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).