.’ SI~I~lllllfll[I~~ I[lll lrl[1 il & X0130344

Sunshine Coast Council

Attn: Mr Marc Cornell

Principal Development Planner

Locked bag 72

SUNSHINE COAST MAIL CENTRE QLD 4560

<S> W~

~<<; ~ ~ <V~

,~ C:J~#

5’2 ty]Artf~ de RD

Buderim, Qld 4556

12 November 2014

’"

’-’ -:J L nt8r

1 9 NOV 2014

D r M C rnell no I!

""1<:-" . .. ...

ea r 0 , nJjC~; ,.) ~n)/CjrG

RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 200 ON SP26901 0 FRM"~(1) RESIDEN’rIAL LOT

INTO TWO (2) RESIDENTIA OTS (APPLICATION NO. REC14/0057)

/’,~_..J 0 j I,

i~a.A ~, lot owner and resident at O. ua.....-ZK-4

am writing to you in opposition to the proposed development on Lot 200 on SP26 010 from one (1)

residential lot into two (2) residential lots (application no. REC14/0057). My opposition is based on:

1. Threatened species occurring on the site

2. The development cannot comply with the intent of applicable Planning Areas, Precincts and

Precinct Classes, and Codes of the Maroochy Plan 2000.

1. Ecology

I am aware, having seen and heard, or it has been reported to me by neighbours, that both

threatened flora and fauna occur on and/or traverse through the whole of this site. These species

include, but are not limited to, the following:

Common name Scientific name Status

EPBC Act NC Act

koala Phasco/arctos cinereus V V

(SEQ Bioregion)

tusked frog Ade/otus brevis - V

green-thighed frog Litoria brevipa/mata - NT

Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia - V

elf skink Eroticoscincus graci/aides - NT

Richmond birdwing vine Pararist%chia praevenosa - NT

Notes:

E - Endangered, V - Vulnerable, NT - Near Threatened

Quite prolific numbers of Richmond birdwing butterfly can be seen at times along the edge of the

forest suggesting that the entire habitat, not just the remnant riparian notophyll vine forest, is very

suitable for the butterfly and the preferred larva food plant, the Richmond birdwing vine.

Also, only recently it was reported that a koala was seen in Buderim Forest Park in the vicinity of the

proposed Lot 2. Koalas have also been seen traversing through backyards and crossing the road to

gain access to habitat.

The location of the development is immediately adjacent to two stream order 1 waterways that

converge to form a stream order 2 waterway that discharges into Martins Creek within Buderim Forest

Park at the eastern end of the proposed development. The proposed Lot 2 house and fire buffer

1

J I

’.

footprint essentially means the entire width (north to south) of the lot in the vicinity of the junction of the two stream order 1 waterways will be cleared, effectively severing connectivity through the remnant open eucalypt forest with rainforest understorey because of the removal of the eucalypt canopy species as a significant component of the connectivity for specific species.

In addition, the proximity of the clearing and earthworks for this development to the stream order 2 waterway raises serious concerns for mitigating impacts in relation to erosion and sediment control and stormwater runoff from the finished development, not just to the waterway but also to the fringing remnant riparian notophyll vine forest and the species dependent upon it.

I have reviewed the ecological assessment report (EAR) prepared by North Coast Environmental Services, 2014 for the proposed development and raise the following concerns with that report:

a) It is primarily a flora assessment report and not an ecological assessment report as there was no field assessment of fauna for the site. A desktop search reviewed historical fauna data for the site, however, did not include a field assessment for the threatened species. In this respect the report is deficient and of limited value, and a proper assessment of the imp ct of

the development cannot be undertaken without a full detailed fauna assessment for the trigger species. This requirement though may be redundant and an unnecessary cost because I believe there is sufficient evidence confirming the presence of some, if not all, of the identified threatened species, and there may be more, such that the development cannot achieve compliance with the Maroochy Plan 2000, as detailed below, and should be refused

b) Connectivity is discussed in very general terms but does not elaborate on the value of each of the regional ecosystems present for their individual significance to the corridor and the habitat that is provided for the movement of specific threatened and non-threatened species more suited to either habitat. The report states that "The capacity of the site to continue to act as a functional component of the pre-existing east-west wildlife corridor in the locality would be retained under the proposal. This statement has no basis in fact and is not supported by referenced published scientific research literature. Species with a preference for a more open forest community are more likely to favour movement through the remnant open eucalypt forest with rainforest understorey rather than the remnant riparian notophyll vine forest. Additional clearing of the open eucalypt forest for the proposed Lot 2 considerably increases the threat of fragmentation and will cause major disruption to these species’ normal movement and feeding patterns through this landscape. The retained expanse of vegetation within the site is NOT considered sufficient to continue to support potential wildlife movement through the site. In this respect the development cannot achieve compliance with the Maroochy Plan 2000, as detailed below, and should be refused

c) Subdivision of the Lot 200 into two lots (Lot 1 (east) and Lot 2 (west) changes the assessment of the extent of clearing such that it should be assessed per new lot (as subdivision occurs prior to construction) rather than on the original Lot 200. On this basis the proposed Lot 2 is actually likely to be cleared to about 50%. The impact of the development on habitat for fauna is discussed claiming only 17% of the original site will be cleared. This is clearly misleading and based on this figure the report very subjectively determines that "the expected impact to habitat resources for current fauna assemblages is anticipated to be only minor". This statement has no basis in fact, is completely unsubstantiated, demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the impacts of this form of development on these species, and is not supported by referenced published scientific research literature. The nature and extent of the development across the width of the proposed Lot 2 (north / south) and edge effects will likely have a considerable impact on the habitat resources for current fauna assemblages. In this respect the effective clearing / degradation of the site will be greater than 30% and, therefore, the development cannot achieve compliance with the Maroochy Plan 2000, as detailed below, and should be refused

d) Assessment of the proposed Lot 2 development against the planning scheme codes appears grossly deficient and lacking in details to effectively assess compliance with the acceptable measures. Indeed, some statements appear to be completely erroneous and unsubstantiated.

2

.’

2. Maroochy Plan 2000

Review of the Maroochy Plan 2000 confirms the site is mapped as:

a) A Special Management Area (Nature Conservation Management Area) on Regulatory Map 1.1

Nature Conservation Management Areas

The importance of the regional ecosystem vegetation communities associated with the

development are highly significant in terms of their relationship to nature conservation and

habitat connectivity around Buderim Forest Park and the wider natural areas retained around the

Buderim escarpment. Both regional ecosystems are interlinked and provide ecosystem services

to each other and the adjoining areas, and cannot be considered separate entities to be carved

up just because one may be classified differently at a State or National level

b) A Special Management Area (part of proposed Lot 2 is mapped within 50 m of a waterway while

the majority of the remainder of this lot is mapped within 100 m of a waterway) on Regulatory

Map 1.2 Waterways

Two stream order 1 (S01) and one stream order two (S02) waterways flow through and adjacent

to the proposed Lot 200 with both the 50 m and 100 m buffer zones extending across the

majority of the proposed Lot 2 development site. These tributaries discharge directly into Martins

Creek, which flows adjacent to the site in the adjoining Buderim Forest Park and, which is

mapped as a Local Wetland at this junction on the Wetlands and Fish Habitat Areas Code Map

Figure 4-2.1.2. Any intensification through development is likely to have a worsening effect on

these waterways and wetlands through increased sediment and nutrient loads and storm water

quantity (increases to time to peak discharges and actual peak discharges) from impervious

areas, and the potential for land slips and erosion, including increased incising of the channel

bed.

c) A Special Management Area (Moderate to High Landslip Hazard) on Regulatory Map 1.3 Land

Slip Hazard

The area is mapped as a moderate and high hazard area on the Landslide Hazard & Steep Land

Overlay Map (i) (Landslide). Removal of vegetation from the site will only disturb the area further

and increase the potential for landslips to occur into the tributaries and subsequently Martins

Creek. Land slips are known to occur in the area with considerable stabilisation works required

for a subdivision back up the escarpment on Bell Road, lateral cracking in Martins Creek road

adjacent to the small playground park indicating possible perpendicular displacement of the

regolith either south-west and/or north-east beneath the pavement, and on the western side of

Jones Road as a consequence of natural instability and development impacts increasing that

instability.

d) A Special Management Area (Area of Potential Landslip Hazard - >20% slope) on Regulatory

Map 1.3 Steep Land

The area is mapped as having a slope greater than 25% on the Landslide Hazard & Steep Land

Overlay Map (ii) (steep land). Clearing vegetation on these grades and on land known for land

slip increases the risk that land slip will occur. A land slip on this site would likely have a

significant impact, particularly on the existing ecological linkage and waterways / wetlands.

e) A Special Management Area (High Hazard) on Regulatory Map 1.7 Bushfire Prone Areas

The development area is mapped as high fire hazard and creating an additional lot within the

development unnecessarily: . Increases the risk to persons and property . Places greater pressure on the remnant vegetation through regular removal of fire-

promoting species, such as eucalypts, from within the development footprint, and

3

"

The cleared area for the development increases the drying effect because of

fragmentation and increased exposure to sunlight and wind into the forest from the cleared edges, thereby increasing the fire risk.

f) On Planning Area NO.6 Buderim as Buderim Scarp Landscape Conservation (Hillslope Residential)

g) On Nature Conservation Strategy Code Map Figure 4-2.1.1 as both: i. M2 - Buderim Rainforest Remnants

ii. Nature Conservation Management Area

h) Biodiversity Desired Environmental Outcomes Biodiversity Policy Map 1 as DEO 5 & DEO 6

For items f), g) and h) above, the following statements all apply.

Statements of desired character for planning areas and precincts for planning area NO.6 Buderim

clearly outline the vision statements and environmental values pursued by the Maroochy Plan 2000. Section 3.6.2 Vision statement (c) clearly states "The Buderim Escarpment and other sensitive environmental features will be preserved, and development which threatens the long term existence of these features will not be supported". The ecological report clearly states that the development of this land will fragment the ecological corridor by reducing the width, and removing habitat for threatened and significant species of flora and fauna.

Environmental Values (a) states "The vegetated Buderim escarpment is a defining feature of Buderim’s ’green’ appearance and makes a significant contribution", and that the "remaining vegetation and escarpment areas be protected".

A local ecological link runs through the proposed site and this is mapped on Figure 7.2.5A in the Buderim Local Area Plan. This is backed by the abundance of wildlife, including kolas that are seen in the area. The other major factor contributing to successful linkage is the unfragmented tributary of Martins Creek that runs through this site.

The ecological report for the site confirms that there will be negative impacts to fauna species of high conservation value via direct and indirect impacts due to clearing and site intensification. This is

contrary to the intent of the Habitat and Biodiversity Code, which is not adequately addressed by the ecological report. The wording of the Habitat and Biodiversity Code is strong and clear. The first

performance criteria (Pi) states:

’The nature conservation and biodiversity values of environmentally sensitive areas are

protected’.

The acceptable measures state:

Acceptable measure A 1.1 No vegetation is cleared which is:

a) in an area of critical habitat, or an

area containing threatened species (flora or fauna) as defined by the

Nature Conservation Act 1992’; or

b) an area containing or likely to contain protected or threatened

communities or species, or the

Compliance with acceptable measure

a) The EAR claims compliance with this acceptable measure without having conducted a thorough fauna

survey. The EARs claim is unsubstantiated, false and

misleading. Habitat is proposed to be cleared that does contain threatened species that residents have

observed and, therefore, is not compliant with this

acceptable measure and the proposed development does not protect the biodiversity values and should be rejected

b) The EAR claims compliance with this acceptable measure without having conducted a thorough fauna

survey. The EARs claim is unsubstantiated, false and

4

known habitat of such species as

defined by the Environmental

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or

misleading. Habitat for and which contains protected and threatened species is proposed to be cleared

and, therefore, is not compliant with this acceptable

measure and does not protect the biodiversity values

and should be rejected

c) an area of ’Endangered’ regional c) N/A

ecosystem under the Vegetation

Management Act 1999; or

d) an area of ’Of Concern’ regional d) N/A

ecosystem under the Vegetation

Management Act 1999 that is within

a Rural precinct or a Sustainable

Rural Residential Precinct; or

e) an area identified as a high nature e) N/A

conservation value area or an area

vulnerable to land degradation under

the Vegetation Management Act

1999

AND

A 1. 2 Clearing of other remnant or

regrowth vegetation shown on

Regulatory Map No 1. 1 (Nature Conservation Management Areas) is

minimised, with at least 70% of the

vegetation within the site retained

The second performance criteria (P2) states:

Although vegetation clearing has been calculated to be

only 17% of the site, the proposed Lot 2 in itself will be

fully cleared to approximately 30% with a further

approximately 20% selectively cleared of canopy

species. This equates to an effective clearing of about

40-50% of the proposed Lot 2 and, therefore, is not

compliant with this acceptable measure and does not

protect the biodiversity values and should be rejected

The acceptable measure states:

’Important habitat linkages and ecological corridors are retained and enhanced’.

Acceptable measure

A2 Existing corridors of native

vegetation in locations identified as a

local or strategic linkage or riparian forest on Figure 4-2.1.1 Nature

Conservation Strategy are retained

to achieve a minimum width of 200m

The third performance criteria (P3) states:

Compliance with acceptable measure

The EAR claims this acceptable measure is not

applicable, however, the proposed Lot 2 is completely within an existing mapped native vegetation corridor

(refer to g) above) identified as a local or strategic

linkage or riparian forest on Figure 4-2.1.1 Nature

Conservation Strategy and cannot be retained for the

proposed development footprint. In this respect the

development is not compliant with this acceptable

measure and, therefore, does not protect important habitat linkages and ecological corridors and should be

rejected

’Viable connectivity is maintained or created between native vegetation areas or areas of

habitat significance within the site and external to the site, such that the connectivity provides

for:

(a) ecosystem functioning;

5

’.

(b) self generation; and

(c) resilience against threatening processes’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure No Acceptable Measure is nominated

The fourth performance criteria (P4) states:

Compliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims the proposed development "retains the local east-west connectivity through the landscape" via Lot 100 along the waterway, however, this lot is not part of the proposed development to split Lot 200 into Lot 1 and Lot 2 and the proposed Lot 2 does not retain any viable connectivity. Viable connectivity cannot be maintained for the proposed development footprint for the proposed Lot 2 as the proposed house and fire break area effectively remove the majority of the vegetation with selective clearing of eucalypts in the northern

portion. This extent of clearing will significantly reduce

ecosystem functioning, self generation and resilience

against threatening processes. No proven acceptable measures have been or can be proposed to mitigate this

impact and, therefore, the development is not compliant with this acceptable measure and the proposed

development should be rejected

’Siting, design and construction of the development (including buildings, structures, outdoor

activity areas and on-site infrastructure) minimise impacts on biodiversity values, having regard to:

a) the nature of the specific biodiversity values of the site and adjacent land; b) the potential to contain new development within existing cleared or disturbed areas

and avoid further fragmentation of vegetation; c) the potential to respond sensitively to the natural land form; d) the provision of adequate separation between the development and the specific

biodiversity values of the site and adjacent land; and

e) the provision of other appropriate buffering treatments’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure

No Acceptable Measure is nominatedCompliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims compliance with this performance criteria through being adjacent to the most disturbed part of the site, which is not currently disturbed but would be if the development was approved, and preservation of 83% of the mapped significant vegetation. The siting, design and construction of the proposed Lot 2 cannot minimise

impacts on biodiversity values due to the constrained width (north / south) of the lot. Significant clearing is

required (>30% of Lot 2) effectively separating the

vegetation community on the western side of the lot from the bulk of the vegetation on the proposed Lot 1, there is

no cleared or existing disturbed area to avoid further

fragmentation, the proposed development is not sensitive to the natural land form as the proposed building envelope would be best sited on the northern boundary from an ecological perspective, there is no separation of

the development from biodiversity values as it is placed directly within the biodiversity values, and no other

buffering treatments can be applied due to the restricted

6

The fifth performance criteria (P5) states:

north-south width of the lot. No proven acceptable

measures have been or can be proposed to mitigate the

siting, design and construction impacts of the proposed

development on biodiversity values and, therefore, the

proposed development is not compliant with this

acceptable measure and should be rejected

’Environmentally sensitive areas are protected from:

a) weed infestation; and

b) changes to the hydrological regime’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure

No Acceptable Measure is nominated

The sixth performance criteria (P6) states:

Compliance with acceptable measure

The EAR claims compliance through a weed

management program for a minimum of 3 years. This is

unrealistic as weed infestation becomes a perpetual

threat once the vegetation community is opened up from

the inside. The extent of clearing and development on

the proposed Lot 2 will significantly increase the

exposure of the environmentally sensitive area to weed

infestation (as acknowledged in the ecological assessment report) requiring a perpetual weed

management program, which is unrealistic, and will

substantially alter the hydrological regime by increasing

impervious surfaces and removing natural ecological

resources that actively slow, absorb and mitigate the

impact of rainfall. No proven acceptable measures have

been or can be proposed to protect the environmentally

sensitive areas from these impacts and, therefore, the

proposed development is not compliant with this

acceptable measure and should be rejected

’Lighting is located and orientated to minimise negative impacts on wildlife

and environmentally sensitive areas’.

The acceptable measures state:

Acceptable measure

A6.1 Light spill resulting from direct, reflected or other incidental light does not exceed the criteria in

AS4282-1997 "Control of the

obtrusive effects of lighting" at

surrounding sensitive uses; and

A6.2 The vertical illumination resulting from direct, reflected or other

incidental light emanating from

lighting does not exceed 1 lux when

measured at the boundary of

environmentally sensitive areas

(Nature Conservation Management Unit or a Nature Conservation

Management Area shown on Figure

Compliance with acceptable measure

The EAR claims compliance through "all new lighting is

proposed to comply with A6.1". Although the initial

development may comply with A6.1, it cannot be

guaranteed that subsequent modifications I changes to

the fixtures and fittings will continue to comply with this

acceptable measure unless regularly monitored by a

regulatory authority, which is currently not undertaken.

This is an unrealistic acceptable measure as it is unlikely

that it will be complied with or enforced in the long term

7

4 - 2.1.1 Nature Conservation

Strategy) and protected from estate boundaries at any level from ground level upward

The seventh performance criteria (P7) states:

’.

’Separation and buffering between development and adjacent environmentally sensitive areas (whether on the site or adjacent land) ensures environmentally sensitive areas are protected from potential adverse impacts on biodiversity values’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure For land in the protected estate:

A7.1

a) All buildings, structures and

operational works are setback a minimum of 1 DDm from the nearest

boundary of land in the protected estate; and

b) Native vegetation in the buffer is to

be retained or enhanced

OR

For other environmentally sensitive areas not in the protected estate:

No Acceptable Measure is nominated

The eighth performance criteria (P8) states:

Compliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims compliance as the site does not conform to the definition of a ’protected estate’ and by preservation of the biodiversity values through minimising clearing. This claim is false in that Lot 100 is already designated part of Buderim Forest Park and is, therefore, protected estate according to the definition in the

Maroochy Plan 2000, which means the proposed development of Lot 2 does not comply with acceptable measure A7.1 a) and b). Should Lot 100 not be considered part of the protected estate then the claim is still false because the extent of clearing for the proposed development on Lot 2 is in excess of 30% (will not retain

>70%) of the environmentally sensitive area (as discussed in P4 above) and, therefore, in either case, the

proposed development No proven acceptable measures have been or can be proposed in either case to protect environmentally sensitive areas and, therefore, the

proposed development is not compliant with this

acceptable measure and should be rejected

’Rehabilitation and landscaping of cleared or degraded vegetation areas includes:

a) retention of existing native vegetation; b) maximisation of natural regeneration and recruitment; c) promotion of the site’s pre-European clearing structural and floristic qualities; d) minimisation of edge effects through small edge to area ratios and suitable planting; e) promotion of the weed free succession of the area with minimal ongoing

management; and

f) minimisation of disturbance to habitat and environmental values of the site through the staging of work over an appropriate timeframe’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure No Acceptable Measure is nominated

Compliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims compliance through rehabilitation under

an sce approved Bushland Rehabilitation Plan with a 3

year maintenance program. This plan timeframe is

unrealistic and will not maintain protection of the

environmentally sensitive area from long term incursions of weed species. The development requires a

rehabilitation and perpetual (on-going) maintenance plan to ensure succession in continued protection and

management of the environmentally sensitive area. The

proposed measure is not acceptable and will not achieve

8

. ’

compliance in the long term and should be rejected

The ecological report for the site provides very little assessment detail in relation to waterways and

wetlands with minimal assessment of the extent of negative impacts from clearing and site

intensification. In this respect, the EARs assessment of the proposed development against the

Waterways and Wetlands Code is deficient and cannot be said to be complying with the performance

criteria and acceptable measures. The wording of the Waterways and Wetlands Code is also strong

and clear. The first performance criteria (P1) states:

’A buffer is maintained to protect and enhance the environmental values and ecosystem

services of waterways, wetlands and fish habitat areas having regard to:

fauna habitats;

adjacent land use impacts; stream integrity; sustainable aquatic and

. wetland ecosystems; and

recreational amenity’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure Compliance with acceptable measure

A 1.1 width of buffer vegetation is

provided of at least:

a) 100m around the perimeter of a a) N/A

Significant Coastal Wetland

shown on Figure 4-2.1.2(b); and

b) 50m around the perimeter of a b) N/A

Local Wetland shown on Figure

4-2.1.2(b);

AND

For al/ Precincts except for Town Centre

Core Precincts:

A1.2

a) A width of buffer vegetation is

provided adjacent to the

defining bank of a waterway in

d .th th fI /I .

accofi ance WI e Oowlnq:

Stream Order (asidentified on Buffer Width

Fiqure 4.2.1.2(a))

5 and above 50m

3 and 4 25m

1 and 2 10m

For the purposes of this acceptable

measure, the defining bank is to

be determined in accordance with Figure 4-2.1.2c. The buffer width does not

include any part of the waterway itself

OR

a) The EAR claims compliance based on no clearing within 10 m of the high bank of the [S02] waterway

on Lot 100, however, this is debateable as the EAR

does not provide any specific detail defining whether

the waterway is an upper reaches or middle reaches

waterway or proving where the high bank actually is

in relation to the proposed Lot 2 development. The

limited mapping included in the EAR does not

provide any clear indication which waterway type it

is, although it does state "the site exhibits moderate

to steeply undulating slopes ranging from approx. 15% to in excess of 30% within the deeply incised

gullies and side slopes fringing watercourses"

suggesting they could be upper reaches waterways,

or where the high bank may be. Whether the

waterway is an upper reaches waterway or a middle

reaches waterway, the high bank could be in the

vicinity of the boundary between Lot 100 and the

proposed Lot 2 putting the proposed development within or very close to the 10m buffer. The EARs

proposed compliance with the acceptable measure is

not sufficiently justified and cannot be considered

compliant and, therefore, should be rejected until

sufficiently proven

9

b) For waterways where a revetment wall exists, all

bu dings and structures higher than 1.0 metres above ground level are set back 4.5 metres

from the property boundary adjoining the waterway

For Town Centre Core Precincts:

No Acceptable Measure is nominated. N/A

In relation to A 1.1 and A 1. 2 above, where there is conflict with the Code for

Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Code for Development and Use of Intensive Animal Industries and Aquaculture, Code for Development of Detached Houses and Display Homes and Code for Caretaker’s Residences the buffer

distances to waterways and wetlands in these codes shall prevail

AND

A 1.3 All existing native vegetation within the buffer established under A 1.1 or A 1. 2

is retained and, is supplemented using locally indigenous plant species so that a

locally representative community is

provided

AND

A 1.4 Bu dings, structures and on-site infrastructure are located outside the

vegetated buffer areas provided in

accordance with A 1.1 - A 1. 3

The second performance criteria (P2) states:

b) N/A

As the EAR has not adequately demonstrated that the

proposed Lot 2 development is >10 m from the high bank of the waterway, its claim that it is compliant with this

acceptable measure by not clearing within the 10m buffer is erroneous and cannot be accepted and should be rejected until proven otherwise

As the EAR has not adequately demonstrated that the

proposed Lot 2 development is >10 m from the high bank of the waterway, its claim that it is compliant with this

acceptable measure by siting buildings, structures and on-site infrastructure outside the 10m buffer is erroneous

and cannot be accepted and should be rejected until

proven otherwise

’The hydrologic regime of wetland areas is maintained or enhanced to protect its natural

integrity’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure A2.1 The existing hydrologic regime of

surface and ground waters to and

from a wetland is not altered through channelisation, redirection or

interruption of flows, other than where necessary for the natural

enhancement of the wetland

Compliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims this acceptable measure is not

applicable, which I believe is incorrect. The Wetlands and

Fish Habitat Areas Code Map Figure 4-2.1.2 maps Martins Creek at the junction with the S02 waterway on Lot 100 as a Local Wetland that is within approx. 125 m

of the proposed Lot 2 development. In addition, by definition, a waterway is a wetland (a riverine wetland) and, therefore, both the S01 and S02 waterways should be considered as wetlands. The proposed Lot 2

development will increase imperviousness across its

10

footprint and reduce its absorptive capacity through the

reduction of a significant vegetation community thus

increasing the potential for runoff. Increased runoff will

AND alter the hydrological regime of the surface and ground waters to the S01 and S02 wetlands and the Martins

Creek wetland such that the proposed Lot 2 development cannot be compliant with this acceptable measure and,

therefore, should be rejected

A2.2 No interference or modification of N/A

channels within a wetland occurs,

other than where necessary for the

natural enhancement of the wetland

The third performance criteria (P3) states:

The acceptable measure states:

’Stream integrity and in-stream habitat are protected or enhanced’.

-’ 1

Acceptable measure

A3. 1 No direct interference or

modification of the waterway channel

or instream habitat occurs other than

where necessary for the natural

enhancement of the waterway

AND

A3.2 Where enhancement is necessary, N/A

the principle of natural channel

design is followed. That is, hydraulic

conveyance requirements of

engineered or affected channels are

maintained, while environmental

values are improved

The fourth performance criteria (P4) states:

Compliance with acceptable measure

The EAR claims there will be no direct interference or

modification of the waterway channel or in-stream

habitat, however, to date the EAR has not adequately demonstrated I proven that the proposed Lot 2

development is sited outside the S02 waterway and

buffer, although it is likely that it is sited outside the

waterway but unclear about the buffer. Until such time as

this is adequately proven the proposed Lot 2

development cannot be said to be compliant with this

acceptable measure

’Stormwater discharges are treated before entering the waterway or wetland buffer to prevent

adverse impacts on the buffer’s integrity and on the receiving waters’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure

A4.1 Water entering vegetated buffers

adjacent to waterways and wetlands

meet the water quality objectives set

out in Planning Scheme Policy 5:

Operational Works

Compliance with acceptable measure

The EAR claims "All waters entering vegetated buffers

adjacent to the wetland on the site are expected to meet

the water quality objectives set out in Planning Scheme

Policy 6: Operational Works". This statement in itself

demonstrates the authors of the EAR recognise the S01

and S02 waterways as wetlands and expect any waters

entering vegetated buffers will meet the w ter quality

objectives without actually demonstrating I explaining

how they will. Expecting they will is significantly different

from actually demonstrating that they will and, therefore,

the proposed Lot 2 development has not adequately

11

demonstrated it will achieve the acceptable measure and should be rejected

The fifth performance criteria (P5) states:

’Buildings, structures, outdoor activity areas and on-site infrastructure are sited and designed so that they do not detract from the visual quality of waterways and wetlands and the adjacent vegetated buffers’.

The acceptable measure states:

Acceptable measure No Acceptable Measure is nominated

Compliance with acceptable measure The EAR claims "Future buildings and infrastructure on

proposed Lot 2 are not expected to detract from the visual quality of the preserved waterway on the site as the future dwelling on Lot 200 is to be setback

approximately 30m from the top of bank of the waterway and also positioned several metres above the RL of the

waterway within Lot 100". This statement in itself is

confusing because it is referring to two different lots. Which lot are they referring to and how have they demonstrated that the future buildings and infrastructure are set back approximately 30 m from the top of bank? this statement does not demonstrate compliance with the

performance criteria and should be rejected

The site is clearly constrained and the developer cannot honestly say they have addressed the planning scheme codes appropriately, particularly the Habitat and Biodiversity Code and the Waterways and Wetlands Code. Highly significant ecological areas such as these should not be further developed, rather they should be protected. Increasing intensity of development within highly significant ecological areas creates a reverse amenity issue for the existing residents, and negative impacts on natural, social and economic environmental values.

I do not support the above-mentioned development.

liJ;’Y’

12