MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – 15 SEPTEMBER 2021 THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL – MEETING HELD ELECTRONICALLY PRESENT:
Garry Fielding Chair Scott Barwick Expert Lindsay Fletcher Expert
Ken Willimott Community Representative COUNCIL STAFF:
The Panel were briefed by Council staff on 15 September 2021.
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager Development & Compliance Paul Osborne Manager Development Assessment
Sanda Watts Coordinator Development Assessment Angelo Berios Manager Environment & Health
Mark Chidel Environment Coordinator Danielle Adams-Bennett Senior Biodiversity Officer DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:
Nil Disclosed.
ITEM 1: DA 585/2021/HC - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ANDANCILLARY STRUCTURES, ASSOCIATED VEGETATION CLEARING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS - LOT 61 DP 737386, NO. 55 COONARA AVENUE WEST PENNANT HILLS
SPEAKERS
1. Councillor Michelle Byrne, Mayor, The Hills Shire Council – Speaking as an objector 2. Joan Rowley, Peter Ernst – Speaking as an objector - West Pennant Hills Valley
Association
3. Jan Primrose – Speaking as an objector - Forest in Danger
4. Catherine Woollnough – Speaking as an objector - Protecting Your Suburban Environment Inc
5. Trish Brown – Speaking as an objector - Byles Creek Valley Union Inc 6. Jill Green – Speaking as an objector - STEP Inc
7. John Inshaw – Speaking as an objector - Galston Area Residents Association 8. Ishbel Cullen – Speaking as an objector - Nature Conservation Council of NSW 9. Roger Lembit – Speaking as an objector and Ecologist
10. Cheenu Srinivasan – Speaking as an objector 11. Farida Irani – Speaking as an objector
12. Jin Cho– Speaking as an objector 13. Dilip Khatri – Speaking as an objector 14. Ruth Maguire – Speaking as an objector 15. Vida Shahamat – Speaking as an objector 16. Katrina Emmett – Speaking as an objector 17. Joey Nicita – Speaking as an objector
18. Di Robinson – Speaking as an objector 19. Martin Horwood – Speaking as an objector 20. Lawrence Murphy – Speaking as an objector 21. Gool Umrigar – Speaking as an objector 22. Erica Hockley – Speaking as an objector 23. Sheila Millgate – Speaking as an objector 24. Natalie Tierney – Speaking as an objector 25. Gavin Thomas – Speaking as an objector 26. Annie Nielsen – Speaking as an objector 27. Steve Hillier – Speaking as an objector
28. Adrian Checchin – Speaking for the Applicant - MIRVAC Development Director NSW Apartments Residential Development
29. Elizabeth Ashby – Speaking for the Applicant’s Ecologist - Keystone Ecological 30. Robert Malcolm – Speaking for the Applicant - MIRVAC Site Works Construction
Manager
31. Dean Davies – Speaking for the applicant - MIRVAC Development Manager
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION The application is recommended for approval.
PANEL’S DECISION
The panel resolved to adopt the recommendation contained in the assessment report and grant consent to the application subject to the recommended conditions but incorporating amended Conditions No. 18, 28, 29,38 & 50, as follows:
18. Fuel Management Plan
The Fuel Management Plan, prepared by UBM Ecological Consultants dated 8 July 2021 is to be amended to remove all references to the following:
1. Managing the area covered by the Fuel Management Plan as an Inner Protection Area.
2. Managing the area covered by the Fuel Management Plan in perpetuity, and be replaced to clarify that any area subject to the Council approved Fuel Management Plan (FMP) shall be managed in accordance with the approved FMP until such time this is replaced with another Council approved management plan by the property owner/s.
The Amended Fuel Management Plan is be submitted to The Hills Shire Council’s Manager – Environment and Health for approval.
28. Tree Protection Fencing
Prior to any works commencing on site Tree Protection Fencing must be in place around trees or groups of trees nominated for retention. In order of precedence the location of fencing shall be:
a) As per Tree Protection Plan as per Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report - Part 2 prepared by Footprint Green Pty Ltd, dated 24th September 2020; or
b) In accordance with the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as calculated under AS4970 (2009) Protection of trees on development sites.
Note: Any variations to the standards are to be documented and certified by the Project Arborist.
The erection of a minimum 1.8m chain-wire fence to delineate the TPZ is to stop the following occurring:
• Stockpiling of materials within TPZ;
• Placement of fill within TPZ;
• Parking of vehicles within the TPZ;
• Compaction of soil within the TPZ;
• Cement washout and other chemical or fuel contaminants within TPZ;
• Damage to tree crown.
Note: Where there are trees that are required to be retained and are in proximity to the proposed demolition footprint, trunk protection shall be erected around these trees to avoid accidental damage. The trunk protection shall consist of a layer of carpet underfelt (or similar) wrapped around the trunk, followed by 1.8m metre lengths of softwood timbers (90 x 45mm in section) aligned vertically and spaced evenly around the trunk at 150mm centres (i.e. with a 50mm gap) and secured together with galvanised hoop strap. All areas within the root protection zone are to be mulched with composted leaf mulch to a depth of not less than 100mm.
29. Tree Protection Signage
Prior to any works commencing on site Tree Protection Zone signs must be attached to the Tree Protection Fencing stating “Tree Protection Zone No Access” (The lettering size on the sign shall comply with AS1319). The installation of signage must be undertaken under the direction of the Project Arborist and must be in accordance with Australian Standard 4970 – 2009 Protection of trees on development sites. Signage must be installed on tree protection fencing at 10m intervals along the fence. Access to this area can only be authorised by the project arborist or site manager.
38. Fauna Management Plan
A Fauna Management Plan is be submitted to Council’s Manager – Environment & Health for approval. The fauna management plan must contain relevant details for pre-clearance surveys, fauna protection, rescue, relocation and installation of fauna nest boxes and timelines. The plan is to include (but not limited to) the following:
1. Methodology for the identification, numbering and marking of hollow-bearing trees and other habitat features such as active nests or hollow logs proposed to be removed.
2. Targeted surveys for the Powerful Owl roosting and/or nesting within the surrounding forest (including Cumberland State Forest) undertaken by an expert Ecologist in this field. A map showing the location of roosting/nesting owls in relation to clearing/demolition works is to be included. Consultation with Birdlife and other relevant stakeholders is recommended.
3. Targeted pre-demolition survey of the buildings and other structures that have the potential to be used by microbats as roosting sites is to be undertaken by an expert Ecologist in this field. Details of survey effort and timing must be included. Where roosting microbats are detected procedures for protection are to be provided. This may include restricting access and exclusion surveys.
4. Targeted searches and relocation for Dural Land Snail is to be undertaken by an expert Ecologist in this field. The surveys must be undertaken both during the day and at night, particularly during or after rain. Details of survey effort and personnel must be included. Any Dural Land Snails found within the proposed development area are to be relocated to an area of appropriate habitat onsite (preferably E2
Zone area). Relocation is to be undertaken in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Translocation Operational Policy (May 2019).
5. A map showing the location of the proposed installation of nest boxes for use by displaced fauna shall be provided. Details of next box type, design and quantity must be included.
6. Procedures for the rescue and relocation of fauna encountered during the clearing/demolition process, including number and type of personnel required to undertake each task. Details for the treatment and rehabilitation of any injured fauna must be included.
The pre-clearance survey, fauna relocation and installation of nest boxes (items 1-5) are to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved plan and implemented in accordance with the approved timelines. Certification by the project Ecologist shall be submitted to Council’s Manager – Environment & Health for endorsement two weeks prior to any work commencing.
50. Tree Removal & Fauna Protection
The following tree removal and fauna protection measures are to be implemented during works:
1. Tree Removal: During any removal of trees, an experienced and qualified ecologist is to be present to re-locate any displaced fauna that may be disturbed during this activity. Any injured fauna is to be appropriately cared for and released on site when re-habilitated.
a. Prior to clearing of trees all non-habitat vegetation should be cleared first to allow appropriate space for the felling of habitat trees and retrieval of any fauna that may be present within habitat trees.
b. Trees with hollows shall be lopped in such a way that the risk of injury or mortality to fauna is minimised, such as top-down lopping, with lopped sections gently lowered to the ground, or by lowering whole trees to the ground with the “grab” attachment of a machine.
c. Any injured fauna is to be placed into the hands of a wildlife carer (please note only appropriately vaccinated personnel are to handle bats). Any fauna that is injured due to vegetation removal must be reported to Hills Shire Council within 24 hours.
2. Dismantlement of buildings: A qualified and experienced Ecologist (who is also vaccinated for Lyssavirus) is to supervise the removal of any part of the buildings (or whole building) that was identified during the pre-clearance survey as known or suspected habitat for microbats. Any microbats that are rescued that do not require care shall be placed in a calico bag and cared for by the qualified and experienced Ecologist and released back on site at dusk.
3. Salvage of habitat features: Where possible hollows should be sectional dismantled from felled hollow-bearing trees and attached to a retained tree in retained bushland that will not compromise the health and stability of the host tree.
This is to be done by a qualified and experienced arborist, under the direction of the Project Ecologist. Where this cannot occur the hollow limb will be placed on the ground.
4. Nest boxes: Where hollows cannot be salvaged a nest box shall be installed in the retained bushland for every hollow that is removed within the development area.
REASONS
• The proposed development the subject of the DA is permissible with consent under The Hills LEP 2019 (Amendment 14) made on 17 June 2020. In this respect, the Panel notes DPIE’s advice to the Minister that the Amendment would, amongst other things, “secure the protection of the forested areas and Powerful Owl habitat on site through an E2 Environmental Conservation zoning” and would give “effect to the Central City District Plan”.
• Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Biodiversity Act,1979 and the detailed advice provided by Council’s Senior Biodiversity Officer, the Panel is satisfied that the development the subject of the DA is unlikely to result in a serious and irreversible impact on the Blue Gum High Forest or on the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest.
• The Panel accepts the advice from Council’s Senior Biodiversity Officer that the recommended Biodiversity Offset Scheme is applicable to the proposal.
• Having regard to the site’s recently applied residential and environmental conservation zoning regime, the Panel considers that the amendments to Condition Nos. 28, 29, 38
& 50 will appropriately strengthen the measures intended to protect biodiversity within the site.
• The Panel considers that the adopted conditions of consent addressing demolition, construction & pedestrian traffic management, and acoustic impacts will serve to appropriately protect the amenity of the locality.
• The Panel is satisfied that the conditions of consent, including the Panel’s amendments, adequately address the relevant concerns of written and oral submissions received on this proposed development.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified to 147 properties for 31 days. 545 submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions were addressed in the report.
VOTING Unanimous.
