BMCS SUBMISSION TO Draft LEP 2002 SECTION
III COMMENTS ON BETTER LIVING DCP
PART A - INTRODUCTION A7. CONTRIBUTIONS & BONDS (A,p:5)
The provision of Section 94 contributions should be extended
to provide for conservation outcomes in the public interest, such
as protection of significant land or regeneration of bushland. The
developer contribution plan referred to is only current to 2001/2002.
We propose that this plan be upgraded as a matter of urgency to
ensure that both infrastructure works and direct environmental restoration
works can be funded through this Plan. The use of bonds should be
expanded to provide for the implementation of agreed environmental
safeguards within specified timeframes and rectification of environmental
damage caused by the development. The concept of environmental bonds
should be applicable to more than just landscaping works, eg the
protection of Protected Areas during construction works, or as a
guarantee that proposed Bush Regeneration works will be cmpleted
to a satisfactory level.
PART B SITE PLANNING B1 SITE ANALYSIS
Site analysis in plan form (B1, p:2)
The information required to be supplied on Site Characteristics
should include: the location of any significant vegetation as defined
in Schedule:5 as well as the more general requirement for location
of existing vegetation ( this is obviously the intent as shown on
the sample site maps but has not been specifically stated in the
written list); the location of all protected areas and riparian
corridors; and the location of and type of any land degradation
(including contaminated land, land subject to slip, land which has
been or is currently subject to accelerated erosion, land which
is infested with weeds). These should be identified on adjacent
land where they may impact on the development or the development
may impact on them.
Plans &documentation (B1, p: 3)
The current SoEE proforma will need to be expanded to cover the
issues in this DCP. Furthermore , we believe that a suitably qualified
person should be required to supply the required information as
most applicants would not have the necessary expertise to make some
of the judgements required. An exception to this requirement could
be where there were no identified environmental constraints within
60m of the property (either Protected Areas or Environmental Protection
Zones) There is a need to define "construction works" - this triggers
the site analysis.
B2 SITE DESIGN Site plan for building / landscaping works (B2,
p:1)
The list of information to be included in the site plans for
both building / landscaping & subdivision works should be required
not voluntary ( ie "The site plan must include where relevant "
not "The site plan can include") Location of Schedule:5 vegetation
in DLEP 2002 or Schedule:3 vegetation in LEP 1991 as well as "significant
trees" should be included. Location of zone boundaries, Protected
Areas and development excluded land if applicable on new lots created
under DLEP 2002 should also be shown. Site plan for subdivision
works (B2, p:1) Location of Protected Areas and development excluded
land should also be shown.
PART C GENERAL PRINCIPLES C1 PROTECTING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
C1.1 Biodiversity
Performance Criteria (C1.1, p:1)
We support the performance criteria as stated but question the definition
of "significant adverse environmental impact". There is a need for
a statement in this DCP which identifies the criteria used to define
"significant adverse environmental impact". Without such a definition,
the interpretation which can be put on "significant " is that if
an area has already suffered some degree of adverse impact, then
further degradation is not "significant". This has frequently happened
in the past to justify clearing of weed infested swamps etc. The
importance of soils (C1.1, p:1) The definition of "virgin fill"
should include " which has been excavated from areas of land that
are not contaminated with chemicals or Schedule :6 weeds unless
it can be shown that all propagules potentially contained in the
soil have been destroyed." If the definition of Virgin Fill is already
legally prescribed then another word (s) should be added to extend
the concept to weed contamination. While it is agreed that the aim
should be to Retain the existing soil profile and contours wherever
possible and it is generally appropriate to stockpile and reuse
excavated soils , there are circumstances where it is better to
remove excavated soils from the site if reuse on the site would
bury virgin topsoil.
Building Biodiversity (C1.1, p:3)
We strongly support the intention of this section and the measures
suggested to retain and enhance biodiversity. We recommend that
the text be amended to make it clear that Council is concerned about
both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (this would be consistent
with the Fish Habitat Protection Plan for the Hawkesbury-Nepean
River System published by NSW Fisheries). We suggest the addition
of the following text Prevent the disturbance of any aquatic ecosystems.
We particularly support the use of fences to exclude non-native
animals from native flora and fauna habitat, and suggest that this
should be adopted as a standard addition to consent conditions.
Conversely fences should not be permitted that will fragment habitat.
(C1.1, p2) refer to proposals in Part D of this submission re fencing,
eg D1.5.13.
Plans & documentation (C1.1, p:4)
Vegetation / Bushland Management Plans should be prepared
by a suitably qualified person.
C1.2 Weeds
We strongly support the content of this section to protect bushland
from weed invasion and particularly the requirement for a weed management
strategy. We support the use of Schedule:6 to include consideration
of environmental weeds in the impacts of development.
C1.2 Performance Criteria
We support the performance criteria as stated.
C1.3- Stormwater
We strongly support the measures detailed in this section to maintain
and improve the quality and quantity of stormwater exiting the site.
We particularly support the concept of water sensitive urban design
and requirements for stormwater management plans. However we are
concerned that there maybe no clear requirements for village precincts
which have piped water systems feeding into watercourses. Are the
outlets of all these systems required to contain gross pollution
traps and retention systems to lessen the impact of high volume
flows during inundation periods in concordance with Water Sensitive
Urban design and Stormwater Management philosophies outlined in
the DCP-Part C? If so, where is it stated?
C1.3- Performance Criteria (C1.3, p:1)
Point 4 - "The development is not to adversely alter the quantity
of stormwater leaving the site" should include some indication that
"adversely alter" could mean either a loss (to a hanging swamp)
or a gain (to an eroding creekline) in stormwater quantity could
be adverse depending on specific circumstances. [Refer to the requirements
of The NSW State Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Policy) to maintain
groundwater flows as part of the development planning process. (DLWC
2002,p25)] Additional points should be added to the Performance
Criteria to the effect that: the velocity (ie erosive potential)
of stormwater leaving the site will not be increased; and stormwater
quality and quantity should be controlled at source. Managing Stormwater
(C1.3, p2) We recommend the following as an additional measure Prevent
adverse changes in the quantity and quality of water entering watercourses.
Drainage easements (C1.3, p:4 & 5) Drainage easements are often
the sites of soil erosion and weed infestation. Where a drainage
easement is to be created long term strategies for dealing with
these issues should be required. Management responsibilities need
to be clearly established, as there is currently much confusion
about this.
C1.4 Site Management
We support the provisions in this section designed to
minimise environmental impacts during construction, particularly
requirements for erosion & sediment control plans, soil &
water management plans and waste management strategies. Minimise
Site Disturbance (C1.4, p1)
Protective barriers around vegetation to be retained should
be erected to adequately protect the root zone, which may be at
a greater distance than 1 m from the trunk.
Sediment Control devices/ Post construction & erosion controls
(C1.4, p:4)
When suggesting the use of straw bales and mulch, the potential
for weed propagules to be contained in these materials should be
pointed out. "Construction site " and "disturbed area" need to be
clarified in this section to emphasise that parts of the site not
within the building envelope or directly impacted by construction
works require protection as much as areas on adjoining lots. When
removing controls it is also necessary to remove any sediment that
has been trapped by the control. This sediment must be disposed
of at a suitable location (and not on native vegetation).
Hazardous materials (C1.4, p:6)
The notifications of neighbours prior to works to remove asbestos
or lead based paints should be specific (eg. written notice at least
24 hours before works commence).
C2 CHARACTER ANDS LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT
C2.1 Streetscape & character - Performance Criteria (C2.1,
p:1)
An additional point needs to be added to these performance criteria
to stipulate that no species listed in Schedule:6 will be planted,
notwithstanding that these species may already exist in the current
"streetscape".
C2.2- Landscaping - Performance Criteria
We support point 3 which gives priority to indigenous vegetation
in landscape plans. Point 4 should also state that non-indigenous
species are not to include those listed in Schedule:6.
C3- CULTURAL HERITAGE
C3 - Performance Criteria
An additional performance criteria should be added stating that
the natural environment must be protected and that no species from
Schedule:6 will be planted. (see comments C2.1)
C4 HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT
C4.1- Bushfire - Performance criteria Point 2.
This criteria needs to be modified to define "the degree necessary".
What are the criteria for "the degree necessary"? This could be
defined by reference to a recognised code or the maximum requirements
for hazard reduction outlined in the DCP. This criteria should also
state that "clearing" is not justifiable for hazard reduction.
C4.1 Subdivision (C4.1, p:5)
Measures to be implemented at subdivision stage should also include
: * The APZ must be provided outside of any development excluded
land. This principle should be applied to all new development, not
just subdivisions.
C4.1 Asset Protection Zones (C4.1, p: 5)
A clear statement is needed here to define the maximum proportion
of vegetation within each APZ (Inner & Outer) which can be removed
for the purposes of hazard reduction. (see comments on Cl:36 in
Section:1 of the BMCS submission on The Written Instrument)
C5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
C5.1- Services Reticulated sewer (C5.1, p:1)
We support the requirement that all new subdivisions and multi-residential
developments obtain a Sydney Water certificate verifying the ability
of the sewage system to deal with the additional load.
C5.2- Wastewater Off-site disposal (C5.2, p:2)
Off-site pump out disposal should only be permitted as a temporary
measure where Sydney Water can provide documentation that the reticulated
sewer will be provided within 2 years ( see comments on Cl:87 in
Section:1 of the BMCS submission on The Written Instrument).
On-site disposal (C5.2, p:3)
We support the provisions which do not allow on-site disposal on
lots with less than 4000m2 of land which is not defined as development
excluded. We are concerned that there are no standards established
in this DCP against which the site suitability report should be
assessed, such as the EPA guidelines. The maintenance requirements
of on-site disposal systems have been well outlined on C5.2 pages
4 &5. The harvesting of plants should be identified as essential
to avoid the accumulation of Nitrogen in particular. If Nitrogen
is not removed from the site at the completion of each season it
will accumulate and leach into the groundwater. We propose that
the annual service contract also monitor the harvesting of plants
and removal of nutrients from the disposal area.
Plans & documentation (C5.2, p:6)
We support the requirement for wastewater management reports for
proposed on-site disposal systems.
C5.3- Vehicular Access; Parking and Roads Performance Criteria (C5.3,
p1)
It is proposed that point 3 be amended to take account of the environmental
impacts of the location of roads and parking facilities, both on
the property in question and adjoining properties. For example,
Minimise adverse environmental impact on the environment and maximise
the aesthetic quality of the roads and parking facilities. The following
is recommended as an additional criteria Site parking, roads and
driveways should be designed to minimize cut and fill, and the crossing
of watercourses and protected areas.
C5.5- Energy Orientation
Whilst overshadowing by adjoining buildings is an issue, east-west
sites offer the best opportunities to have all living spaces north
facing with long narrow buildings. With blocks of 15m or 20m width,
north-south sites only offer limited north facing indoor space because
most people waste this precious aspect by believing their entrance
should be at the front. In addition, they frequently want to cover
the entrance with an awning (for rain protection) obliterating the
value of having north facing windows.
Shading (C5.5, p5)
It would be useful to point out that a verandah awning on north
facing windows will prevent winter sun from entering north facing
rooms. Refer to further comments in Part D following
PART D STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT 2002 D1- SINGLE DWELLINGS
& ANCILLARY STRUCTURES
D1.1- Matrix of plans & documentation (D1, p:2)
In the matrix of plans and documentation we understand that
a NatHers rating is required for all new single dwellings ( C5.5-
Plans & documentation). This box needs to be ticked in this
matrix for "New dwelling".
D1.2- Biodiversity ( D1, p:3)
D1.2.2- We oppose the increase in permissable cut & fill to
greater than 1m in zones other than Living Bushland Conservation.
We question whether this is consistent with the performance criteria
cited from elsewhere in this DCP. This is a weakening of the standards
from the previous DCP 30 which states on page 8 that the level of
cut and fill permitted . . is no more than 900mm
D1.2.3- The definition of "virgin excavated natural materials" should
ensure that it does not contain propagules of Schedule 6 weeds,
or be contaminated by chemicals (see comments in this submission
above under C.1-p1 - Biodiversity / soils - Section III).
D1.2.5- We strongly support this clause. We suggest that the word
"locally " should be added to "indigenous vegetation". D1.3-
Weeds (D1, p:3)
D1.3.1- We support the ban on planting Schedule: 6 weeds in Living
Bushland Conservation zones.
D1.3.4- We do not believe that this test to allow weeds to be planted
is realistic; ie if it can be demonstrated that there is minimal
potential for spread. It would be more practical to extend the ban
on all Schedule 6 weeds to all zones. The performance criteria cited
to support this clause (C1.1; C1.2; and C1.3 of this DCP) do NOT
in fact support the planting of more environmental weeds.
D1.4-Stormwater ( D1, p: 4)
D1.4.1- Provisions that post development stormwater flows will be
less than or equal to pre-development levels may not be appropriate
for sites which drain to hanging swamps or other vegetation which
depends on consistent (but not excessive) surface flows as well
as sub-surface flows.
D1.4.2- We support the intent of this clause as improvement on existing
practice. There is however a loophole that could easily be closed
by stating the maximum roof area per downpipe. Absorption pits should
also not be located within any area zoned EP, within a swamp, a
watercourse corridor, or on other development excluded land.
D1.4.3- We support this requirement to make provision for on-site
retention of water from impervious surfaces. Whilst there are obviously
limitations for such a provision with single dwellings on smaller
lots, we believe that there are opportunities for such provisions
in larger developments by the use of underground storage/slow release
systems. A buffer distance should be established between the outlet
point and any sensitive areas, in order to allow hydrocarbons or
other chemicals to be tied up in the soil. (Water coming off hard
surfaces may contain oils from vehicles or household chemicals)
D1.5-Streetscape & character
D1.5.1 The setback area should be able to be varied if this would
avoid adverse environmental impact.
Fencing ( D1, p: 7) D1.5.13- An additional clause is needed to cover
situations where boundary lines fragment wildlife corridors, watercourse
corridors, significant vegetation communities (some of which will
be identified as an EP zone or a Protected Area) or any contiguous
areas of bushland. Such a clause should state that it is not permissible
to erect a fence in these locations unless it can be proven that
it will not prevent the movement of any indigenous animal likely
to use the area, nor will it adversely impact on the survival and
spread of indigenous flora. This proposal would be supported by
the Performance criteria for C1.1 (2) which states Indigenous vegetation
links must be maintained and are to be re-established
D1.7- Bushfire (D1,p:8)
See comments above in C4.1
D1.9- Wastewater (D1,p:11)
D1.9.4 Although obviously intended, this clause (or clause D1.9.6)
needs to state that the on site disposal system is not to be located
on Development Excluded Land. The definition of DEL includes buffers
to a range of environmentally sensitive features but lacks any clear
definition about what those widths are. It would be useful to have
prescribed widths in this instance (and also in all other situation
where the definition is applied).
D1.9.7-9 We support the geological limitations on absorption trenches
and slope constraints for irrigation areas.
D1.9.10 The sizes of septic tanks proposed do not appear adequate
to provide storage during wet weather. During periods of rain it
is inevitable that anything soluble will end up in ground water.
It is important that waste water is not released during such times,
hence adequate storage is required.
D1.9.11- We support the minimum buffer distances applied to on-site
effluent disposal systems to protect watercourses. This table (Table
4) should be added to, in order to provide similar buffers: to protect
sensitive vegetation units to protect groundwater flows to hanging
swamps The buffer distance of 3 vertical metres to the seasonal
water table is not an adequate standard, on its own, to provide
such safeguards. In addition to the issue of pollutants/nutrients
moving into the groundwater, there is also the issue of trenches
and subsurface irrigation changing groundwater flows. The NSW State
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Policy (DLWC 2002) states (p25)
that: planning, approval and management of developments, water use
and land use activities should aim to minimise adverse impacts on
groundwater dependent ecosystems by: maintaining where possible,
natural patterns of groundwater flow and not disrupting groundwater
levels that are critical for ecosystems; An additional clause is
proposed re on site disposal systems We propose an additional clause
requiring the harvesting of plants to be a mandatory part of the
maintenance program for on site disposal systems. (refer to discussion
of nutrient accumulation and leaching to groundwater under C5.2
above)
D1.9.14- We support this requirement for all wastewater to be removed
through the pump out system.
D1.10- Vehicular Access, parking (D1,p:15)
D1.10.2 Carparking spaces should be permitted within the front setback
area if this would avoid adverse environmental impact from being
located elsewhere, or if it would reduce the gradient on the driveway
necessary to reach this space. This proposal is consistent with
the C2.1 performance criteria no 1 (e). See suggested amendment
to C5.3 performance criteria no 3 (above).
D1.10.15- We support this clause that it must be demonstrated that
no alternative means of access is possible before approval be given
to a driveway crossing a watercourse. There should be an additional
clause applying this principle to areas which contain significant
vegetation communities and their buffers. This proposal is consistent
with the performance criteria C1.1 and C2.1 no 1 (e).
D1.11- Amenity
D1.11.2-D1.11.4 are supported as practical ways to reduce
energy consumption in new houses and adjoining properties.
D1.12- Energy
D1.12.1 All new buildings should be able to achieve a 5 star NatHers
rating. Any extension of 45 sq metres or greater should achieve
a 4 star rating on that extension. The existing proposal for a 3.5
star rating in this clause is inconsistent with the ESD planning
principles outlined in clause 11 of the DLEP. This is such a low
standard that: it is not equitable for future generations [11(2)
(d)]; it does not support continual improvement [11(2)(e)] (it is
a lower standard than has been easily achieved over the last 20
years); and it does not support improved valuation of environmental
resources [11(2)(g)] One example of the inadequacy of the 3.5 stars
rating is that it can be obtained without eaves on windows. Project
homes have often deleted eaves from a house but when the occupier
moves in they install air conditioning because of the heat in summer.
We support the replacement of the tick a box system by a NatHers
performance rating which is much more accurate. We propose that
Council employs a Energy Assessment Officer to check the submissions
and check to see if ratings are achieved on the building and all
appliances before a final certificate is issued. (How can council
be sure of the accuracy of the current scorecard?) renewable energy
hot water systems to be made mandatory for domestic commercial &
industrial development. all energy efficiency requirements and designs
be extended to the commercial sector, and also to the industrial
sector, when new complexes are being developed. CounciI work towards
implementing a more comprehensive sustainability rating system which
would include achieving a minimum standard for the embodied energy
which goes into the construction of any building, or alterations.
D2- GRANNY FLATS
Please refer to all comments under Single dwellings & ancillary
structures (in D1 above) for corresponding issues.
D3- DUAL OCCUPANCY
Please refer to all comments under Single dwellings & ancillary
structures (in D1 above) for corresponding issues.
D4- MULTI-DWELLING HOUSING Please refer to Comments on clauses
D1.2.2 to D1.4.2 under Single dwellings & ancillary structures
for corresponding issues
D4.4 - Stormwater
D4.4.3- We propose an additional clause to make provision for on-site
retention of water from impervious surfaces (re D1.4.3). There are
opportunities for such provisions in multi-dwelling developments
by the use of underground storage/slow release systems. Such developments
create problems because of the extent of hard surfaces and the limited
opportunities for absorption on site. There should be a buffer between
the outlet point and any sensitive areas (ie development excluded
land) to deal with pollutants.
D4.5 Streetscape and Character
D4.5.3-6 Fencing Refer to the proposed additional clause under D1.5.13
above to preserve biodiversity in any contiguous areas of bushland
D4.6- Landscaping
D4.6.3 This clause should state that it is not acceptable to plant
any trees listed as an environmental weed in Schedule 6 of the LEP.
D4.7 Bushfire
See comments as in D1.7 above
D4.8 - Services (D4, p:8)
We support the provisions that restrict multi-unit housing to sites
where adequate reticulated sewerage is already in place.
D4.9- Vehicular access etc
D4.9.21 We support this requirement for designated areas for car
washing, however this should be a requirement for all multi dwelling
housing (and other developments). The need for this was identified
by residents during the education program conducted by DLWC concerning
urban runoff issues (July 2002). It would be useful if the requirements
for treating the drainage from car washing bays could be incorporated
into this DCP.
D4.10 Solar Amenity
We support the solar access provisions D4.10.11 D4.10.14. This will
assist in reducing energy consumption.
D4.11 Energy Efficiency Refer to comments in D1.12
D5- ACCESSIBLE HOUSING
Please refer to Comments on clauses D1.2.2 to D1.4.2 under Single
dwellings & ancillary structures for corresponding issues
D5.4 - Stormwater
D5.4.3 We propose an additional clause to make provision for
on-site retention of water from impervious surfaces (re D1.4.3).
There are opportunities for such provisions in such multi-dwelling
developments by the use of underground storage/slow release systems.
Such developments also create problems because of the extent of
hard surfaces requirements of residents and the limited opportunities
for absorptive surfaces on site. There should be a buffer between
the outlet point and any sensitive areas (ie development excluded
land)
D5.5 Streetscape and Character
D5.5.4-8 Fencing Refer to the proposed additional clause under D1.5.13
above to preserve biodiversity in any contiguous areas of bushland
D5.6- Landscaping
D5.6.4 This clause should state that it is not acceptable to plant
any trees listed as an environmental weed in Schedule 6 of the LEP.
D5.7 Bushfire
See comments as in D1.7 above
D5.9- Vehicular access etc
D5.9.23 - We support this requirement for designated areas for car
washing, however this should be a requirement for a complex of a
smaller number of accessible housing dwellings. It would be useful
if the requirements for treating the drainage from car washing bays
could be incorporated into this DCP.
D5.11 Energy Efficiency
Refer to comments in D1.12 D6- BED & BREAKFAST Please refer
to all comments under Single dwellings & ancillary structures
for corresponding issues
D7- TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
Please refer to Comments on clauses D1.2.2 to D1.4.2 under Single
dwellings & ancillary structures for corresponding issues
D7.4 - Stormwater
D7.4.2- The lack of specification in this clause means that the
standard for stormwater management will be considerably lower for
Tourist Accommodation than is required for all other types of development.
As this will only be applied to new development or substantial alterations,
why is the same standard not applied? We also propose an additional
clause to make provision for on-site retention of water from impervious
surfaces (re D1.4.3). There are opportunities for such provisions
in such multi-dwelling developments by the use of underground storage/slow
release systems. There should be a buffer between the outlet point
and any sensitive areas (ie development excluded land)
D7.5 Streetscape and Character
D7.5.4-8 Fencing Refer to the proposed additional clause under D1.5.13
above to preserve biodiversity in any contiguous areas of bushland.
Whilst this is unlikely to be the case in these areas, this precaution
ought be there.
D7.7 Bushfire
See comments as in D1.7 above
D7.9- Vehicular access etc
We believe that there should be a requirement to provide designated
areas for car washing for developments where more than 5 car parking
spaces (re D7.9.1 & D7.9.2) are required. This would be more
in line with the requirements for other types of accommodation.
D7.11 Energy Efficiency
Refer to comments in D1.12
D8- SUBDIVISION
D8.2- Biodiversity
D8.2.1 We support the principle of trying to keep all development
excluded land under one ownership because it may lead to less fragmentation
of contiguous areas of bushland by boundary fences (refer to comments
on fencing in D1.5 above).
D8.2.3 - We oppose the increase in permissable cut & fill to
greater than 1m in zones other than Living Bushland Conservation.
(refer to comments in D1.2.2)
D8.2.4 - The definition of "virgin excavated natural materials"
should ensure that it does not contain propagules of Schedule 6
weeds, or be contaminated by chemicals (see comments in D1.2.3 above)
D8.2.5- We strongly support this clause. We suggest that the word
"locally " should be added to "indigenous vegetation".
D8.3- Weeds
See comments on weeds which apply to all Part D refer to (D1, p:3)
D8.3.3 We object to the reduced development standard proposed by
clause D8.3.3 and propose that the standard established in DCP27
be reinstated. (ref DCP 27, Part A Site Analysis, Flora & Fauna,
3.1-3.5). Unfortunately Council has not been consistently implementing
these requirements for the treatment of environmental weeds, however
now that a Schedule of environmental weeds exists in the DLEP, there
should be no difficulties. Subdivision scale developments can potentially
spread weeds extensively during earthworks. The treatment cannot
always be effective with one treatment, but does need to be strategic
and ensure further dispersal is not caused. DCP 27 recognised the
need for a weed removal strategy, the value of staged removal, and
the need for native vegetation regeneration in areas to be retained
as natural (which may not be included as Protected Areas). We propose
that D8.3.3 be amended to read: Existing noxious and environmental
weeds must be removed or controlled where identified according to
an approved weed removal strategy. Any weeds likely to be disturbed
by the construction should be treated to prevent dispersal prior
to the commencement of the construction.
D8.4 Stormwater
There should be a clear statement that no existing watercourse
(whether ephemeral or perennial) should be piped. Will these standards
outlined promote designs which disperse water and allow for absorption?
D8.4.13 The environmental and watercourse protection goals should
be clearly defined and referenced here.
D8.4.11 There needs to be some designation of responsibility for
weed and sediment control in drainage easements stated.
D8.4.24 The design of the stormwater system should be to retain
a dispersed flow into the watercourses and not to concentrate flows
into a small number of outlets.
D8.5 Streetscape & Character/ Development Spaces (D8, p:7)
D8.5.1 see comments on Clause 82 in the DLEP (Section I of this
submission).
D8.5.6 we support the clear statement that the development space
is not to include any DEL. We propose that driveways should also
not be on DEL (NB clause 43 (2) & (3) of the DLEP needs to be
tightened to ensure that building will not occur on DEL)
D8.7 Bushfire
D8.7.2 We support the requirement that Asset Protection Zones be
located within the property boundaries
D8.7.4 We support this clause which prohibits bushfire protection
measures from development excluded land . We are concerned about
the exception in this clause, and ask why it could be necessary
as this section only relates to subdivision. D8.7.13-D8.7.17 We
support the restrictions on the title to create an Asset Protection
Zone and the clarification of this as a no building zone D8.7.17
We particularly support the exclusion of development excluded land
from an APZ and therefore the no building zone
D8.10 Wastewater
D8.10.1 We support the requirement for new lots to have reticulated
sewer
D8.10.2 & 3 We support the requirement for gravity connection
to sewer junction, as pump ups fail, causing environmental pollution.
D8.11 Vehicular Access etc
Roads should not be located in DEL. D8.11.16 We question whether
all new roads should have kerb and gutters in order to achieve the
performance criteria for Stormwater (C1.3, p1). The use of grassed
swales should be considered wherever possible to increase the absorption
and reduce the velocity.
D8.13 Special Provisions
Encroachments D8.13.7 Why is this clause necessary for subdivisions?
Maybe Council should seek payment for the land encroached upon?
Cluster Housing (D8, p:15) D8.13.10
We support the principle that no part of a cluster housing development
is to be located on DEL. We suggest that for greater certainty &
clarity this requirement should be included in the DLEP.(see comments
on cl: 82 (d) in Section I of BMCS submission)
D9- OTHER FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT
Please refer to comments on clauses D1.2.2 to D1.4.2 under Single
dwellings & ancillary structures for corresponding issues.
D9.5 Streetscape and Character
D9.5.4-8 Fencing Refer to the proposed additional clause under D1.5.13
above to preserve biodiversity in any contiguous areas of bushland.
D9.6 Landscaping
D9.6.1 Recreation Public also should have a minimum amount of pervious
surfaces. The 20% for Employment-General should be raised to at
least 30%. (see comments re Schedules 2 & 3 in Section I of
this submission)
D9.7 Bushfire
See comments as in D1.7 above D9.11- Energy Note comments in D1.12.
All new developments should be able to achieve a 5 star rating,
except in the case of some individual industrial developments. In
cases of small individual industrial developments in an existing
development complex, it is appropriate that minimum R ratings for
insulation be prescribed.
D9.11.1
We support the roof insulation standard proposed for the lower mouintains,
however this should be R3.5 for the upper mountains.
D9.12 Accessibility re Nature Based Recreation
D9.12.5 proposes design for access except where such provision would
destroy or seriously detract from the value of the natural environment
or significance of the locality This needs to be more precisely
defined how? D9??? Wastewater There are no controls on wastewater
for these types of developments. The same standards should apply
(refer to the comments earlier under D1.9)
OTHER ISSUES
Nature Based Recreation
Only the accessibility requirements of this activity have been addressed
in this DCP. This is a permitted activity in the two Environmental
Protection Zones. There needs to be some greater clarification of
what is compatible with the environmental values and ecologically
sustainable management of the land . (Ref dictionary definition
p 424) We are proposing some greater clarification in the definition
but also some coverage in the DCP. This is a complex issue which
needs to be covered in greater detail within this DCP to ensure
that nature based activities do not destroy the environments they
occur in. The factors which influence the level of impact of any
activity include: The exact location in or near a sensitive locality
(eg proximity to a rare plant population) The frequency of the activity
(eg regular abseiling events) The numbers of participants (eg large
groups climbing at a particular location) The impacts of equipment/vehicles
used In response to some damaging rocksport development on private
land near Nellies Glen at Katoomba in July 2000, the Society developed
a discussion paper to canvass the issues. (We would be happy to
provide a further copy).
|