23 December 2016 Executive Director Local Planning Liaison New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 SYDNEY, NSW 2001 Dear Sir, We refer to the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lake Scheme) Amendment 2016 (Draft SEPP). In my capacity as the Chairman of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC), I wish to lodge an objection in response to the Draft SEPP on behalf of PLDC. I also note that the exhibited Draft SEPP does not in any way represent the Urban Instrument submission to the Minister for Planning and Environment dated 29 August 2014 nor the subsequent technical reports submitted in March 2016 by PLDC. PLDC rejects any claim that there has been collaboration on the development of this draft SEPP amendment. PLDC reserves all of its rights under the 1987 Deed (Deed) and in reserving its rights says that the provision of its submission in response to the Draft SEPP does not involve an acceptance or agreement by PLDC that the manner in which the Draft SEPP has been proposed, and its proposed contents, are either valid or appropriate. Nor does the making of submissions by PLDC constitute a withdrawal or waiver by PLDC of any of its claims that the State has acted and continues to act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Deed. Clause 3.3(b) of the Deed expressly provides that: "(b) The Lakes Scheme cannot be successfully implemented and completed unless the Urban Land is rezoned and redeveloped for urban purposes as contemplated by this Agreement." (my emphasis) In PLDC's view, the Draft SEPP represents a radical departure from the intention of the parties as recorded in Part 3 of the Deed and the principal investigation undertaken by the NSW State Government documented in the Regional Environmental Study – Penrith Lakes Scheme 1984 (RES). The course being undertaken by the Government is likely to have adverse financial consequences for PLDC. The Draft SEPP is also, as far as we can discern, not supported by proper planning principles. We enclose a report prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd that fully outlines PLDC's planning concerns in response to the Draft SEPP, See Attachment 1. PLDC is of the view that it is premature for the Government to be proposing a whole of scheme planning regime. This is particularly so given that the Greater Sydney Commission Draft West District Plan has yet to be finalised and, as one would expect, this is a key consideration in the making of any State Environment Planning Policy for the Penrith Lakes Scheme. I wish to document the following matters of concern which have also been identified in respect of the Draft SEPP: Page 2 of 6 1) Infrastructure, Flood Planning and Evacuation DP&E has not provided PLDC (as the principal land holder to which the draft SEPP applies) sufficient technical information in the form of detailed reports or assessments to enable PLDC to make an informed view on the outcomes or objectives of the Draft SEPP. Of particular concern to PLDC is the lack of rigour and assessment undertaken by the Department in the development of this Draft SEPP surrounding the Scheme’s specific matters relating to New Castlereagh Road and the flood mitigation infrastructure provided within the Scheme, including the kilometres of structural weirs, extensive stormwater pipes and the earthen flood levees to protect significant cultural heritage sites, including the highly sensitive Hadley Park precinct. It would appear that no provision has been made for these major pieces of infrastructure in the zonings or planning controls and instead they have been effectively “Unzoned” by the proposed Draft SEPP. In March 2014 the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley Flood Management Review Stage One report (Flood Review) was released. Key recommendations and strategies from this report included the development of a single appropriate flood model for the entire Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain including an updated and contemporary flood model to replace the 1995 RUBICON model. It was also recommended that this model be informed by detailed rainfall and extensive bathymetry data. PLDC, in anticipation of the Department implementing the recommendations of the Flood Review undertook detailed, peer reviewed, 2D modelling taking into consideration the latest hydrological modelling technology, in order that we could contribute fully to the further works being undertaken Infrastructure NSW (INSW) in the Stage Two Flood Review. Stage Two of the Hawkesbury – Nepean Valley Flood Management Review has not been released and the NSW State Government has announced in July 2016 an interim Flood Policy to take effect until the Stage 2 Flood review has been completed. In the development of this Draft SEPP, the recommendations of the 2014 Flood review, the extensive flood studies undertaken by Cardno and BMT WBM on behalf of PLDC as well as the peer reviews by Worley Parsons and WMA Water on behalf of the NSW Government have not been incorporated within the Draft SEPP instrument or the proposed zonings. As the principal landholder, PLDC has not been provided adequate information regarding the interim Flood Policy or the environmental studies which have underpinned the interim Flood Policy or the viability of the urban development component of the Lakes Scheme. Further, PLDC has had no opportunity to test any environmental studies underpinning the Flood Policy by way of peer review. In respect of the July 2016 interim Flood Policy; I note that its purported aim is "to reduce the potential flood risk to life and property in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley". A review of the Draft SEPP reveals that the interim Flood Policy as it relates to the Scheme, has been interpreted by the Government in a way which results in the development for urban purposes being limited to 30 lots outside the “future urban land” as indicated on the 1998 Structure Plan. However, no rationale is given as to why these 30 lots, as distinct from, say, 100 lots are appropriate to the Scheme at this time; nor why the Department has decided to zone lands which were not previously considered in previous iterations of the Structure Plan for the Scheme. It appears to PLDC that the interim Flood Policy has been applied in an arbitrary manner. PLDC maintains that there is a range of proven solutions which could be implemented to meet the Flood Policy’s concerns and/or objectives so as to permit urban development of the Lakes Scheme. Page 3 of 6 In support of this position, I request that the Department review the studies which were provided in the August 2014 Urban Instrument submission and I also enclose a summary prepared by Molino Stewart Pty Ltd which addresses the July 2016 interim Flood Policy, See Attachment 2. I note, and indeed stress, that the findings of this report are that with no increased infrastructure, through the use of contra lanes for evacuation to the East, 1300 lots can be located on the Penrith Lakes Scheme. Given the lack of transparency around the interim Flood Policy, PLDC's position is to strongly oppose the making of the Draft SEPP in its current form. 2) Water Management Plan The Regional Environment Study 1984 included a Water Management Plan (1984 WMP) for the lakes within the Scheme which contained a number of significant objectives. Over a 30 year period PLDC has undertaken detailed studies and implemented the policies and strategies of the 1984 WMP. This Plan has been updated over time to incorporate changes in water management technology and to accommodate the changing catchment conditions. The last major review of the 1984 WMP was approved by the Director – General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in November 2013, See Attachment 3, and the subsequent detailed infrastructure construction plans were approved by the Department and implemented sequentially up until late 2015. These approvals incorporate 2 km of sandy beaches, 770 hectares of recreational lakes with two major external weirs, internal road networks, more than 5km of walking trails, landscaped foreshores, conservation zones and picnic areas. The current Draft SEPP amendment fails to incorporate the public recreation and flood mitigation works, which have been undertaken by PLDC, into the land use zonings. The draft SEPP amendment also fails to incorporate the detailed recommendations of the studies which were undertaken by independent consultants on the future zoning of lands within the Scheme. On this basis, PLDC’s position is to strongly oppose the making of the Draft SEPP in the proposed form. 3) The Structure Plan and Planning provisions amendment The Draft SEPP does not seek to amend or update the 1998 SEPP Structure plan and therefore fails to take into consideration the relevant approvals received by PLDC for the Stage 1 WMP and subsequent detailed construction certificates or 2 year plans for infrastructure and land forming. The Draft SEPP in the proposed form fails to realise the long held strategic directions set for the site, being to give rise to comprehensive and integrated land use changes. These include, and are not limited to, significant changes to the Main Lake shape as requested by the 2005 Hawkesbury - Nepean Expert Panel, along with additional water bodies and landforms which under typical circumstances would be incorporated into the Structure Plan on an amendment to the SEPP. In the development of this proposed Draft SEPP the “typical” process, being industry and DP&E planning policy standards, has not been carried out, giving rise to a fragmented and disjointed approach to updating the planning controls for the Scheme. PLDC is concerned that only the Sydney International Regatta Centre and White Water Stadium as Olympic Legacies are considered requiring strong, updated planning controls while the major lakes are effectively “Unzoned”.