for urban development and would receive its runoff water and wastes.

3.1 Conservation Values of Royal National Park

3.1.1 Royal National park is part of a statewide and National system of parks and reserves set aside to conserve outstanding scenery or natural features in an area. 3.1.2 These parks and reserves also: • Conserve viable populations of wildlife of an area • Conserve representative samples of a complete range of the state’s natural environments • Protect and preserve aboriginal sires and objects • Protect and preserve areas that are the sites of buildings, objects, monuments of events or national significance • Provide for the promotion of public awareness, understanding and appreciation of wildlife, National Parks and Culture conservation, and the importance of these to the overall qualities of people’s environment. • Proved for regulated appropriate use and enjoyment by the public consistent with the nature conservation objectives for the area.

Royal National Park itself conserves: • Representative samples of Hawkesbury Sandstone landforms, geology and soils • Representative samples of Narrabeen series landforms, geology and soils • Some samples of Wianamatta series of landforms, geology and soils • Representative samples of Hawkesbury Sandstone vegetal alliances and their associated animal life including:  A very complex mosaic of floristic assemblages on a scale from large to small with the assemblages frequently intergrading. This is the reflection of the very varied assemblages of soil features (depth, structure, nutrition, etc.), drainage patterns, climatic patterns, salt spray accession, plateau dissection, altitude, aspect, fire histories and geographic location (on a biogeographic ecotone between a northern warm – temperate biota and a southern cool – temperate biota respectively with sub-tropical influences). Communities include a variety of heathlands, woodlands, open forests and closed forests.  An excellent sample of the vegetation of the area now covered by the metropolis of Sydney.  Excellent samples of mallee heathland • Representative samples of Narrabeen series rock vegetal alliances and their associated animal life. Communities include a variety of woodlands, open forests and closed forests. The open forests are rich in arboreal mammals and contain excellent stands of very tall trees. The closed forests (rainforests) are rich floristically and are a varied assemblage with considerable intergradations at the sub-alliance and alliance

Page 27 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 level. They are part of a spectrum of rainforests along the Illawarra Escarpment and Hacking River along many environmental gradients producing a complex and diverse array of forests of great scientific and ecological significance. They represent the northern most limit and lowest altitude of these forests and they overlap between a northern warm temperate biota and a southern cool temperate biota with sub-tropical influences. This unique geographic and biological location produces many unique and important features in the rainforests in this area. • A rich variety of rare or endangered plants and animals • A biologically outstanding, varied and complex array of wildlife (described above) important ecologically, scientifically and educationally and for appropriate recreation. This aspect is becoming increasingly important especially considering the immediate proximity of the park to major study centres in Sydney and Wollongong and the large populations in these cities. It contains original references for wildlife for scientific study. • Lands recognized as having truly national significance as a series of recreational complexes in a natural or national park setting. In particular the Hack- ing River, creeks, inlets and coastal foreshores are of immense value for recreation. • Very large numbers of people use the park • The Hacking River as a wild river. • Aboriginal sites and relics of the Dharawal Tribe • Important historic and cultural relics and traditions. • A large tract of natural land exceedingly well placed in close proximity to and separating the large population centres of Sydney and Wollongong. This provides unique and very important scientific, recreational, educational and cultural opportunities for many people. • Important contributions to the economy and tourism in the Sutherland Shire. • The first national park in Australia and the second in the world. As such, it holds a unique and important place in Australia’s history.

3.2 Historical perspectives and implications

3.2.1 Royal National Park was dedicated as the National Park in 1879as the first National Park in Australia and the second in the world. The park reserved a large, unalienated tract of natural land rich in natural resources and natural features very suitable for the preservation of nature “to show perpetually what Australian vegetation is capable of”, “as a place for recreation and enjoyment”, and as “lungs of Sydney” to purify its air and provide a place of healthful retreat for Sydneysiders. 3.2.2 At this time, the National Park was part of a vast tract of land continuous with the Illawarra Escarpment and coastal lowlands to the south, with the Water Board and Army Lands to the south and west and with large tracts of natural freehold and crown land to the north west. 3.2.3 This continuity ensured the survival of the wildlife n the park.

Page 28 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 3.2.4 In 1934, the Garawarra Range was secured as a reserve for public recreation. This was added to the park in 1967. 3.2.5 Between 1970 and 1973 the National Parks and Wildlife Service investigated lands around Helensburgh and Otford and recommended acquisition and addition of these lands to Royal national Park. The areas recommended included the lands east of Helensburgh encompassing Herbert’s Creek, Gardiners Creek, Cedar Creek, Stuart’s Gully, and the lands north of Camp Gully Creek. 3.2.6 The process of acquisition was begun for these lands, however, an unfortunate clerical error resulting from the promotion and transfer of the staff member handling these matters, resulted in this process being sent into the files and consequently no further action was taken. The error was not discovered until 1982. Until this time, the management of the South Metropolitan District of the National Parks and Wildlife Service had been resting easy on this matter in the false belief that much of the land was secured for the Service and only awaiting release from objections raised by mining interests before it would be acquired and added to the park. The falsity of these beliefs and the error from which they resulted was not discovered until 1982. 3.2.7 Since 1982, the South Metropolitan District of the Service has initiated to “Natural Area Investigations” around Helensburgh. The first covering lands east and north of Helensburgh has been completed, however, its recommendations are not yet finalized. The second investigation covering the lands west and north west of Helensburgh is still in its early stages.

As a major part of these investigations, the District commissioned a study, “Vegetation of the Upper Hacking River Catchment”, which has been completed. 3.2.8 Over the years since its inception, and increasingly more so recently, considerable change in the land use of the lands neighbouring Royal National Park has occurred. There has been an increasingly number of urban, industrial and rural developments many of which have had a significant effect upon the park and its use. 3.2.9 Many established land uses in the area neighbouring the park require study and control as it is now recognized that they have had slow and steady accumulative impacts which have only recently become apparent. Further study will undoubtedly reveal the true extent of this problem. 3.2.10 Since 1975, State, Regional and Local Government planning requirements have changed considerably. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 has made it mandatory for the Service to fully appraise the potential impacts caused by its own projects. The Service will continue to appraise potential environmental impacts of proposals initiated by other authorities and persons which impact upon the Service’s responsibilities. 3.2.11 Royal national park has a Plan of Management which was adopted by the Minister in 1975. However, many important management issues that were not foreseen in 1975 now need specific planning and many

Page 29 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 others require much more detailed provisions than the 1975 Plan contained. 3.2.12 The appearance of these new issues has necessitated a review of the 1975 plan and the concomitant preparation of a new (draft) Plan of Management. This process of review of the Plan of Management will be an important task of the Park managers and it will be done at intervals of from 5 to 10 years. The review of the 1975 Plan and preparation of the new (draft) Plan is going on now.

Conservation

4.1 Historic and established changes 4.1.1 Firewood cutting and logging of all lands in the Hacking River valley and tributary valleys south of Bola Creek with emphasis upon tall open forests and rainforests. 4.1.2 Firewood cutting and logging of all lands along the Woronora Ridge from Waterfall to Sutherland. 4.1.3 Establishment of Javan rusa deer populations over the entire study area. 4.1.4 Considerable alteration to all aspects of the fire regime over most of the area. 4.1.5 Fires burning rainforests and tall open forests following the aftermath of logging. 4.1.6 Introduction of exotic plants particularly lantana and Crofton weed. 4.1.7 Introduction of exotic animals particularly dogs, cats, foxes, pigs and deer. 4.1.8 Disease(s) affecting many marsupials in early 1900’s and dramatically reducing population levels of many species. 4.1.9 Construction of the Prince’s Highway. 4.1.10 Construction of the Illawarra Railway Line. 4.1.11 Urban and rural development of Otford, Stanwell Tops, Helensburgh, Waterfall, Heathcote, Engadine, Loftus and Sutherland. 4.1.12 Sydney urban rail link to Otford established. 4.1.13 Coal mining at Helensburgh – Metropolitan Colliery. 4.1.14 Coal waste disposal in Camp Gully Creek. 4.1.15 Helensburgh Garbage Tip and Sanitary Depot established. 4.1.16 Garrawarra Hospital established. 4.1.17 Strip mining for laterite on Woronora Ridge. 4.1.18 Sand and stone mining. 4.1.19 Mushroom farming. 4.1.20 Minor industrial development of Helensburgh, Heathcote, Engadine and Loftus. 4.1.21 Road and track construction throughout the area. 4.1.22 Establishment of various servicing easements and constructions. 4.1.23 Establishment of Flora Reserve on Camp Gully Creek. 4.2 Recent land-Use Changes 4.2.1 Upgrading and widening of the Prince’s Hwy.

Page 30 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 4.2.1 In crease in traffic on the Prince’s Hwy. 4.2.3 Construction of the F5 Freeway from Waterfall to Wollongong. 4.2.4 Upgrading, widening and electrification of the Illawarra Railway Line with increased rail traffic. 4.2.5 Further urban and rural development. 4.2.6 Connection of sewer to Helensburgh from Waterfall. 4.2.7 Increase in the number of service easements and constructions. 4.2.8 Establishment of horse riding activities around Helensburgh and Otford. 4.2.9 Establishment of Kelly’s Falls Reserve. 4.2.10 Increased trail bike and 4WD vehicle activities on roads and tracks around Helensburgh. 4.2.11 Small acre farm development between Helensburgh and Otford. 4.2.12 Classification of the Waters of the Hacking River and its tributaries as Class “P”, Protected Waters, (Clean Waters Act). 4.2.13 Mapping of Protected Lands around Helensburgh (Soil Conservation Service). 4.2.14 Establishment of large horse-riding, horse holding companies with many horse-riding trips carried out through the bushland and illegally in Royal National Park. 4.2.15 Purchase of lands around Helensburgh by the Department of Environment and Planning for County Open Space.

4.3 Proposed Land-Use Changes 4.3.1 Increase in the size of the urban area of Helensburgh with a projected four-fold increase in population. 4.3.2 Further ‘rural’ development around Helensburgh. 4.3.3 Upgrading of water supply to the Helensburgh area. 4.3.4 Increased industrial development of Helensburgh. 4.3.5 Large scale urban development of Helensburgh area. 4.3.6 Proposal for development of Stuart’s Gully as a coal waste dump or alternatively the Garrawarra Hospital gravel pits. 4.3.7 Development of Helensburgh as the terminal station on the Sydney Urban rail Illawarra Line (imminent). 4.3.8 Increased recreational demand on Royal National Park.

5 Impact of Land-Use Changes on Royal National Park

5.1.1 The impact of the land-use changes surrounding Royal National Park has been consistently degrading to the natural environment and the environmental amenity of large areas of the park. Some changes have had a directly obvious effect upon the park, for example, the SRA electrification activities on the Illawarra Railway Line have contributed large loads of sediment to the Hacking River and its tributaries and caused great turbidity for often weeks at a time. 5.1.2 These sediment beds have been “fertilized” by nutrients from many sources e.g. Garrawarra Hospital, Otford, Mushroom farms, Helensburgh garbage tip/sanitary depot, and grown massive weed infestations.

Page 31 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 5.1.3 However, the impact of some of the changes are not immediately obvious and impose long term threats to many environmental values, with, in this respect, the most important change being the increasing isolation of Royal National Park

5.2 Isolation of Royal National Park 5.2.1 Royal National Park is becoming increasingly isolated from surrounding natural lands with which it previously had a continuous connection of natural vegetation. 5.2.2 Urban development, railway construction and upgrading, highway and freeway constructions, increased traffic on the transport services, rural and semi-rural developments with their tree clearances, construction of many roads and trails, construction of cleared service easements, and many other developments act as impermeable barriers to wildlife movement and have already isolated Royal National Park from the surrounding lands except for a few corridors of varying degrees of quality which are available fro movement of wildlife to and from the Park. 5.2.3 Royal National Park is approximately 15000 hectares in size and is a goodly sized reserve of natural land. However, a look at Map 3 (attached) will show that this 15000 hectares is not a continuous unit but is rather divided broadly into four major conservation units these being (A) a primarily woodland/low open forest unit, (B) a primarily heathland/low woodland unit, (C) a tall open forest/rainforests unit, and (D) a unit of vegetation influenced greatly by its littoral exposure, respectively with their associated animal life. 5.2.4 Consequently the effective conservation size of Royal National Park is largely dependant upon the size of these units rather than on the 15000 hectares as a whole. 5.2.5 The area of each of these compartments is such that it is entirely feasible for any one or more units to be catastrophically affected by fire, disease, drought, insect attack or other circumstances or combination of circumstances with disastrous results for the wildlife in them. 5.2.6 Many catastrophes are of natural occurrence and historically natural environments recover from catastrophes by recolonisation from small unaffected refuges if present and by migration of species back into the affected area from adjacent unaffected lands. 5.2.7 However, Royal National Park is being increasingly deprived of this natural environmental safeguard as a result of its increasing isolation by developments around its perimeter. 5.2.8 Units A and B have recently suffered catastrophic burning which, over a number of years, has affected up to three quarters of their area. 5.2.9 Unit C is the area under most threat as it is the smallest unit. It presently is continuous with forests outside of Royal National Park east of Helensburgh but these forests are proposed for urban and rural development and for mining purposes. The Service is presently investigating these lands as a matter of urgency for acquisition and addition to Royal National Park.

Page 32 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 5.2.10 The integrity of Unit C has also been seriously compromised by logging and the intrusion of deer affecting recovery. 5.2.11 Therefore, throughout these lands to-day, the areas occupied by many natural habitats and the distributional areas of many species, are undergoing two types of changes: (i) Firstly, the total area occupied by natural habitats and by species adversely affected by humans is shrinking at the expense of human-made habitats and by species benefited by people; (ii) Secondly, formerly continuous natural habitats and distributional ranges of human-intolerant species are being fragmented into disjunctive populations. These processes have important consequences for the future of natural habitats and human-intolerant species n the area. 5.2.12 The implications are:- (i) The number of species that the area will serve is likely to be an increasing function of the reserve’s area, in this respect, the areas of the conservation units and their integrity; (ii) The rate at which species go extinct in the area is likely to be a decreasing function of the reserve’s area or conservation units’ areas and their integrity; (iii) The relation between reserved habitat area and probability of a species survival is characteristically different for each species; (iv) Explicit suggestions can be made for optimal design and location of human development to minimize the impact of these intrusions upon habitats and species.

5.3 Effective Population Size 5.3.1The effective population number must be taken into account and this is the minimum population size to which a species can fall if it is going to recover and recolonise an area and that will retain the original genetic diversity of the species, or a large fraction of it, in perpetuity and provide the genetic means fro continued evolution. It must take into account natural and human-induced fluctuation and be large enough to withstand the vicissitudes of fire, drought, disease, increased predation (dog, cat, fox, insect, deer, etc.), human collection, etc., or a combination of these. It is the lowest number that a population can fall to under these circumstances if the species is to survive. 5.3.2Many species in Royal National Park have already suffered local extinction. Grey kangaroo, wallaroo, potaroo, eastern quoll, tiger quoll, koala, rock wallaby, platypus and brown phascogale are some examples. 5.3.3Many other species are threatened with local extinction. For example, pademelons, red-necked wallabies, pygmy possum, squirrel glider, greater glider, yellow bellied glider, mountain possum, coucal pheasant, emu wren, broad-headed snake, white beech, certain jewel beetles, and some orchids. 5.3.4Many of the aforementioned locally extinct and threatened species are largely dependant upon the tall open forests and rainforests of conservation Unit C for their existence.

Page 33 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 5.3.5There is most likely reserved in Royal National Park, insufficient area of tall open forest and rainforest to maintain effective population numbers of some species particularly of the larger mammals. Even when the tract of County Open Space land north and east of Helensburgh is taken into account as it is effectively reserved land, a big question still exists. What is the minimum habitat size for the various species in Royal National Park necessary to maintain an effective population number? Already large proportions of whole conservation units have been affected by catastrophe with the fortunate opportunity for these areas to be recolonised from mildly affected or unaffected areas, but these opportunities are being foreclosed. 5.3.6Over 50% of the rainforest and tall open forest in the Hacking River catchment is outside Royal National Park and subject to the threat of land clearances and various developments. If the integrity of these habitats and their continuity with Unit C of Royal National Park were lost, it can be reasonably predicted that many species dependant on these habitats in Royal National Park would be threatened with local extinction and this includes the plants as well as the animals. 5.3.7Despite the very serious nature of this threat to Unit C, the same argument and logic applies also to the other units A, B, and D and consequently the same threat.

5.4 Wildlife Corridors

5.4.1To safeguard the natural values of Royal National Park, wildlife corridors must be established between it and the neighbouring natural land units to miti However gate against the isolation of the wildlife in the Park and the fragmentation of the land into small natural units by allowing for the movement of species between the land units. 5.4.2The official recognition and reservation of these corridors would be a very positive and constructive step towards protecting the valuable natural conservation values in the area against the effects of catastrophe, isolation and just as important but more insidious, the effects of slow, small accumulative impacts. 5.4.3See Map 4, Wildlife Corridors around Helensburgh. 5.4.4Royal National Park requires some form of recognized and preferably reserved continuity of natural lands with the M.W.S.D.B. catchment to the west and southwest to safeguard Units A and B. 5.4.5Royal National Park requires some form of recognized and preferably reserved continuity of natural lands with the lands east of Helensburgh and the Illawarra Escarpment to safeguard Unit C. 5.5.6The Service has determined that these same lands it has recognized as important Wildlife Corridors have enough intrinsic natural conservation value to be worthy of consideration for addition to Royal National Park in their own right.

Page 34 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 6 Water Pollution in Royal National Park

6.1 The Hacking River and its tributaries.

6.1.1 The Hacking River is the major river system in Royal National Park. It, and its tributaries, receive drainage from many urban and rural developments around the perimeter of Royal national park and upstream of the park. Much of the upper catchment of the river is outside of the Park. 6.1.2 Accessibility to the Hacking River is good and swimming in its waters is, or rather was until recently, a popular activity. Boating in the backed up waters of Audley Weir is a very popular leisure activity. Picnicking along its banks at picnic areas along Lady Carrington Drive and Lady Wakehurst Drive are very popular activities and yet the river still maintains a tranquil, natural atmosphere. In a great many ways the creeks and Hacking River permeate the aesthetic, leisure and recreational potential of the Park. 6.1.3 The waters of the Hacking River catchment provide the drinking water and life support medium for many animals in the park. 6.1.4 The Hacking River and its tributaries are bounded for much of their length by communities very sensitive to environmental disturbance such as rainforests and tall open forests. 6.1.5 The Hacking River and its tributary streams are highly variable in flow and for periods may be stagnant, or slowly flowing, or flooding. 6.1.6 The waters of the Hacking River and its tributaries are classified Class “P” Protected Waters, according to the Clean Waters Act. 6.1.7 The Hacking River is being forced to receive wastes in increasing quantities from many land use changes within its catchment and these wastes are having a considerable detrimental effect upon the water quality for animal drinking, human contact, leisure and recreational use, and aesthetic appreciation. The river has very little assimilative capacity to absorb these wastes and they are released into it without any concern about the possible effects of these wastes on the environment. These wastes have seriously disrupted the Park management systems and involved them in time and money consuming control activities. 6.1.8 Large volumes of liquid wastes are an inevitable consequence of human settlement. The proper disposal of these wastes is a complex and costly exercise. If the upper catchment of the Hacking River is allowed to be developed further for rural and urban purposes, an increasingly large, up to massive discharge of liquids bearing wastes to the water environment must occur. There can be no possible expectation that wastes can be eliminated or that accidental, negligent or criminal acts will not occur, and that environmental damage will be avoided: the river and its tributaries must be degraded more as a consequence throwing an enormous on-going burden of cost (in weed control, river cleaning, wildlife management, etc.) onto the State and resulting in the degradation of a valuable community resource.

Page 35 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 6.1.9 The present state of affairs has been allowed to develop without any say in the matter from those who suffer the most, the general public and the Royal National Park managers. It is only over the last two and a half years that the voice of these peoples has been raised and considered on these issues. 6.1.10 If “Helensburgh” develops further, who is going to determine an “acceptable” degree of water quality and ensure that it is gained by proper planning, construction and control, and who is going to share the associated costs of these necessary protective measures?

6.2 Urban runoff

6.2.1 The Hacking River and certain tributaries can expect massive increases in volume of ran water and associated waste discharge directed there from all sealed and street surfaces by gutters and street drains and from house and other roofs by pipes and man-made storm water drains. Although in proportion to the water volume the waste quantity may be small, it can nad does have major detrimental impacts on the quality and amenity of the receiving waters out of all proportion to the relative quantity of this waste matter and this impact is generally accumulative. Little is known about these flows and even less action is taken in modern Sydney developments with few exceptions, to control them. By their nature – being derived from rainfall across an area – they are extremely difficult to manage. Acquiring a special waste load through the sewering of man-made wastes from developed surfaces, the volumes and directions of flow depend on the basic factors of city layout design, road and building materials and human activity: they tie massive liquid waste flows intimately into town planning and development. What such controls will be planned in any of the new developments being prepared for action now and likely to increase the population of Helensburgh at least fourfold and expand the developed urban araea? Their lack of control will only vitiate other expensive management and control provisions and contribute to the degradation of many natural values. 6.2.2 Control of urban runoff and the nutritional aspect of waste disposal with respect to plant life are two very significant matters needed to be considered for this urban development immediately upstream of Royal National Park. These matters have not so far been controlled in Sydney, yet they would pose a considerable threat to the environmental qualities of a national natural resource. 6.2.3 Sydney’s approach to the management of urban runoff and nutrition treatment is based essentially upon the philosophy of disposal using waterways as a sink. This philosophy should not be accepted in this development. 6.2.4 Information is available upon urban erosion control and subdivision design which if used can minimize the impact of urban runoff. 6.2.5 Thorough consideration and adoption of the principles of urban erosion control and subdivision design to ‘minimize’ the environmental impacts would be better implemented through a local environmental plan.

Page 36 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 6.3 Sewer Overflows

6.3.1 It is to be expected, too, that urban development in the upper catchment area will also enhance stormwater intrusion of sewer mains with added disruptions of the management and rising incidence of sewer overflows. 6.3.2 The variability of the rainfall has another important bearing on sewer overflows. The rainfall over the upper catchment is highly variable and it suffers from frequent brief periods of relatively heavy rain on a small number of days. These heavy ran periods will almost certainly contribute to regular overflowing of the sewers. 6.3.3 It is interesting to note that when the sewer line from Helensburgh to Waterfall was constructed, the National Parks and Wildlife Services was given no say in the planning of the route of the line And the location odf servicing points and sewer overflows, yet it was and will continue to be the Service which has and will bear the brunt of managing the problems associated with this lack of liaison and poor planning. 6.3.4 Sewer overflows particularly have been very poorly located with respect to environmental values and will significantly degrade the environment downslope of their location. Some have been located on natural ridge tops far from any natural water course to dilute and carry away waste. 6.3.5 The combined impact of the urban runoff and sewer overflow will be the constant accumulative degradation of the receiving lands and waters affecting amenity, human and animal health and many natural values.

6.4 Animal drinking and living water 6.4.1 It is generally forgotten that many animals must drink or live in the water in these creeks and that animals are just as prone to the effects of toxins and pathogens as people. We can certainly expect animal populations which drink or live in these waters to suffer periodic episodes of death and debility from poisoning or enteric illness in proportion to the amount of waste entering the waters. Turbidity is just as important in this respect for aquatic organisms as is toxins.

6.5 Accidents, Negligence, etc., polluting water

6.5.1 The chances of cataclysmic accidents occurring must also increase and these have been disastrous to animals downstream. All platypi and water rats (Hydronomys chrysogaster) were killed in Wilson’s Creek and the Hacking River in the mid 1970s as a result of a sulphuric acid spill on the Prince’s Hwy in the headwaters of Wilson’s Creek. Since then, no platypi have been seen anywhere in the Hacking River catchment. What impact this acid spill had on other forms of life is not documented or known. 6.5.2 As recently as December 1984, an accident occurred on the newly constructed Helensburgh to Waterfall Sewer Line resulting in release of

Page 37 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 sewage and fluorescin dye into Wilson’s Creek, a tributary of the Hacking River. It was reported to the N/P.W.S. that many crayfish and water creatures for 1½ kilometres downstream died as a result of this accident and NO SWIMMING – POLLUTED WATER signs stood for a long time at the Wilson’s Creek dam, a popular swimming hole. 6.5.3 In the late 1970s a phenyl spill occurred on the Prince’s Hwy on the north arm of Cawley’s Creek resulting in the death of many organisms. Dead eels were found as far away as Audley.

6.6 Involvement of the N.P.W.S. in costly and Time-Consuming Quality Control Activities

6.6.1 In March of 1983, the national Parks and Wildlife Service was in the process of preparing a declaration concerning the possible health hazard to people from the waters of the Hacking River if they came into contact with or drank these waters. Fortunately, the records rains and floods in the catchment area flushed the river out and lessened this threat. The major contributing factors to the problem were at the time, raw sewage and garbage tip leachate from Helensburgh tip and Sanitary Depot and raw sewage from Garawarra Hospital where in both instances, treatment processes had broken down and large quantities of raw liquid waste were released in nearby creeks. It took over 18 months for the Helensburgh Sanitary Depot problems to be repaired despite great pressure from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the garbage tip leachate problems are still being “worked on”. The S.P.C.C. has been negotiating with the Health Department for three years to repair the sewage treatment plant aat Garawarra Hospital and the National Parks and Wildlife Service is still waiting for a progress report on these negotiations. 6.2.2 These aforementioned pollution problems have had a considerably detrimental and permanent impact upon the Hacking. Their impact was greatly exacerbated by other phenomena affecting the river at the same time, these being a record drought where the Hacking River stopped flowing on three occasions with, at these times, the only liquid entering the river being the wastes from the Helensburgh Tip and Sanitary Depot, Garawarra Hospital Sewage Treatment Plant, Metropolitan Colliery Waste Water Treatment Plant and Otford Valley Mushroom Farm. At the same time, the S.R.A. Illawarra Railway Line Electrification activities and the M.W.S.D.B. Helensburgh to Waterfall Sewage works were contributing massive sediment loads to the creeks and river, which silted up dramatically in places. In both these instances the National Parks and Wildlife Service had to battle for lengthy periods to gain control of theses problems and eventually the S.R.S. and the M.W.S.D.B had to emply Soil Conservation Officers to prepare erosion control plans and direct restoration and control works. Neither Reviews of Environmental Factors nor Environmental Impact Studies were carried out on these major engineering earthworks projects before they wer approved and no environmental safeguards were installed to protect against erosion and sedimentation until they were directed to.

Page 38 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 6.6.3 However, the Hacking River and many of its tributaries have been irreparably damaged as a result of this coincidental set of circumstances. Photographs of the Hacking River at Red Cedar Flat in Royal National Park in 1979 show a flowing clear stream over rapids and a mix of coal wash and sand banks. People were happily swimming in the river. The banks were open and clear. Photographs of the same location in the 1981/82 show the whole river bed to be a weed choked swamp with no water channel ar all and the banks covered with a profuse growth of weeds. The bed of the river was a stinking, putrid mud. 6.6.4 A monitor of the weeds since then has shown them to be spreading downstream at a rate of 4 kilometres per year. The inevitability is that they will infect the whole length of the Hacking River and even the shores of the Hacking Inlet. These infestations will become the foci for the weeds to spread into the bushland surrounding. Coincidentally, the Hacking River traverses the Park through the natural communities least able to resist this threat, the tall open forests and the rainforests. 6.6.5 The coal waste dump in Camp Gulley Creek for Metropolitan Colliery has regularly polluted the Hacking River with sediments anad suspended particles. Black and grey sediments are spread the length of the river to Gray’s Point from its confluence with Camp Gulley Creek. Many minor collapses of the coal dump walls have occurred blackening the bed and water of the river for days on end. In the early 1970s a major collapse of one wall occurred and 10 000 cu m of coal waste was dumped into Camp Gully Creek to find its way into the Hacking River. The odl walls of the dump have still to be stabilized properly and the Metropolitan Colliery is preparing plans for this now. However, in time, the coal dump must continue to erode and suffer periodic slumps of varying proportions. The walls are so steep that this will occur purely as a result of natural processes. 6.6.6 Recently, Metropolitan Colliery has constructed a 3½ million dollar waste treatment plant to treat all the waters from their works (toilets, showers, cleaning yards, store depots, trucks, etc.) These have been a regular source of pollution. The treatment plant has reduced this pollution considerably but it has not removed nutrients from the waste, which are one of the most troublesome pollutants fro receiving waters. 6.6.7 Metropolitan Colliery has proposed the development of Stuart’s Gully south of Camp Gully Creek as the next site for a coal waste dump. Again, in the long term, such a dump must inevitably contribute black coal waste to the Hacking River. 6.6.8 The proposed dump is located in a most critical position in the middle of the wildlife corridor between Royal National park and the forests east of Helensburgh and the Illawarra Escarpment. The use of this gully would seriously disrupt the potential for movement of species to and fro in this area and significantly contribute to the isolation of Royal National Park. 6.6.9 One can reasonably predict that a result of further urban development of the upper catchment will be increased frequency and intensity of

Page 39 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 flooding downstream with their concomitant effects. The Audley Weir will be blocked on more occasions. 6.6.10 This litany of events gives the Service very real cause fro concern about not only the presence and degree of extra urban development within the catchment of the Hacking River but also about the construction of such developments, the controls and regulations placed upon them and the supervision and enforcement of these controls and regulations. 6.6.11 Even a perfunctory examination of the events will reeal that the Service spent most of its time and money fighting with other government departments in its efforts to carry out its mandate and protect valuable public resources from degradation by often illegal or at least highly questionable processes. 6.6.12 Waste disposal problems will also contribute to the degradation of the water quality. A proper waste disposal system will need to be developed particularly if extra garbage tips are proposed to be sited within the Hacking River Catchment. Already Wollongong Council is considering alternatives for its waste disposal strategy for the Helensburgh Area including proposals to site new garbage tips within the catchment. 6.6.13 The Service as the manager of the large area of land receiving water borne waste has a clear responsibility to protect its estate. How much will it be asked to bare by way of ongoing economic costs and environmental degradation from other people’s stormwater management?

Page 40 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 7 Erosion and Sedimentation

7.1 A land capability study of the Helensburgh area would reveal the erosion potential to be variable between moderate and severe. This information coupled with the experience gained from other major earthworks in the area (S.R.A. Illawarra Railway Line Electrification, M.W.S.D.B. Sewer Line Helensburgh to Waterfall) would indicate that the threat of severe erosion episodes occurring during any earthworks in the area would be very real and unpredictable possibilities. 7.2 Very stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures would be necessary and strict supervision to enforce the application of these measures 7.3 A much higher sediment load and turbidity can be expected to occur after each rainfall episode and these will increase in proportion to the amount of development in the catchment. 7.4 A great increase in the runoff will occur resulting in more frequent and mre intense floods occurring. This will result in more scouring of the banks of the river all the way to Gray’s Point. Already the combination of large sediment loads in the river affecting the flood levels have caused large scale erosion of alluvial banks covered by tall wet sclerophyll forest and rainforest on the Forest Island. This scouring and disturbance which will result from this factor provides extra habitat for weed invasion especially fro lantana, privet and cassia.

8 Increased Predation Upon Fauna by Urban Pets

8.1 Another direct impact upon Royal National Park and surrounding bushland would result from increased predation upon fauna by domestic dogs and cats roaming from the new houses. Domestic dogs regularly hunt in Royal National Park, either singularly, in small groups, and sometimes in large packs. They travel large distances on these forays. Many dogs from Sutherland have been caught at Garie Beach and Era, a distance of 25 kilometres from their houses. Their habit is to chase anything that moves and they have even, although rarely, menaced and attacked people in the Park. The Service believes this increased predation may make a significant contribution to the reduction in population numbers of large mammals (e.g. wallabies and pademelons). 8.2 Domestic cats also make hunting forays into the Park from surrounding suburbs and may travel up to 6 kilometres into the Park in a night and return. Pygmy possums, classified as Endangered Fauna, are a prey species of the cat and many specimens have been deposited for show on floors and doorsteps around Heathcote put there by the household cat. Birds particularly are preyed upon.

Page 41 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 9 Fauna Road Kills

9.1 Traffic through the Park would be expected to increase as a result of the urban development uipon the Park’s doorstep. An increase in the number of animal road accidents and deaths would be expected as a result. For example, in May 1982, 15 swamp wallabies, 7 possums, 3 bandicoots, 3 cats, 3 foxes, 35 birds (including lyre birds, kookaburras, owls, wattlebirds, 4 snakes, 5 blue-tongues, 1 wombat, 5 der, 3 rats and 7 other lizards were reported as killed on the roads in the Park and this record is not a complete record for that month. The proportion would be different for each month as the different animals begin their various movements.

10 Rare and Endangered Wildlife

10.1 A survey “vegetation of the Upper Hacking River Catchment” has revealed the locations of 9 rare plant species and 12 uncommon plant species on unreserved lands. 10.2 Rare animals are known to occur in the area. The results of a fauna survey of the area are not yet available. 10.3 Relict communities of high scientific interest occur in the area.

11 Increased Recreational Demand upon Royal National Park

11.1 An increase in population around Helensburgh would lead to increased visitation to Royal National Park for recreational purposes. 11.2 The recreational facilities in many parts of the Park are operating at capacity or overload now. 11.3 There is little opportunity for the Park managers to provide and service extra recreational facilities or to develop extra areas. 11.4 Much of these extra demands would be placed on a part of the Park which is least designed for and has the least capacity to handle extra recreational demands – the tall open forests and rainforests of the Hacking River along Lady Wakehurst Drive, the route along which most of these new park users would enter the park.

12 Dumping of Rubbish

12.1 Dumping of rubbish and garden refuse in the Park can be expected to increase. The dumping of garden refuse is a particularly detrimental activity, the full implications of which are poorly appreciated by the public. The spread of weeds and diseases as a result can be very difficult and costly to control. The Park is regularly used for disposal of garden refuse by some people. The impact of this sort of activity can be out of all proportion to the amount of waste deposited.

13 Fire

Page 42 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 13.1 New urban areas adjacent to bushland would require protection from bushfires. 13.2 Bushland adjacent to new urban areas would be subjected to demands for hazard reduction especially for scheduled fires prescribed to reduce fuel. 13.3 The frequency of fires in these areas would increase. 13.4 The altered fire regime of the area would alter the wildlife populations. 13.5 Protection of new urban areas adjacent to bushland from bushfires will need to be seriously considered. 13.6 Proper planning, location and design of new urban areas adjacent to bushland can minimize the risk from bushfires and reduce the need fro hazard reduction fires. 13.7 The Service is concerned about the location and design of the new urban areas because it could be involved in much extra work managing its areas so as to protect the urban areas from fires coming out of the Park.

14 Unwelcome and Unauthorized Access to Royal National Park

14.1 Royal National Park can be subjected to an increase in unwelcome and unauthorized access proportional to the increase in adjacent populations – motor cyclists, horse riders, four wheel drive vehicles, bicyclists, etc.

15 Environmental Protection around Helensburgh

There is no doubt that the amount of further urban development planned for the Helensburgh area, if allowed to go ahead, will have a significant environmental impact.

15.1 The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that for any proposal having a significant environmental impact, approval cannot be given to that proposal until as an environmental impact statement has been prepared as an aid to decision making. 15.2 Are decisions going to be made in the planning for the urban development of the Helensburgh are which largely leave aside the costs which will be imposed on the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the costs of continual degradation of the valuable natural resources of Royal National Park? 15.3 Is the public going to have a say in the development of the Helensburgh area? 15.4 Is the public going to be asked if it is prepared to accept the possible environmental costs of the development of Helensburgh? 15.5 On what basis are the planners going to prepare their reports. Effective management and planning requires careful study and information. So far, the Service has not been called upon officially to contribute to such planning yet it has made great efforts to prepare and pass on pertinent information.

Page 43 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 15.6 Environmental protection objectives cannot be left to the market to decide because the market by itself cannot effectively incorporate environmental values. 15.7 Piecemeal development of the Helensburgh without an overall plan incorporating environmental objectives is letting the market decide. 15.8 Environmental protection objectives cannot be left to the various authorities in public works, transport, water, sewerage and drainage, electricity, gas, labour and industry. The protection of environmental quality is only secondary to these authorities and they are quite capable of in fact, even if not in law, of defeating environmental objectives to supply their services, as has been amply illustrated in this report. 15.9 The protection of environmental quality here needs to be integrated as one criterion amongst others in an overall plan, a local environmental plan, to be used by all agencies in their policy making and administration processes. 15.10 The proper design of the subdivision is imperative in this area to minimize environmental impacts. 15.11 Information is available upon urban erosion control and subdivision design which has been used effectively and economically and which if used here could minimize the impact of many aspects of this development, e.g. erosion and sedimentation, stormwater discharge, urban runoff quality. 15.12 Proper consideration needs to be given to all criteria before determining land-uses in this area. 15.13 The Service would anticipate that there would be an adverse public reaction to urban development in the areas marked as wildlife corridors on map 4 and as on NO URBAN DEVELOPMENT on map

Page 44 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 8 East coast corridor to protect wildlife

Reproduced from “Sydney Morning Herald” Date: July 14 2010

Nicky Phillips The establishment of a conservation corridor spanning 2800 kilometres along the east coast of Australia, which would allow wildlife to relocate as the climate warms, is vital for the survival of many species, a report has found.

The report, commissioned by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, outlines the scientific basis for a continuous conservation area, which will stretch from just outside Melbourne to the Atherton tablelands in North Queensland and link national parks with state forests and privately owned land.

Brendan Mackey, an environmental scientist and the author of the report, said although there were many conservation areas along the east coast, both private and publicly owned, many remained isolated. ''One of the impacts of climate change is that species will have to move around to find suitable habit resources. We need to make the whole landscape more biodiversity friendly.''

The aim of the corridor, called the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, is to protect endangered and threatened species, and ecosystems as a whole. Ian Pulsford, from the Department of Climate Change and Water, said NSW was the first state to implement the corridor.

The NSW section will be more than 1200 kilometres long and is home to two-thirds of the state's threatened species and three-quarters of its vegetation.

It also contained most of the headwaters linked to the state's water supposedly, he said.

Although almost half of the state's section was national park and reserves, there were important eco-systems on private and public land. ''We are trying to move away from ad hoc bits of conservation,'' Mr Pulsford said.

In areas identified to become part of the corridor, a program facilitator would act as a broker, visiting private landholders to request they become part of the program, he said.

''The corridor is voluntary but there has been a good response from private landholders, and there are incentives to make your land part of the conservation area,'' said Mr Pulsford, who managed the initiative on behalf of DECCW.

The program involved partnerships between local and state governments, industry, conservation groups and private land owners and could take decades to complete.

The report compared the benefits of a connected corridor with the conventional approach to environmental protection, which focused attention on particular areas and threatened species.

''The conventional thinking is wait until things are really bad and then desperately try to save things at the last minute,'' said Professor Mackey.

Australia has an very poor record of wildlife extinction. Close to half of all mammal extinctions that occurred on the planet in the past 200 years have occurred in Australia. Three bird species, four frog species and 61 species of flowering plant have become extinct since European settlement, detailed the report.

Page 45 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 9 “Royal National Park” World’s First National Park

Page 46 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 10 Hansard 22/09/2004

TRANSCIPT COPY OF HANSARD

Hansard & Papers > Legislative Assembly > 22 September 2004 Stanwell Tops Paintball Recreation Facility Development Application About this Item Subjects - Planning and Development; Wollongong City Council; Wildlife; Tourist Industry Speakers - McLeay Mr Paul; Seaton Ms Peta; Collier Mr Barry; Allan Ms Pam Business - Motion Commentary - Symbio Wildlife Gardens

STANWELL TOPS PAINTBALL RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Page: 11304

Urgent Motion

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [2.24 p.m.]: I move:

That this House calls on Wollongong City Council to reject the plan to build a paintball recreation facility at Stanwell Tops next to Illawarra's largest wildlife sanctuary, Symbio Wildlife Gardens.

Symbio Wildlife Gardens at Stanwell Tops, which has existed for about 35 years, is an important facility located in my electorate. The current owner and administrator, John Radnidge, purchased the zoo and wildlife sanctuary approximately four years ago. Although Symbio Wildlife Gardens is a wildlife sanctuary—it has a crocodile pit—John Radnidge is no Steve Irwin. He is a community-minded professional businessman who believes in ecology and animal welfare. He has the support and high regard of his community. Some 2½ years ago one of his neighbours submitted a development application [DA] for a paintball facility to be located just one property away from the centre and on a level access, which would impact severely on his ability to run his business.

Last Friday Wollongong City Council deferred its decision on the DA. The owners of Symbio and the community were outraged. After two years and two months the applicants asked for a deferral to enable them to provide further information. John Radnidge cannot get any acceptable information from the council. He and his park, for which he takes responsibility, have the most to lose. The community has been galvanised. The first roundtable discussions were held in November last year, following which strong representations were made about the impact of the DA. People are concerned about the amenity of the area, noise, the adverse impact of the development on Symbio and the wildlife, environmental degradation, traffic, the need for such an activity and Page 47 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 much more. Another roundtable discussion was held in August this year and they had to go through it all again, but still nothing has happened.

The residents and Symbio's owners feel that nothing has happened. They still have no answers from the council. The applicants were supposed to provide responses to these concerns, but nothing has happened. Symbio's owners organised a public rally, which was held two Saturdays ago. Nearly 500 people attended the rally. They have submitted petitions to council, which have been circulating for only two weeks and already they have more than 3,000 signatures. Public support is enormous. But they have had no feedback from the council. The silence is deafening. Why is it that only last week council deferred a decision because they want to carry out sound testing? Why was this not done 2½ years ago? Symbio has conducted an aggressive, yet community-focused, campaign to get the information out to the people. Clearly, overall public support demonstrates that. The people of Stanwell Park do not want war games next to a wildlife sanctuary, nor do the people of Helensburgh, the Sutherland shire, Wollongong, the South Coast and all areas of Sydney, particularly Western Sydney, where many of the visitors come from.

There are even international examples of people who do not want war games next to a wildlife sanctuary. John Radnidge has had emails of support from New Zealand, England and across the world. He has had support from Alan Jones, who aired his views and concerns on several occasions on Sydney radio. John Laws has taken up his case. He has had support from radio station 2WS. Headlines have blazed across the regions in the Illawarra Mercury, the Northern Daily Leader the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, the Helensburgh Pictorial News and others. Even the Liberal candidate for Cunningham supports the protection of Symbio.

It is important to note that the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre has lent its support, as do all members of Parliament from the Illawarra—the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business; the honourable member for Wollongong; the honourable member for Illawarra; and the honourable member for Kiama, together with the Labor members of Parliament from the Sutherland shire, the honourable member for Miranda and the honourable member for Menai, as well as other members who will speak to the motion. A Skirmish paintball facility already exists just two kilometres away from the sanctuary, but because it is geographically located in an isolated valley and has been there since 1993, it does not present problems or have an adverse impact on neighbours or on the environment that the proposed centre would have.

Symbio was established in 1975 as a small wildlife park and has developed to become a prominent wildlife sanctuary and tourism facility. It is set among 16 acres of natural bushland with more than 1,000 animals. Symbio places an emphasis on allowing visitors to have a personal experience with animals who are allowed to touch, feed and enjoy many native animals in their natural surroundings. It plays a vital community role. The sanctuary has a program for Page 48 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 conservation of unique Australian wildlife. It offers a home for injured and orphaned animals and provides a home for some of Australia's endangered and vulnerable wildlife, such as koalas and cassowaries, which are similar to a large emus. It is estimated that there are only 1,200 cassowaries left in the world, and that those remaining birds face extinction owing to habitat destruction. I ask honourable members to note the irony of that. The sanctuary also houses two tiger quolls that have successfully bred. Tiger quolls are similar to the Tasmanian tiger and are also a critically endangered species. The sanctuary also houses critically endangered spider monkeys from South America.

Symbio provides an environment where people can spend the day with their family and enjoy a picnic at the barbecue area and facilities such as swimming pools. The sanctuary's trained keepers understand time limitations and have programs to facilitate enjoyable visits. A diverse range of visitors can be entertained at the sanctuary, including families, preschoolers, high school students, university students, TAFE students, senior citizens and special needs groups, and the educational programs play an important role in conservation. Visitors are able to enjoy an up close and personal experience with wildlife and are welcome to take photographs as mementos of their visit. There are thousands of Australian native, farmyard and exotic animals on 16 acres of natural bushland and parkland.

Recently the sanctuary was rated as Australia's best wildlife experience. The sanctuary is a 45-minute drive from the Sydney central business district. It is just south of Sutherland and borders on the world famous Royal National Park. It is situated in a part of the world that is very tranquil and famous for coastal villages, arts, crafts, award-winning beaches, rainforests, Kellys Falls and the famous Bald Hill hang gliding. All Labor members are playing their part in promoting northern Illawarra villages, especially while they are experiencing two years of road closures associated with the rebuilding of Lawrence Hargrave Drive. Tourism Wollongong and New South Wales Tourism have focused on the northern towns of the Illawarra area. The area also will benefit from a $2 million Roads and Traffic Authority centre. Symbio has created a relationship of mutual benefit with wildlife and is recognised for doing so. An article by Bruce Elder in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2002 states:

There is always considerable charm in artless simplicity. The Symbio Wildlife Gardens, located on Lawrence Hargrave Drive just off the F6 freeway... [is one of them.] Symbio is a near perfect example of an unpretentious zoo designed to give hands-on access to kangaroos and young farm animals. The emphasis is on the everyday rather than the exceptional, with sections for wallaroos, red kangaroos, swamp wallabies, emus, echidnas, wombats and dingoes...

This is the perfect destination for people wanting to pat a kangaroo, show overseas visitors a close view of Australia's funny animals, and everyone who wants to rediscover the simple pleasures of farm pets and other friendly creatures.

On 7 September the Illawarra Mercury reported on how things have changed. Page 49 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 The article states, "One of the Illawarra's top tourist attractions will have its licence reviewed if a neighbouring paintball operation receives the green light next month." Fears expressed for the future of Symbio Wildlife Gardens by its managing director received credibility after the Illawarra Mercury contacted the State Government. The article states:

If [Symbio] was unable to negate adverse impacts on animal welfare arising from the paintball operation then it may place continuation of its licence at risk.

Those comments were made by the exhibited animals registrar of the Department of Primary Industries, Matthew Crane, in response to the community taking up the fight to make sure that commonsense prevails. He also said that if the paintball operation detracts from visitor amenity, Symbio may experience briefer visiting times and other issues.

A stop must be put to this nonsense. I call on the Wollongong City Council to reject this inappropriate development application. Symbio needs closure and finalisation of the matter. Since Mr Radnidge took over approximately four years ago, nearly $1 million has been invested in updating the park. Let us prevent Symbio going the way of the Australian Wildlife Park at Wonderland, Blue Gum Farm Zoo at Milperra, Waratah Park at Castle Hill, and several other North Coast parks. We must make sure that the sanctuary is protected and its future assured. I hope that the Wollongong City Council will exercise some commonsense.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [2.34 p.m.]: There is no doubt that Symbio is one of the Illawarra's iconic tourism sites. The people of the Illawarra are extremely proud of the centre, which draws 150,000 visitors to the region a year. It is one of the most attractive destinations to people who are visiting from metropolitan Sydney or overseas. Symbio provides 15 full- time jobs and is a place where many volunteers attend to assist in caring for animals. Those people take a great interest in conservation and they want to play their part in preserving Australian native wildlife. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr Radnidge and some residents of properties near Symbio. I did so at the request and invitation of the Liberal Party candidate for the Federal electorate of Cunningham, John Larter, who is very concerned about the future of Symbio. He arranged a meeting to seek help for the operators of Symbio in tackling what they regard as a very grave risk to the future of this wonderful wildlife park.

I have also received representations from one person who is associated with the proposal to whom I expressed my concerns and the concerns of people who are advocating in favour of the continuation of the Symbio wildlife park. It was a pleasure to meet with Mr Radnidge, who is undoubtedly a passionate defender of Australian native wildlife. He is very keen to ensure that a facility such as Symbio provides an educational resource for school children and people from throughout Australia while at the same time providing an opportunity, as the honourable member for Heathcote mentioned, for visitors Page 50 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 to Australia to have personal experience of Australian wildlife. It is very important that wildlife facilities that are within easy reach of Sydney are never placed in doubt or have their future under threat. I am aware that rallies have taken place, which indicates a good deal of community concern over the future of Symbio as a result of the development proposal.

I gave an undertaking to Mr Radnidge and others to do whatever I can to help them make the case for the future of Symbio and to ensure that all available information is accessible so that the council will reject the proposal on merit. It is worth noting that not long ago the Federal Government made a substantial grant to Symbio so that a crocodile exhibit could be built and maintained. I understand that the new exhibit has become the centrepiece of the park and has resulted in return visits that would not otherwise have occurred. If the future of Symbio is placed at risk by the paintball proposal, the prospect of future Federal grants will also be placed at risk. Another major player that can provide Symbio with a great deal of help is the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the Minister for Primary Industries, if he is so inclined. Symbio operates only by virtue of a licence that is issued by the Department Primary Industries. I understand that the conditions of the licence are very detailed and specific. If any threat is exposed to the environmental conditions under which animals are housed and exhibited, the future of Symbio's licence is also placed at risk, and it is possible that the department will refuse to renew the licence.

Environmental conditions affecting the licence include noise pollution. As all honourable members know, the wellbeing, longevity and successful breeding programs associated with Australian native wildlife are closely linked to the quality of the environment in which they are housed. Stress that may be created by activities and noise emanating from the paintball centre certainly will have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing, longevity and breeding capacity of animals in captivity, according to expert scientific opinion. Symbio Wildlife Gardens is under threat on many levels. We are concerned to ensure that there is no threat to it in the long term, and that the development of any situation that impacts negatively on the gardens be given short shrift by the council.

In order to assist Mr Radnidge, concerned residents and volunteers, I undertook to do a number of things: first, I wrote to the Minister for Local Government, Tony Kelly, regarding the conditions of the licence issued by the Department of Primary Industries. I set out the reasons for concern and asked him for further details in relation to the conditions of the licence so that we can be sure that Wollongong City Council has all the necessary information it needs to make the right decision. Second, as the Federal Government had given a generous grant to the sanctuary, I wrote to the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, alerting him to this new threat to Symbio's future.

Third, I wrote to the Lord Mayor of Wollongong, Alex Darling, advising him that I had taken those two steps and giving him the information I had that would assist council to make the right decision, to make sure that Symbio's future is assured. I have not visited Symbio and I look forward to doing so in Page 51 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 the near future. It is absolutely essential that nothing should put its licence at risk. The honourable member for Heathcote mentioned Lawrence Hargrave Drive. Symbio is one of many important tourism facilities and businesses in Stanwell Park and Stanwell Tops that are accessed along that roadway. However, as a result of the Government's neglect of Lawrence Hargrave Drive over many years, that roadway has been forced to close for 2½ years and businesses in Stanwell Park, including Symbio, will be negatively impacted on during that period.

If the Carr Government truly supported tourism it would have ensured that that road never fell into such a poor state of disrepair that it had to be closed. The Government should do everything within its power to accelerate the restitution of Lawrence Hargrave Drive. I have met businesspeople from the area who have had to close their business, people who have had to make dramatic changes to their lifestyle, people who have had to make changes to the places at which their children are educated, people who are suffering extreme financial and other stresses as a result of the closure of that road. Symbio is a tourism icon in the Illawarra and it is absolutely essential that we provide whatever information is necessary to Wollongong City Council to ensure that it makes the right decision and that there is no doubt over the future of that wonderful facility.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [2.42 p.m.]: Bang! Bang! Bang! That is the sound that visitors to Symbio Wildlife Gardens at Stanwell Tops will hear if Wollongong City Council approves plans for a war-game paintball park nearby. That is the sound that will frighten native animals, birds and reptiles, as well as the thousands of tiny tots who visit that serene, natural habitat with their parents or grandparents. That is the sound of air rifles, incessant yelling and screaming by war-game participants that will turn away many visitors from the shire, the Illawarra, Sydney and overseas. That is the sound that will affect the 150,000 visitors to Symbio annually. That is the sound that will cause unnecessary distress to animals and their young. That is the sound that will interfere with their breeding and will adversely impact on the threatened and endangered species that are protected at the park, including red-tailed black cockatoos, gang-gang cockatoos, a cassowary and two extremely rare tiger quolls. That is the sound that will cause Symbio, the people's park, to close.

Action Paintball Games wants to set up an operation adjacent to Symbio. It has a development application before Wollongong council. If that application is approved Symbio will be forced to close. Symbio, which has operated for 30 years and has survived the downturn in foreign visitors to Sydney following the September 11 attacks and the Christmas 2002 bushfires, will be forced to close because a war-game paintball operator wants to set up adjacent to it. One of my constituents, Ms Heidi McLachlan of Gymea Bay, wrote:

I am writing to express my concerns about a paintball "war game" park wanting to be approved near the site of the Symbio Wildlife Gardens at Stanwell Tops, because I work as a Volunteer Zookeeper there. If this paintball park is approved it will force Symbio to close for good … If it is approved the Page 52 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 animals that call Symbio home would be forced to leave, none of these animals can be returned to the wild due to living in captivity for all or most of their lives. Symbio also helps in rehabilitating many sick and injured wildlife. They also take in pets … that no longer can be kept by their owners. Another reason is that Symbio has just upgraded many of their enclosures …

Where else … can you pat a koala, feed a kangaroo or feed a baby goat?? I think closing the park will also disadvantage the public. Symbio provides the public with invaluable amounts of animal and environmental knowledge, which is … shown through the many shows commenced throughout the course of the day. I see many families arrive and depart Symbio with a giant smile on their face. Isn't this saying something? I see many little children with their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandparents come to Symbio for a family day out. You can see the excitement on their little faces as the baby goats run out of their pen and try to drink out of the bottle given to them by a keeper …

As you can see Symbio is a very hands on Wildlife Park … if it is forced to close it would be a shame. On 11 September, 200 people attended a Save Our Symbio Rally at the park. Young and old, they expressed their opposition to the proposed war-game paintball operation near Symbio. Their fears about the impact of that operation on Symbio and its animals are well founded. On 10 September the Illawarra Mercury stated:

The Department of Primary Industries has warned that Symbio's licence to exhibit animals would be at risk if it could not stop negative impacts on the animals from the paintball operation.

That department is responsible for licensing the Symbio Wildlife Gardens. On 6 September the department's registrar, Mr Matthew Crane, is reported in the Illawarra Mercury as suggesting:

The action which Symbio would have to take to minimise distress to animals could involve constructing soundproof walls, increasing veterinary attention to animals, reconfiguring the park layout, or disposing of its more sensitive animals.

To suggest that Symbio, that long-established wildlife park, should bear the costs of negating the impacts of a paintball operation on its animals, to the point of getting rid of them, is just plain crazy. The onus of proof must always be on the paintball outfit to show it would have absolutely no impact on Symbio. The best way to ensure that, of course, is for Wollongong City Council to reject the application. Mrs Kim Hall, a resident of Helensburgh, told me that her two children, Jackson and Samara, just love their visits to Symbio. She pointed out that a paintball operation is already in operation 2½ kilometres down the road. So do not feel sorry for the paintball operators or participants. Clearly, Wollongong City Council has every reason to reject this outrageous proposal for a paintball operation adjacent to Symbio. The adverse impact on animals and wildlife is enough in itself, without the loss of jobs, Page 53 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 tourism and the amenity it would cause. Wollongong's Lord Mayor, Alex Darling, should bite the bullet and reject this ridiculous proposal. I have written to the Mayor as well as to the Minister for the Illawarra and to the Minister for Local Government seeking their support on this issue.

Ms PAM ALLAN (Wentworthville) [2.47 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote on raising this important matter in the House. It is no coincidence that it tends to be Labor members, including those presently in the Chamber, who are active and vocal proponents for a number of local environmental issues. For example, yesterday the honourable member for Campbelltown took the opportunity to assist the Government by announcing a State protection area for the Wedderburn koala colony. Of course, there has been no shortage of environmental issues in the Illawarra. The Government has had a history of protecting endangered species in the area where the privately run Symbio Wildlife Gardens now operates. There is unanimity across the Chamber that Symbio should continue its successful operation.

No-one has used this opportunity to rubbish paintball as a recreational activity. Although I have not participated in any paintball activities, I am not opposed to it per se. However, as the honourable member for Miranda said earlier, a number of noise and pollution problems will occur as a result of that facility being located adjacent to a wildlife facility. In this case, according to the owners of the wildlife sanctuary, the State government licensing authority, which is responsible for issuing licences for this sanctuary, is concerned that the licence may not be able to be continued if the paintball facility is approved. Wollongong City Council has a fine record of environmental protection. Over the years it has been active in its protection for the escarpment and in assisting in the protection of endangered species in the Illawarra region.

My colleagues, Opposition members and I call on Wollongong City Council to seriously consider the development application for the paintball facility before it decides to take any further action. It is a hard road for private wildlife sanctuaries. We have several popular sanctuaries in the Sydney metropolitan area and in the outer metropolitan area. We have the koala park sanctuary at West Pennant Hills and Featherdale Wildlife Park near Blacktown. Unfortunately, the wildlife park that was linked to Australia's Wonderland closed recently. Those parks, which have an important function in our community, are attractive for tourists and for families. In the past three months I visited the koala park with my daughter and I was quite impressed by that facility. However, it still needs—presumably as does Symbio—a huge commitment by its owners to ensure that appropriate facilities and investment are provided and that the animals in its care are looked after.

Symbio, like the koala park, has koalas but it also has tiger quolls and other endangered species, as my colleague the honourable member for Heathcote already mentioned. In the past few years it has contributed almost three- quarters of million dollars towards upgrading the facility after the current owner, John Radnidge, assumed ownership. These people, who are investing a lot of money in this facility, are already performing an important service for Page 54 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 the area because many families and tourists are visiting it. According to recent publicity, a group of Korean journalists rated it as the best wildlife experience in Australia. Other Asian visitors rank it as amongst the best in New South Wales.

There has been an enormous amount of investment in this facility but there obviously needs to be more. More protection must also be given to the animals that are located in that facility. Symbio's owners have huge ambitions and plans for the provision of educational programs and for the extension of their crocodile exhibit into a major reptile facility. We, as a Government, should certainly be encouraging them. Their task will be made much more difficult if this paintball facility is given approval by Wollongong City Council. My colleagues and I urge Wollongong City Council not to approve the location of this facility adjacent to the wildlife sanctuary. Let us give this sanctuary a better go. It is already doing a marvellous job. We want it to improve and we want to be able to ensure that families in the Illawarra area have the sort of recreational and environmental facility that they deserve.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [2.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who spoke in debate on this urgent motion. In summary, the honourable member for Southern Highlands said that there is no doubt that this site is an icon in the Illawarra region. She appeared to be knowledgeable about many aspects relating to this wildlife preservation facility and she was aware of the impact that the proposed paintball facility would have on the 150,000 visitors, 100 staff and the many volunteers at that park. The honourable member was also aware of the recent public rally, the fact that other political players have been making their voices heard, and the fact that there is support for Mr Radnidge and others. She claimed that she has given Mr Radnidge a commitment that if council rejects the paintball facility development application on merit she will do what she can to assist the wildlife facility, which is pleasing. She said that Symbio was under threat and that she had made representations to the appropriate Ministers, for which I thank her.

As always, the honourable member for Miranda did a lot of research before speaking in debate on this motion. He has spoken to me on several occasions about this issue, in particular, when it was first referred to in the local shire papers. He referred to endangered species and to the impact that the proposed paintball facility will have on jobs, children and their families. He referred also to the outrage that had been expressed in the shire and he said that he had made representations to the Minister. My colleague the honourable member for Wentworthville, a former environment Minister who has a good understanding of this area, said that Wollongong City Council had a fine record in environmental protection but she had called on it to address this issue seriously before it took any further action. As she said, it is a hard road for private wildlife facilities. She called on Wollongong City Council to reject the development application, for which I thank her.

If a private company wanted to establish a wildlife sanctuary next to a Page 55 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 paintball facility it would be laughed out of town. However, in this case the application is for a paintball war games facility to operate next to a wildlife sanctuary. Council is going through the motions and it is granting all the exemptions and extensions that appear to be required. If it were the other way around such a facility would not even get a look in. A paintball facility wishes to operate war games next to a wildlife sanctuary and council is going through the appropriate motions. The existing operator who has been in that area for nearly 35 years is the person who is being penalised. The Department of Primary Industries said:

Licensing conditions and standards require the licensee to ensure the welfare of the animals in their collection and to provide various visitor facilities. The licensee is concerned that the proposed paintball operation will adversely impact on the welfare of the animals and on the amenity of visitors.

To meet its legislated responsibility the licensee of Symbio will have to take action if the paintball operation causes distress to animals. This could conceivably involve construction of soundproof walls, increased frequency of veterinary attention, a need to reconfigure the layout of the park and perhaps it being forced to dispose of its more sensitive animals.

The Animal Welfare Unit of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries licenses animal displays such as Symbio and monitors the welfare of exhibit animals via a regime of inspectors and reviews of animals and veterinary records maintained by the exhibitors. Adverse impacts on the animals can be revealed by behavioural abnormalities, for example, increased fear, panic aggression, lethargy and other stereotypes and increases in disease and injury and/or death rates in the animal collection.

If the paintball operator detracts from visitor amenities, Symbio may experience briefer visitation times, lower repeat visitation and possibly an overall decline. It is apparent that Symbio is highly concerned about the situation and it is prepared to do what it can to ensure that it meets its prescribed welfare standards. However, if it is unable to negate adverse impacts on animal welfare arising from the paintball operation then it may place the continuation of its licence at risk. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries is unable to licence exhibits that do not or cannot comply with required welfare standards.

Therefore, we find ourselves in this perverse situation. An existing community-minded, family-run and ecological business is being placed at risk because a developer who is located 100 metres away wants to destroy it for his own ends. I call on Wollongong City Council to display some commonsense.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:17 : Update this page

Page 56 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Page 57 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 11 Wollongong City Council Community Survey – Management Report – March 2010 – IRIS Research

Page 58 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 12 Sample community responses to Preliminary Review 16/08/2010

Additionally, I strongly object to the zone downgrading of environmental protection of any \'7D\' land in the 2508 region, as the proposed changes to this region will affect the downstream water quality at the Stanwell Park Recreation Area. In particular the creeks with relation to children swimming in the lagoon area near the beach. There have been a number of children admitted to hospital in the past 15 years I have lived here, poisoned after swimming in the lagoon. We shouldn\'t risk adding more pollution upstream. Perhaps the media should run a campaign to warn the local and visiting children. In summer thousands of visitors flock to Stanwell Park each week. Why throw away these tourist dollars. Why urbanise this region. This is an ugly proposal. FORGET ABOUT IT!

Get your collective corrupt snouts out of the trough and protect this land as requested. Your days are numbered and history will not be kind to you, so clean up and get out of the way. Already our past disregard of the importance of the conservation of biodiversity to our existance has resulted in the unprecidented biodiversity crisis we find ourselves in now. The proposed down- grade of the environmental protection of the Royal National Park will only add to the exacerbation of this crisis and as our ultimate existance as a species depends on the achievement of the conseva- tion of biodiversity, the proposed degradation has to be disallowed. This year is The International Year of Biodiversity and it would be a great shame if we would allow this degradation of the Na- tional Park to take place. Apart from the reasons listed below, I fail to see how an unelected body such as yourself can con- template making such a significant and irreversible decision. I DO NOT support the zone downgrading of environmental protection of any 7D land in the 2508 region.

As an active member of two bushwalking clubs I am particularly concerned that the walking environment in the Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops areas, where I have enjoyed many a wonderful day\'s walking, is not degraded. As an animal lover I worry that these wildlife corridors, under the threat of development, will see the demise of several birds and mammals such as the Great Glider and Gould\'s long-eared bat. I ask Wollongong City Council to enhance its environmental record and protect the three Hacking River Catchment areas.

As Australia has an abismal record for the protection of our Native flora and Fauna; and the ever increasing loss of such species (extinction); and in light of all the (reputable) scientific community clearly stating the impact on our Natural environment; and its future impacts, for the human race, I find it absolutely deplorable that a government could be even contemplating any possible degrading incursions into National Park. As population and other pressures on our natural environment increase, protecting the health and integrity of what remains becomes increasingly critical. As read and stated below I submit an objection to the downgrading of 7D land.

Page 59 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 13 Council Minutes 22/03/2004

Page 60 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 4 Registered Post – SENDER TO KEEP 563313763012

Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500

Page 61 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 5 Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2010 Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2010 Page 1 Minute No. Wollongong City Council CONFIRMATION OF M INUTES OF ORDINARY M EETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY, 27 APRIL 2010 50 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 (a copy having been circulated to Administrators) be taken as read and confirmed. PUBLIC ACCESS FORUM M R G PETTY – REVIEW OF 7(D) LANDS AT HELENSBURGH, OTFORD AND STANWELL TOPS Mr Petty thanked Council for its investigations into the 7(d) Hacking River Catch- ment and in particular, for awarding E2 zoning to some of the most crucial wildlife habitat corridors. However, he said that the suggestion that the added impact from this planning exercise will only be 30 more dwellings is a gross over-simplification of the potential total impact. He stated that these lands were critical to the long-term health of Australia’s first national park, the Royal. Recent removal of many clauses in Local Environmental Plans by the Department of Planning shows how quickly land can change from protected to developable.

Mr Petty felt that an alternative way of resolving the 2508 land issues was to adopt the Otford Protection Society’s Planning Proposal, which he tabled. The proposal was formulated by concerned ratepayers (within the 2508 postcode) who know the area and are long-term residents, and also included 7(d) landowners who were completely satisfied with the previous 7(d) zoning and its protection. He said that the only logical way forward, if Council persisted with the report, was to ask the Minister for Local Government to make a boundary realignment whereby 2508 residents would be amal- gamated into Sutherland Shire Council, or for the Bulli Council to be reinstated.

Page 62 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 6 Copy of letter from Wollongong City Council dated 31/5/2010 TRANSCIPT COPY OF LETTER FROM WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Otford Protection Society Our Ref; Z10/59854 C/- 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive File: SU26444 OTFORD NSW 2508 Date: 31 May 2010

Attention: Ms Natasha Watson,

Dear Ms Watson

PLANNING PROPOSAL - FORMER 7(d) LANDS

Reference is made to your letter dated 30 April 2010 forwarding a copy of the planning proposal you have submitted to the NSW Department of Planning seeking the rezoning of 7(d) lands at Helensburgh from the E3 Environmental Management to the E2 Envir- onmental Conservation zone.

On 25 May 2010 Council considered the 3,447 submissions received following the exhibition of the draft Review of 7(d) lands at Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops (or Willana report). Council resolved to seek further community input, before determining whether to prepare a planning proposal to amend the current planning controls.

Your proposal will be considered as a submission to the exhibition of the Preliminary Report currently on exhibition.

Issue of this letter is authorised by Jon Bridge Land Use Planning, Acting Manager Wollongong City Council Direct Line (02) 4227 7576 cc Department of Planning - Illawarra Regional Office

Page 63 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 7 Copy of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter 01/06/2010

Otford Protection Society C/- 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive OTFORD NSW 2508 1 June 2010

The Acting Manager Land Use Planning, Wollongong City Council Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500

Attention: Jon Bridge Direct Line (02) 4227 7576

PLANNING PROPOSAL - FORMER 7(d) LANDS

Dear Acting Manager

I refer to your letter dated 31 May 2010, your Ref; Z10/59854 and File: SU26444.

I draw your attention to our letter and submission to the Director-General dated 30 April 2010.

The Otford Protection Society Incorporated (OPS) Planning Proposal is not a submission to Council’s Preliminary Report dated 21 May 2010 (REVIEW OF 7(D) LANDS AT HELENSBURGH, OTFORD AND STANWELL TOPS - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS - Report of Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning (DG) 12/05/10 SU26444) as the OPS submission predates Council’s report.

The OPS Planning Proposal is a formal legal application for an amendment to the current Wollongong Local Environment Plan (Wollongong 2009 LEP). We would expect Wollongong City Council to support the formal process of the NSW Department of Planning who has the responsibility to progress our application, including placing it on the LEP TRACKING website.

Comments attributed to Administrator McGregor in the Mercury Wednesday May 26 “NO COMPO FOR LANDOWNERS” reinforce the OPS submission. Of course, the OPS Planning Proposal goes the next and final step of resolving this issue for all time, without impost on Council’s delicate financial position.

N Watson – Secretary C/o 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive OTFORD NSW 2508

Page 64 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Appendix 1 8 Copy of Administrator McGregor’s letter dated 06/07/2010

TRANSCIPT COPY OF LETTER FROM WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Our Ref: Z10/69399 File: SU26444 Date: 6 July 2010

Mr. G. Petty Otford Protection Society c/o 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Otford, NSW 2508

Dear Mr. Petty

Planning Proposal - Former 7(d) lands

Reference is made to the planning proposal that you tabled at Council's meeting on 25 May 2010. It is noted that you have submitted the planning proposal to the NSW De- partment of Planning seeking the rezoning of 7(d) lands at Helensburgh from the E3 Environmental Management to the E2 Environmental Conservation zone.

As you are aware, on 25 May 2010, Council considered the 3,447 submissions received following the exhibition of the draft Review of 7(d) lands at Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops (the Willana report). Council resolved to seek further community input on an amended set of recommendations for rezoning of the 7(d) lands, before determining whether to prepare a formal planning proposal.

As your planning proposal differs to Council's overall objectives and specific recommendations that are currently on exhibition, Council is unable to support your proposal. Your proposal will however be considered as a submission to the current exhibition. If you have any further enquiries, please contact Council's Acting Manager Land Use Planning, Mr Jon Bridge on 4227 7576.

Yours sincerely Robert McGregor AM

Administrator Wollongong City Council

Attached to this letter is a Timetable for finalisation of 7(d) lands review.

Page 65 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Referenced Document 1 Email from NSW Premier’s Office dated 08/07/2010

2010/32632 - A planning proposal lodged by the OtfordProtection Society Thu 8/07/2010 11:32 AM

2010/32632

Dear Mr Petty

I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning a planning proposal lodged by the Otford Protection Society.

As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands, the Hon Tony Kelly, MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Minister for attention.

You may be sure that your email will receive close consideration.

Yours sincerely

David Swain for Director General

Page 66 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Referenced Document 2 Open Letter to the Premier of NSW dated 20/06/2010

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PREMIER OF NSW Dear Madam Premier

If the Premier can learn anything by the Penrith by-election reported 25% swing against Labor, voter votes actually account for public opinion.

Otford Protection Society has lodged with the Planning NSW an historic Planning Proposal under the Gateway system to rezone environmentally sensitive lands around Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops. This application is a first by any group or individual other than by a Council, and seeks to resolve many years of developer pressure, together with an exit strategy for disenfranchised and “speculator” land owners.

The comprehensive Planning Proposal over lands which are adjacent to “Royal National Park”, Australia’s first and the world’s second oldest National Park, was intended to use the same process that councils use to seek approval for rezonings and LEP modifications. Is the Premier aware that the community does NOT have the same access rights to Council and the Director-General of Planning as developers? It must be a different rule as Planning NSW refuses to process the application to advertise its simple lodgement by virtue of NOT placing it on the Planning NSW LEP Tracking Website.

Here, a community group has actually put its public opinion into the government process. So what does Planning NSW and Wollongong City Council (under Administrators appointed by the Labor State Government) do, everything they can to “kill” the proposal. And where is the State Member for Heathcote on this Planning Proposal.

It’s time for the Premier, Planning NSW and Wollongong City Council, to start giving back to the community it supposedly represents and once again listen to the community. This community group Planning Proposal will be the litmus test if Labor is listening and will show if it (Labor) has the capacity to learn from the disastrous result of the Penrith by-election.

The Premier needs to instruct Planning NSW via the Minister, to immediately enter the Otford Protection Society Planning Proposal on the LEP Tracking Website as it meets the requirements of “The proposed LEP relates to a matter that is of State or Regional environmental significance” and “The Proposed LEP is of State significance in terms of amenity, cultural, heritage and historical significance” (as per the Planning NSW’s own practice note).

What’s needed is a plan, so let this historic Community Group Planning Proposal run its course through the planning process, not the Government just buy a piece of land here or there, and say it has “fixed” the problem.

Restore community faith in the democratic process by allowing the community to have equal say in the planning process. At your peril, the community will judge you harshly in March next year, or sooner, if you continue to ignore community proposals, concerns and input.

The comprehensive Otford Protection Society Planning Proposal may be seen at www.otfordeco.com/planning/GatewayApplicationfor2508.pdf copy attached.

Greg Petty 130 Walker Street HELENSBURGH NSW 2508 Phone (02) 4294 4477 20th June 2010

Page 67 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Reference d Document 3 Otford Protection Society Incorporated letter dated 03/06/2010 The Director General N.S.W. Planning – Head Office 23-33 Bridge Street (GPO Box 39) Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Director General,

Planning Proposal: WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL - A PLANNING PROPOSAL WHICH NOMINATES HIGH CONSERVATION PROTECTION FOR FORMER 7D ZONED LANDS AND A COST EFFECTIVE EXIT STRATEGY FOR OWNERS OF LOTS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTS RIGHTS

Otford Protection Society Incorporated on May 7, 2010, forwarded to you by registered and proof of delivery mail its Planning Proposal, in accordance with Division 4 LEPs of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and section 27 of the Local Government Act 1993. Prior to submission to Minister for Planning, the planning proposal shall be exhibited on the LEP Tracking website.

A proof of delivery notice was returned to indicate the delivery was affected at the Department of Planning head office on 10 May 2010.

A check of the LEP Tracking website indicates that this Planning Proposal has not been entered as being lodged.

We note that for Wollongong City Council, another Planning Proposal dated 7 May 2010 is entered. As our Planning Proposal was mailed on 7 May 2010 and received on 10 May 2010, some 3 days later, and as 10 days has elapsed since the 7 May 2010 appeared on the LEP Tracking website, the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal should now also be appearing on this website.

Please advise when the Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal will be entered on the NSW Planning LEP Tracking Website.

Yours sincerely

OTFORD PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (Registration Number 1585513702) N Watson – Secretary C/o 22 Lady Wakehurst Drive OTFORD NSW 2508 3 June 2010

Page 68 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Referenced Document 4 Letter from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 07/06/2010

Page 69 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Referenced Document 5 Email from Southern Regional Director – Planning NSW dated 07/06/2010

From: Brett Whitworth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2010 5:28 PM To: Pauline Lacelles-Smith Cc: Graham Towers Subject: Re: Otford Protection Society Incorporated Planning Proposal

Pauline

Please see attached a copy of the letter and practice note that I has sent to the Otford Protection Society yesterday.

I've also read the letter that you attached to your email and the letter to the editor in today's Mercury. Just so that you and your colleagues are aware, planning proposals are only loaded onto the Department's LEP tracking system when they are formal 'planning proposals' under the legislation (eg a relevant planning authority has decided to prepare a planning proposal); and, when the Department's regional team believes that the planning proposals are adequate (eg they accurate describe the land and the proposed explanation of provisions are clear). These rules apply irrespective of the planning proposal and the relevant planning authority.

In the case of the Otford Protection Society and other like submissions, there is, at present, no relevant planning authority and as such no formal 'planning proposal' under the legislation.

In fact the Department has taken your submission to mean that the Otford Protection Society are seeking the Director General of the Department of Planning to be the relevant planning authority and to adopt your planning proposal for consideration by the Gateway. I should add that, even though the legislation makes provision for the Director General to be appointed the relevant planning authority, I am not aware of this power being exercised to date.

As I have identified on the phone - I am eager to meet with interested members of the community, including the Otford Protection Society to explain the process of planning proposals as well as to gain an understanding of community response to the current Council concepts for Helensburgh and Otford.

Regards

Brett Whitworth Regional Director Southern Region

Department of Planning PO Box 5475 Wollongong NSW 2520 Level 2, Block G 84 Crown Street, Wollongong t: 02 4224 9455 | m: 0437 868 167 e: [email protected]

Page 70 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Map 1 Current Gazetted Wollongong City Council 2009/10 Zoning Map

Page 71 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map

The published DLEP Wollongong 2009 proposed the following classification for the area.

7(d) Helensburgh and Otford Review Much of the land around Helensburgh and Otford is zoned 7(d) Hacking River EnvironmentalProtection. This zone was introduced in the 1980s and 1990 to protect the water quality of the Hacking River and Royal National Park.

Council recognises that the zone has caused undue hardship on some landowners who have not been able to build a dwelling house, some for over 30 years. In 2008, Council commenced a review of the 7(d) zone, examining the appropriateness of the zone and the minimum lot size required for a dwelling house.

Conservation of significant bushland and protection of downstream water quality remain important priorities.

This review is ongoing and will be exhibited in early 2009.As an interim measure, the 7(d) land is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The E2 Environmental Conservation zone is similarly restrictive to the 7(d) zone. The map below represents the 7d zoning before DLEP Wollongong 2009.

Page 72 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Map 2 Proposed Zoning Map... Map representing E2 Environmental Conservation zoning under this planning proposal.

"Original Crown Grants of Land generally reserved roads, lanes, ingress and egress from title"

Page 73 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010 Map 3 Conservation Corridor

Page 74 of 74 Planning Proposal Addendum– Land adjacent to Royal National Park – 14 July 2010