Information Required for an Extractive Industries Development Application

Plant Nurseries

PART 2: EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES

15. Information Required for an Extractive Industries Development Application

Council requires a high standard of application, which will enable it to conduct a proper and informed environmental impact assessment of the social, economic and environmental consequences of extractive industries.

To facilitate the timely consideration of your application, Council has designed this preferred format, content & structure for all Extractive Industry development applications.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 The study site and locality;

 Background on the Proposal;

 Objectives of the Proposal;

 Justification for the Proposal;

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Page 24

 Management of the Proposal;

 Statutory requirements;

 The structure of the application; and

 Executive Summary: The General findings & Recommendations.

SITE ANALYSIS

 Location and ownership details including zoning & surrounding land uses;

 Topography, slopes, geology and meteorology;

 Visual and Landscape aspects;

 Soils and soil erosion;

 Hydrology, including surface & groundwater resources;

 Air quality;

 Background Noise levels;

 Flora and Fauna;

 Archaeology & Heritage; and

 Transport including accessibility.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 Previous and surrounding land uses;

 Local & Regional context;

 Operating objectives & procedures;

 Extraction program plan for the life of operation;

 Extraction quantity/rate and life span;

 Hours of operation;

 Equipment and on-site facilities;

 Internal & external transport arrangements;

 Power supplies and services;

 Energy consumption;

 Employment and the Multiplier effects;

 Site Management, occupational health & safety;

 Rehabilitation staging and phasing;

 Post-extraction landforms and uses; and

 Risks, safeguards & contingencies.

THE PLANNING CONTEXT

 Address the procedures for Integrated Development in Section 90 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979;

 Address Schedule 2 ‘Environmental Impact Statements’ and Schedule 3 ‘Designated Development’ of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation, 2000

 SREP No.9 (2 -1995) – Extractive Industries (only Maroota)

 SREP No.20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River;

 Related Acts including Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; and

 Consultation with public authorities & the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION DURING CLEARING WORKS

 Phasing/staging in relation to extraction program;

 Construction materials and equipment;

 Drainage works;

 Temporary structures and works;

 Soil conservation & management procedures;

 Location and containment of major work areas;

 Hours of operation;

 Noise generation during works;

 Transport arrangements;

 Dust suppression measures;

 Number of employees;

 Expected time frame;

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Page 25

 Safety issues; and

 Contingency arrangements.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION DURING EXTRACTION

 Extraction program plans (extent and depth);

 Extraction materials and equipment;

 Soil conservation & management procedures;

 Hydrology including drainage works, ground – water protection & management strategies;

 Sediment and erosion control plan including tailing dam designs;

 Temporary structures and works;

 Location & containment of major work areas;

 Hours of operation;

 Noise generation during works;

 Transport arrangements;

 Air quality management, including dust suppression;

 Waste minimisation measures;

 Protection methods for environmentally sensitive areas, including flora, fauna and heritage;

 Number of employees;

 Expected time frame for each extraction phase/stage;

 Site management issues; and

 Risks, safeguards & contingency arrangements.

 Identify areas of archaeological sensitivity and/or sites with Potential Archaeological Deposits;

 Assess the scientific, educational, landscape and cultural value of aboriginal sites including possible mythological or cultural sites with no physical elements; and

 Detail how all facets of the operation will employ and maintain good environmental management practices.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION DURING REHABILITATION

 Rehabilitation strategy;

 Rehabilitation materials and equipment;

 Soil conservation & management procedures;

 Hydrology including drainage work and water management strategies;

 Sediment and erosion control plan including capping of tailing dams;

 Temporary structures and works;

 Location and containment of major work areas;

 Hours of operation;

 Noise generation during works;

 Transport arrangements;

 Air quality management, including dust;

 Protection methods for environmentally sensitive areas, including flora, fauna and heritage;

 Number of employees;

 Time frame for each rehabilitation phase/stage;

 Site management issues;

 Risks, safeguard & contingency arrangements;

 Participation with community & public authorities;

 Final landform including water management; and

 Post extraction land use capabilities.

ECONOMIC APPRAISALS

 Estimates of material quality and quantity;

 Scope of the assessment

 Economic appraisal technique used;

 Project costs and benefits;

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Page 26

 Community costs and benefits including the no go option;

 Externalities including environmental effects and costs;

 Identify the number, degree, and extent of economic linkages between extractive industry and businesses within the Shire by way of an Economic Appraisal Report and;

 Conclusions.

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 Scoping;

 Profiling;

 Formulating options/alternatives;

 Projecting & predicting effects;

 Impact management;

 Monitoring and mitigating;

 Evaluation

 Identify, mitigate and manage/monitor social impacts resulting from extractive industries by way of a Social Impact Assessment and Social Impact Management Plan and;

 Conclusion.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

 Extraction activities within the locality;

 Social impacts and mitigating measures/management;

 Environmental impacts including groundwater, flora, fauna, noise and air quality;

 Transport routes including road damage and access arrangements;

 Community facilities and services;

 Hazard analysis including identified, discounted and emergency hazard management; and

 Relationships with other non-extraction land uses within the locality.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

 Water Management Plan;

 Noise Monitoring Plan;

 Sediment & Erosion Control Plan;

 Extraction Program Plan;

 Flora/fauna Monitoring Program;

 Rehabilitation Management plan;

 Waste Management Plan;

 Environmental Management Plan;

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

 Identify principles and objectives of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 1992 relating to the project;

 The framework in which council, public authorities and the community can participate in the preparation, monitoring of performance and rehabilitation of the project;

 Implementation of the precautionary principle including an evaluation of measures undertaken to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment;

 Means of ensuring inter-generational equity;

 Means of conserving biological diversity & ecological integrity within the locality;

 Recognition of the global dimension of impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions;

 Recognition of economic appraisal and social impact assessments;

 Efficient mining procedures including occupational health & safety;

 Achieving social equity and satisfaction;

 Water resource management;

 Waste management/ minimisation strategy;

 Risks, safeguards & contingency arrangement; and

 Other effective monitoring and review programs.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Page 27 REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES

 Alternative sources of material;

 Alternative transport routes;

 Alternative sources of employment; and

 Alternative land uses including “no go” option.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Need for the development in local and regional context;

 Alternatives to the development;

 The preferred option;

 Summary impact assessment of the preferred option; and

 Conclusions.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Page 28 Figure 7:Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 9—Extractive Industry (No 2—1995)

Designated Area

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

ITEM-3 REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS

DOC INFO

THEME: Balanced Urban Growth

OUTCOME: 7 Responsible planning facilitates a desirable living environment and meets growth targets.

STRATEGY: 7.2 Manage new and existing development with a robust framework of policies, plans and processes that is in accordance with community needs and expectations.

MEETING DATE: 23 JUNE 2015 COUNCIL MEETING

GROUP: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING

AUTHOR: GROUP MANAGER – ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING CAMERON MCKENZIE

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: GENERAL MANAGER DAVE WALKER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our processes have been reviewed with the aim of improving customer service. There is an opportunity to amend delegations to ensure that a Development Application is assessed and decided at a level which is commensurate with its complexity, scale, impact and public interest. Minor changes are proposed to delegations to provide discretion to allow the least controversial applications to be determined by staff rather than going through the Development Assessment Unit process. Changes proposed include;

1. To allow staff to determine applications with variations to DCP controls provided there is no more than one submission and the application is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning controls and is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

2. To eliminate the $2,000,000 (indexed annually) threshold to determining development applications that have received an objection provided the application is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

3. To allow staff to have discretion to determine Section 96 applications that have received no more than one objection, provided no further variations to DCP controls are proposed and provided the application is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

This matter was presented to a Councillor Workshop on 12 May 2015.

REPORT

As part of the ongoing reform agenda for Local Government, the State Government announced the Fit for the Future program in September 2014. The cornerstone of the September 2014 announcement was red tape reduction.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

This has provided the opportunity for review of our processes with the aim of improving customer service. One opportunity for consideration that requires endorsement of Council is a review of delegations to ensure that a Development Application is assessed and decided at a level which is commensurate with its complexity, scale, impact and public interest.

Time taken for development assessment is a common indicator used by State Government to measure performance. However it is equally important to ensure quality assessment of development to ensure the built outcome achieves a particular quality and meets community expectations. The goal is to balance or meet both aspirations.

Processing times for Development Applications (including subdivision applications) have lengthened in the last financial year (2013/14) with the Mean Gross processing time being 82 days (State Average 70) and the Median Gross time being 56 days (Stage Average 44). This is due to a number of factors but primarily as a result of an increase in the number and complexity of development applications being received. It also reflects the high percentage of complying development applications (40.8%) compared to the State Average of 29%.

One opportunity for improving processing times is to take more non–controversial development applications out of the DAU reporting process and allow them to be determined under delegation.

Statistics have been prepared on the operation of the Development Assessment Unit over the last 10 months.

The Development Assessment Unit met 23 times in the 10 month period from 1 July 2014 to 30 April 2015 with the following statistics:

• 101 Development Applications, Subdivision Applications, Building Certificate Applications or Applications for local approval were considered by the Development Assessment Unit

• 90 applications were approved

• 8 were refused

• 2 applications were withdrawn

• 1 application was deferred and yet to be determined

• One matter was referred to Council for determination (Lavender Avenue Apartment Building) in July 2014

In the previous financial year (2013/14) only one of 80 development applications was referred to Council from DAU (being an application for alterations and additions to the Hillside Hotel where staff had recommended a restriction on patron numbers contrary to the applicant’s request).

Notwithstanding this, the DAU process provides a valuable safety valve allowing the review of development applications by Councillors and an avenue for residents to make representations to Councillors.

Council’s current delegations for the determination of development applications are attached.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

Currently, the delegations prohibit staff approval of Development Applications containing variations to the Development Control Plan (DCP) if a submission has been received to the application. This is irrespective of whether the submission relates to the variation or not or whether the matter in the submission has been addressed by the applicant e.g. by privacy screens. These applications must be the subject of a report to DAU.

Current delegations do not allow Section 96 applications with objections to be determined by staff for an approval that contains a variation, whether or not the proposed modification impacts on the variation.

Delegation to determine variations (where a DAU report is not required) is currently limited to the Manager or Group Manager. This creates a bottle-neck slowing down determination times. It is considered that senior staff could be permitted to use their judgement to determine some of these matters.

Minor changes to delegations are suggested to provide discretion to allow the least controversial applications to be determined by staff rather than going through the DAU process, which by its nature, slows processing times. The following changes are proposed.

1. To allow staff to have discretion to determine Development Applications where there are variations to DCP controls provided there is no more than one submission and the application is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning controls and is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

2. To eliminate the $2,000,000 (indexed annually) threshold to determining development applications that have received an objection provided the application is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

3. To allow staff to have discretion to determine Section 96 applications that have received no more than one objection, provided no further variations to DCP controls are proposed and provided the application is the subject of a report to a Co-ordinator, Principal Executive Planner, Manager or Group-Manager.

Other changes are proposed to simply the delegations without changing current practices. Currently there are delegations that relate to Class 1 and 10 structures (dwellings and outbuildings) and separate delegations for all other development applications. These delegations are virtually identical and should be combined.

Applications for Building Certificates are not currently codified in the delegations and should be treated in the same manner as development applications. Currently all Development Applications seeking to vary development standards in Planning Instruments (LEPs or SEPPs) by 10% or more are reported to Council for determination.

The delegations should be amended to reflect this.

IMPACTS Financial

Improved delegations would assist processing times and therefore reduce exposure to deemed refusal Court appeals. They would also reduce staff time spent on report writing, review and associated administrative work.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

The Hills Future - Community Strategic Plan RECOMMENDATION

The delegations as outlined in attachment 2 be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Excerpt of Current Delegations (3 pages) 2. Proposed Delegations (4 pages)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE, 2015

ATTACHMENT 1 – EXCERPT OF CURRENT DELEGATIONS