Submission by Bill Stern on DA0439/05 & DA0476/05 for Tourist Facility at Lower Portland 1 Aug 05

Reference DA0439/05 and DA0476/05

1 August 2005

General Manager
Hawkesbury City Council
PO Box 146
Windsor NSW 2756

re: Development Proposals at Lots 201 and 202 in DP 1022911 101-125 Greens Road Lower Portland

Dear Sir/Madam

I object to these proposed developments for the reasons listed below with details of each reason following the list:

DA0439/05 Tourist Facility

• Designated Development - Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
The development is designated development under Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&AReg) and as such should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and should have been advertised in a local paper.

• Bushfire Risk - Council resolution of 12 March 2002
The development poses an unacceptable risk in the event of bushfire, most notably in that egress does not comply with Planning for Bushfire Prevention 2001 (PfBP).

• Not in keeping with land uses in area
The DA is not in keeping with the current land use in the area and it impinges on our use of our land. In fact the plan places an effluent disposal area and the APZ on our land.

• Effluent Disposal - Hawkesbury Development Control Plan
The site is not suitable for on-site sewage disposal of this magnitude.

• Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities - The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
The DA does not meet legislative requirements in addressing the effect on threatened species and endangered ecological communities.

• Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
DA does not comply with the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

• Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20
The DA fails to meet obligations under the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2 - 1997).

• Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 1989 and Amendment 108
The DA does not meet the objectives of the Hawkesbury Local Environment Plan 1989 for zone 7(d) Environmental Protection - Scenic or of Amendment 108 for zone Environmental Protection - Mixed Agriculture.

• Clearing requires consent of Minister under the Native Vegetation Act 2003
The forests that make up the two endangered ecological communities identified at this site are “remnant native vegetation” under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and so any proposed clearing requires consent of the Minister.

• Traffic Risk
The access from Greens Rd is near a blind corner with inadequate sight distances in both directions constituting an unacceptable risk. The Traffic Impact Assessment also contains inaccuracies.

• The Waste Management Plan is missing
Despite being listed as an attachment to the DA, there is no Waste Management Plan. Due to the sensitive nature of the local environment this would seem an essential consideration.

• Effluent Disposal - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20
Effluent disposal is within 100m of Hawkesbury River and Watercycle Study fatally flawed. There is inadequate water supply.

• Traffic Risk
The access from Greens Rd is near a blind corner with inadequate sight distances in both directions constituting an unacceptable risk.

• The Waste Management Plan is missing
Despite being listed as an attachment to the DA, there is no Waste Management Plan

• Draft Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 1989 Amendment 108
Inconsistent with objectives of zone Environmental Protection - Mixed Agriculture.

Conclusion

References

This development application is for designated development as specified in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&AReg) and so should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and be subject to other conditions for designated development set out in the EP&AReg such as advertising in a local paper. Since the development application is not accompanied by an EIS it is incomplete and so should be rejected by Council.

This is designated development because Schedule 3 of the EP&AReg describes designated development as follows:

The development application claims:
“1.4 Objectives
The proposal of wastewater is ancillary to the purpose of a subdivision and the provision of Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), probably do not apply. Nonetheless, the Sewerage Treatment Plant for the proposed development is located more than 250m from the house not involved in the development.”

However the EP&AReg which I assume this refers to (Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) is unrelated), clearly refers to “sewerage systems or works” and does not draw a distinction between the treatment plant and the system or works. Therefore the entire system including the effluent disposal area is covered by the regulation.
The “sewerage system or works” is in fact located within 250m of at least two houses not associated with the development, within 100m of a natural waterbody and is on land that slopes more than 6 degrees from the horizontal. The relevant measurements are:

• Our house at 39 Greens Rd (Lot 1 in DP 593165) is 165m from the effluent disposal area (measured from “Visual Privacy/Adjoining Neighbours Plan” and from Department of Lands Geospatial Portal Map).
• The house at 199 Greens Rd (DP 771370 RL 80) is 215m from the effluent area (measured from “Visual Privacy/Adjoining Neighbours Plan” and from Department of Lands Geospatial Portal Map).
• The creek to the north of the development site constitutes a natural water body (for the purposes of the EP&AR “natural waterbody” is defined as including “a river or stream, whether perennial or intermittent, flowing in a natural channel with an established bed or in a natural channel artificially modifying the course of the stream”. This creek is only 60m from the disposal area (measured from Department of Lands Geospatial Portal Map).


Geospatial Portal Map showing location of creek relative to development site

• The land slopes more than 8.5 degrees from horizontal (Section 2.4 of the Watercycle Study states “The existing slope of the proposed disposal area is a maximum of 15%” which is more than 8.5 degrees and this can also be measured from the map labelled Figure 3).

This gives at least 4 reasons why this is designated development.

The claim in the DA that ”The proposal of wastewater is ancillary to the purpose of a subdivision” makes no sense in reference to either this development application or the EP&AReg. In fact Schedule 3 of the EP&AReg makes no reference to subdivisions at all. We have obtained a legal opinion from the Environmental Defenders Office on this matter and they have confirmed that this development is “designated development” within the meaning of Schedule 3 of the EP&AReg. The claim that Schedule 3 provisions probably do not apply, along with claims that the sewerage treatment plant is not within 250m of “residences not associated with the development”, are false and misleading as described in clause 283 of the EP&AReg (“A person is guilty of an offence if the person makes any statement, knowing it to be false or misleading in an important respect, in or in connection with any document lodged with a consent authority or certifying authority for the purposes of the Act or this Regulation.”) and so may constitute an offence.

Since the development application did not identify that the development was designated development, clause 79 (1) (d) of the EP&AAct, ”the consent authority must: ... cause notice of the application to be published in accordance with the regulations in a newspaper circulating in the locality” could not be adhered to.

The fact that notice was not published alone could form the basis of an appeal against granting of consent for this DA in the Land and Environment Court.

Bushfire Risk

The land is bushfire prone and is classified as being of “high” bushfire hazard. Since the development is for a Tourist Facility, fire provisions should at least meet standards set out in Planning for Bushfire Prevention 2001 (PfBP). Although this matter has been referred to the Rural Fire Service, Council at its Ordinary meeting of 12 March 2002 resolved that development within bushfire prone land is to comply with the relevant provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection produced by the Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW. Referral to the Rural Fire Service does not absolve Council from complying with this resolution.

There are a number of concerns I have including misleading and missing information in the Bushfire Assessment Report.

The Report states that “Emergency evacuation is also possible via existing roads through the adjoining property to the north.” This is not correct.
I have spoken with the property owner, Jeff Davies of 199 Greens Rd Lower Portland. Mr Davies’ intention is to build a security fence if the development is approved. With over 120 potential occupiers of the development in an otherwise remote location, he is as we are, concerned about home security. Mr Davies also indicated that future development on his own site (dam or shed) and earthmoving equipment parking, means he cannot guarantee egress through his property. He is also concerned for his family’s safe evacuation as his driveway is extremely long, steep and unsealed with dangerous drops and sharp bends. A large number of tourists evacuating at the same time as his family, could easily make his only way out impassible.

As the adjoining property owner to the south west, I have similar security concerns and will also install security fencing if the development is approved. The driveway from the top of my property is long, steep and unsealed and may not be maintained in passable condition as our house is located on a lower level of the property. Bizarrely, the development site owner has recently installed a chain across the only access between our properties.

So there is only one way out in an emergency. The furthest cabins are over 600m from Greens Rd (the nearest through road) via a sealed driveway that has sharp turns and is up to 12.5 degrees from horizontal. Access is continued at the top of the ridge by a proposed all weather surface. From the site plan it can be seen that the access road has a continuous section over 360m long that is only 3m wide. One of my concerns is that up to 30 vehicles evacuating will meet fire trucks entering the site and vehicles will have to back up for hundreds of metres with disastrous results.

Adding to these difficulties is the fact that the parking area is up to 200m from the cabins with internal transport via pedestrian access and golf buggies.

PfBP specifies that:

Neither of these specifications are met by this DA.

PfBP also specifies that:

The Bushfire Assessment Report has identified that the PDA is partially in the “Flame Zone” and so construction should not proceed according to PfBP.

Among my other concerns are the following points which are identified in PfBP as being risk factors that should be avoided:
• the development is on a ridgetop
• the buildings are elevated off the ground
• the development is upslope from any approaching fire hazard
• the APZ is not achievable because of escarpment and neighbouring properties. In fact, the plan shows that the APZ extends onto neighbouring property although this plan does not indicate the property boundary.
Some other concerns to do with fire risk include:
• the proposal will allow overnight camping, increasing fire hazard
• the cabins have wooden decks with barbecues also increasing fire risk
• no provision has been made to guarantee maintenance of the APZ for the life of the development
• hazard reduction in the APZ is counterproductive to the preservation of endangered ecological communities and threatened species.

We are also concerned that the cabins pose an increased potential for fires to start. This puts the entire surrounding area at risk.

In a severe bushfire situation, with the possibility of egress being cut by either fire or traffic backup, there is the potential for up to 120 people being trapped on the ridge. This could result in one of the biggest peacetime human tragedies in Australian history. I know this sounds dramatic but the possibility of 120 deaths in the event of bushfire is appalling but real.

The claim that the APZ is achievable to the west relies on this zone extending onto our property. Planning for Bushfire Protection specifies that fire control measures must be contained within the property.

Not in keeping with the existing land uses in the area and impinges on our land use

Although the flood plain flanking the river has developments of a similar density, the ridgetops and plateaux in the immediate area have no such developments. There are single residences on adjoining properties that share the plateau and these are remotely located to take advantage of the natural bushland, the quiet, the seclusion and the privacy. With up to 120 occupiers, their pets and “golf buggies” and with cabins within 40 metres of our boundary we would no longer be able to take advantage of these aspects of the plateau.

The high density of this development certainly would not meet the objectives of Zone 7(d) Environmental Protection - Scenic which lists as an objective:

(e) to protect the low density, broad-acre character of the rural areas.

We use the plateau adjacent to the development site as a refuge from visual pollution, light pollution (to observe the night sky) and noise pollution and are concerned that the development will generate all of these forms of pollution and may also generate odour pollution. The application does not adequately address the impact of the development on these land uses. We bought the property with the intention of building a residence on the mountain top and relocating to the new residence. With such a high density development adjacent, the advantages of relocating are gone.

With a possible peak traffic flow of 120 trips per day, the claim that there will be insignificant impact clearly ignores the impact of noise on all residents who live along the roads leading to the site.

There is no way for cabin occupiers to know where the site boundaries are and with up to 120 occupiers and their pets confined in a relatively small area the possibility of them escaping on to adjacent properties is high.

We are concerned that runoff or seepage from the effluent disposal area will drain via an existing drainage line to our dam. We use the dam for swimming and knowing that we will no longer be able to use it in this way caused us great distress. The assurance that effluent will run off only 5 percent of the time does not reassure us at all.


Dam that will collect runoff from effluent disposal area

The effluent disposal area and APZ are both shown on plans submitted with the DA extending onto our property. We do not agree to our land being used in this way.

Effluent Disposal

The development application specifies that up to 19,100 litres of treated effluent will be produced each day. The proposal is to dispose of this effluent by subsurface irrigation. The calculations that supposedly show that the 1.5 ha disposal area is sufficient rely on incorrect and unjustified figures and inappropriate models and contain arithmetic errors. The development application fails to meet the requirements of relevant planning documents and guidelines.

Hawkesbury Development Control Plan

Chapter 7 of the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan, states that all developments relying on an on-site sewage management facility must be accompanied by a waste water feasibility study. The water feasibility study must be accompanied by:

Drainage line leading from the effluent disposal area to a dam on our property. Both the drainage line and dam are within the buffer zone for the effluent disposal area. The dam is used for swimming and we are concerned that we will no longer be able to use it for this.

Although the Watercycle Study provides some assessment of these factors, in most cases the assessment does not meet the requirements of On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) (OSSMSH). Some of the shortcomings of the assessment are:

• Section 3.2 claims 0.6 metres soil depth is adequate but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) makes it clear that the soil depth recommendations of table 6 are based on ideal soil conditions. No attempt has been made to demonstrate that soil conditions are ideal and since the claimed depth is only marginally adequate, this would seem essential.

• Section 3.3 states that “the watertable was not intersected during bore log investigations” but the investigations were carried out during a drought when the watertable drops appreciably. No attempt was made to determine the depth of the high episodic watertable.

• Section 3.7 reports the pH range of the soil landscapes of this type but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) requires that pH is measured.

• Section 3.8 reports that electrical conductivity was not measured but measurement is required by On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998).

• Section 3.10 admits that cation exchange capacity is low to very low. This would indicate that the soils may be unable to hold nutrients which would lead to runoff of nutrients. Measurement is required by On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) unless a detailed survey was undertaken at subdivision stage.

• Section 3.11 points out that the two soil types have differing phosphorus sorption capacities but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) requires measurement of this unless a detailed survey was undertaken at subdivision stage.

The layout of subsurface pipework, its spacing or depth is not given.

These are not shown.

Other Problems with the Watercycle Study

Section 2.4 and 2.9 state that “water is to be applied to the soil only when soil moisture is suitable to receive it” but does not indicate who will determine this, how it will be determined and what will be done with wastewater if storage is full and the soil moisture is not suitable to receive it. In fact the entire plan to manage wastewater relies on regular and diligent actions requiring detailed specialist knowledge and monitoring. This is a recipe for disaster and failure of the system is almost guaranteed. Any lack of maintenance can result in increased nutrient loading, effluent runoff or soil degradation.

Calculation at bottom of page 18 states that based on Bacon & Thompson (1982) the “likely loss from denitrification in excess of 30% on the first day from surface water application is likely”. The problems with this model and its assumptions are:

• This figure is for surface application (not subsurface irrigation). It has been clearly demonstrated that most denitrification takes place near the surface.

• Refers to loss “on the first day”. To assume that this rate of loss will be experienced by the entire store of nitrogen in the soil (as this model does) is unsubstantiated and ignores the fact that as nitrogen percolates down through the soil the rate of denitrification will decrease. If you use this model and assume no added nitrogen beyond the first day (as is normal agricultural practice where fertiliser is applied only at long intervals) and assume no uptake by plants but only 15% denitrification each day, after only 5 weeks the soil nitrogen would have decreased to 1/250th of its initial value. If this were the case fertiliser would have to be added on a weekly basis. The model just doesn’t work. Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2004) says of denitrification “Little information is available on nitrogen loss by denitrification but it is known to be highly variable and should not be included in the nitrogen balance unless sound information is available. Under some conditions denitrification rates will be low which can lead to excess nitrogen in the system.”.

• Is based on application of fertiliser to agricultural land where large doses are applied at long intervals. Not to small doses on a daily basis.

• Is based on agricultural soil where the appropriate bacteria and necessary organic carbon source could be expected to be present.

Even given the assumption of 15% on the first day, with the rate of denitrification for each days dose halving each day after it is applied, say, the model should be:

C_i = C_i-1 - k₂ - N_ro + N_i - 0.15 x N_i-1 - 0.15/2 x N_i-2 - ...
so since N_i = N_i-1 = N_i-2 etc and summing the series 0.15 + 0.15/2 + 0.15/4 + etc ...
C_i = C_i-1 + N_i - 3 - 0.3 x N_i
so using 20 mg/L nitrogen in 19000L effluent each day over 1.5 ha we get
C_i = C_i-1 + 174

Although this is a simplification and assumes halving of denitrification each day after the day of application, this model does not reach equilibrium but the concentration continues to increase. This means that nitrogen concentration will continue to increase as long as effluent is applied. In reality this would result in nitrogen escaping to the surrounding environment.

Point 2.3 of the Watercycle Study says that wastewater disposal is on the southeast slope and that this slope is cleared and so has adequate exposure for irrigation and evaporation. In fact the southeast slope is the only slope that does not have wastewater disposal. The disposal area is on the slopes to the east, northeast, north, northwest, west and southwest all of which are wooded and presumably do not have adequate exposure.

Section 7.4 of the Watercycle Study says that the disposal area is 3 ha. In fact the disposal area is only 1.5 ha.

Calculations in section 7.4 at the bottom of page 18 assume 25 mg/L nitrogen concentration, 45000 L/day of effluent and a 4..5 ha disposal area. These same mysterious figures appear in the related development application at Lot 201 for a restaurant waste water disposal proposal. The figures bear no resemblance to either proposal and obviously apply to some other system. We can only conclude that this report was cobbled together from another application and that these calculations were never carried out in relation to this application. This would also explain the mysterious reference to a 3 ha disposal area in both applications.

Calculations in section 7.4 at the top of page 19 produce a concentration of 25 mg/kg of nitrogen in the soil. Using the same equation on page 19 and the same figures as those assumed here I get 30.5 mg/kg. Even with their figure of 25 mg/kg, the specific needs of native vegetation which have a lower nitrogen tolerance has not been addressed.

Table 4 in section 7.2 of the Watercycle Study assumes a nitrogen concentration in the treated effluent of <20 mg/L but does not justify this figure. In Environment and Health Protection Guidelines - On-Site Sewage Management for Single Households Department of Health et al (1998) and in On-Site Sewage Risk Assessment System (2001) the expected nitrogen concentration in treated effluent from an aerated wastewater treatment system is in the range 25 - 50 mg/L. Why the Study chose to use a figure below this minimum is unclear unless it was chosen to obtain the desired result. OSSMSH also points out that these figures are usually only achieved when the system is new and rise thereafter. Using the minimum of 25 mg/L quoted in OSSMSH and using their formula for calculating the minimum area for disposal

A = C x Q / L_n
where
A is minimum disposal area (m²)
C is concentration of nitrogen in effluent (mg/L)
Q is daily volume of effluent (L)
L_n is critical loading rate for nitrogen (mg/m²/day)
and assuming the typical 25 mg/m²/d critical loading rate for nitrogen we get

minimum area = 25 x 19000 / 25 = 19000 m²
ie a minimum area of 1.9 ha which is significantly larger than the 1.5 ha allowed for in the application.

Section 7.3 of the Watercycle Study assumes a concentration of Phosphorus in effluent of 5 mg/L but table 4 in section 7.2 gives the concentration in the treated effluent as <45 mg/L Consequently it is not possible to verify the claim that an area of 0.8 ha would be sufficient for Phosphorus removal. If there are real calculations showing how this figure can be achieved I would need to see them before I could comment further. However if we do the calculation using the expected concentration given in OSSMSH of 10-15 mg/L (I’ll assume the lowest value of 10 mg/L) we would get twice the area i.e. 1.6 ha which is greater than the area provided. Another problem with this calculation is that it relies on “amelioration of the soil” without specifying how amelioration would take place or how the figure of 0.36g/kg sorption rate would result from the amelioration. If amelioration involves disturbance of the soil there is an added risk of erosion and harming the endangered ecological communities in the effluent disposal area. In fact the calculations for phosphorus in the Watercycle Study assume that the soil will reach saturation with respect to phosphorus after 50 years. At the end of 50 years the soil will have to be removed and be replaced. Removal of the top 40-60cm of soil over an area of 1.5 ha could not be achieved without destruction of any forest of the endangered ecological communities that may remain. This short sited approach to conservation should not be acceptable to Council.

No water analysis is supplied to back the claim that the bore water is potable. Despite the fact that 5.2.1 of the Watercycle Study states “water quality shown in Appendix A”, appendix A only shows the bore results which gives salinity of 250 mg/L Our experience is that local bore water has an unacceptable amount of dissolved iron. There are many other possible reasons why the water may not be potable. No provision has been made to treat the water from the bore before it is supplied to the cabins.

Although this level of salinity does not prevent the water from being potable, sodium in the effluent can destroy the soil structure and interfere with its ability to adsorb nutrients. The Watercylce Study has not addressed the effect of sodium in the water supply (and subsequently in the effluent) on the viability of the effluent disposal area.

The Watercycle Study calls for diversion trenches above the effluent disposal area but none are shown on the plan (figure 3).

The Watercycle Study concludes that “Environmental impacts are minimised when the following practices are implemented:
i. Effective separation of the water sources (surface water and roofwater) ...” but the plan does not have provision for collecting or diverting roofwater.

The Watercycle Study states that “A detailed Soil and Water Management Plan should be submitted with the Development Application.”. This is one of the points where I agree with the Watercycle Study, however, no such management plan was submitted with the application.

The Watercycle Study does not address the added risk of nutrient escape from the effluent disposal area posed by shallow permeable soil over a rock shelf which is an acknowledged risk factor in land application disposal schemes.

The Watercycle Study fails to take account of the water repellant nature of soil in ironbark forests as discussed in Craze and Salmon (2004) and the effect this would have on the effectiveness of the effluent disposal area.

Effect of Effluent Disposal on Endangered Ecological Communities

Chapman and Murphy (1989) describe the Watagan soil landscape as having low to moderate fertility; the soil materials are strongly acidic and have low to moderate available water capacities, very low nutrient status, with low nitrogen and very low phosphorus levels, and low to moderate cation exchange capacity. The subsoils may have low permeabilities and pronounced aluminium toxicity.

Chapman and Murphy (1989) describe the Hawkesbury soil landscape as having very low fertility; the soils are extremely to strongly acidic with a low to very low nutrient status. The soils are severely deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus and they have very low cation exchange capacity. They are also shallow and stony with low available water capacities and high aluminium toxicity.

This very low nutrient soil has given rise to the endangered ecological communities found on the site because this is the type of soil they need. Loading the soil with nitrogen and phosphorus assuming it is an agricultural crop will prove fatal to the native species that make up these communities. Both the Watercycle Study and Flora and Fauna Report fail to address the effect of these nutrients on the endangered ecological communities.

Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities

The DA does not meet legislative requirements in addressing the effect on threatened species and endangered ecological communities.

Flora and Fauna Report

Yellow-bellied Glider

The Flora and Fauna Report identifies that the Yellow-bellied Glider is a Vulnerable Species on Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and that it is found in the development site. The Report states that “a recovery plan is being prepared for this species” but in fact a recovery plan was published by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service in February 2003. The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 specifies that any recovery plan must be taken into consideration but the DA does not consider the content of this recovery plan.

In the eight part test for the Yellow-bellied Glider:

Part (a) asks “whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction”. The Report states that the answer is “No. Yellow-bellied Glider was observed in its den tree approximately 60m to the West of the boundary of the PDA. The PDA contains no suitable foraging trees for this species.”

This response is wrong for the following reasons:

• The location 60 m to the west of the PDA places the tree in the APZ and also in the wastewater disposal zone. The tree is also at the junction of two existing fire trails. This puts the tree at risk from:

• The development site contains two species of tree recognised by the Recovery Plan as sap trees for the Glider. These are the Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and the Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata) both of which appear in the Flora List of the Report.

• The Glider also feeds on pollen and nectar from the blossoms of winter flowering gums such as the Narrow Leafed Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) which also appears in the Report’s Flora List. This type of food source can be critical to population survival.

• The Glider also feeds on insect exudates and these insects are not limited to known sap or blossom trees. Any decline in the number of trees will cause a decline in the number of insects available for this type of feeding.

• A population’s survival is dependent on there being a variety of food sources that become available at various times of the year so that any one food source can be critical to the population’s survival.

• The Recovery Plan states that “Yellow-bellied Gliders are sensitive to habitat fragmentation through degradation of existing habitat and creation of dispersal barriers” so that even if trees are not used as forage trees their removal can restrict the movement of the Glider effectively cutting it off from parts of its own home range and isolating the local population causing loss of genetic diversity.

• The long term viability of a population requires a succession of trees so that suitable nest trees will be replaced as the older ones die off. If only current nest trees are considered there is a real risk that an area will eventually have none.

• The Recovery Plan recognises that thinning of trees can increase the risk from predation on the Yellow-bellied Glider.

• The Recovery Plan recognises that any fragmentation of habitat including change in spatial configuration can increase the effort required to forage resulting in reproductive failure.

Part (c) of the eight part test asks “in relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed”. The Report states that the answer is “No. The area to be cleared does not contain suitable foraging habitat for this species.”

This response is wrong because there are two sap tree species and a winter flowering gum species represented in the site as indicated above.

Part (d) of the eight part test asks “whether an area of known habitat is likely to become isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat for a threatened species, population or ecological community”. The Report states that the answer is “No. The site has no connectivity value for the Yellow-bellied Glider”.

This response is wrong because the site is bounded by cleared land to the west and the river to the south and east. This leaves only the north as a corridor to other populations of Yellow-bellied Gliders necessary to maintain genetic diversity. The site creates a northern barrier to the known home range of the local population.

Part (g) of the eight part test asks “whether the development or activity proposed if of a class of development of activity that is recognised as a threatening process”. The Report states that the answer is “Yes.” and points out that “Clearing of native vegetation” (a Key Threatening Process) will be required for construction. Despite this the Report still concludes that “No significant effect is anticipated from the proposed development.”

Given that four parts of the eight part test are positive, a Species Impact Statement for the Yellow-bellied Glider would seem a minimum requirement for such a development application.

Other Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

Other Threatened Species and Ecological Communities at this site include:

Squirrel Glider (although this is not acknowledged in the Report)
Common Bentwing Bat
Eastern Freetail Bat
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF)
Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CCIF)

Page 27 of the Flora and Fauna Report claims that “The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on any Vulnerable Species as none were detected on or adjacent to the site.” However the Report identifies three Vulnerable Species on the site.

Insectivorous Bats

The Report admits that for the threatened species of bats, two parts of the eight part test are positive. Also part (a) admits that foraging trees will be removed but claims that no roosting habitat exists on the site. However a recognised threat to the bats is the disruption of the succession of hollow bearing trees and the proposed clearing will disrupt this succession. This threat is not addressed.

Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest

In the eight part test the Report states:

Part (c) appears to return a positive result for the eight part test given the extremely small areas of remaining forest in the area.

Part (f) also returns a positive response.

Parts (g) and (h) both test positive giving 4 of the applicable 6 parts of the eight part test as positive yet strangely the conclusion is that “No significant effect is anticipated from the proposed development”.

It is claimed that only minimal clearing will take place but the Bushfire Assessment Report specifies that “All of the achievable asset protection zones must be maintained as IPA.”. This seems to contradict the assertion of minimal clearing.

Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest

In the eight part test the Report states:

Part (c) appears to return a positive result for the eight part test given the extremely small areas of remaining forest in the area.

Part (f) also returns a positive response.

Parts (g) and (h) both test positive giving 4 of the applicable 6 parts of the eight part test as positive yet strangely the conclusion is again that “No significant effect is anticipated from the proposed development”.

The Flora and Fauna Report also takes account of potential habitats and threatened species expected at the site but for the sake of brevity and due to limited time to respond I have had to leave these out. However from a quick reading of these sections it appears that there are as many problems with these as there are with the sections I have covered.

All in all the Report is fatally flawed depending as it does on spectacularly false information and should not be relied upon in support of the development application.

Impact Assessment Report for Construction of Boatshed

This Report repeats many of the errors found in the Flora and Fauna Report including failure to recognise the conservation status of the two Endangered Ecological Communities in applying the eight part tests.

Consequently this Report should not be relied upon in support of the development application.

Vegetation Management Plan

The Plan fails to take account of the Wastewater Disposal Area which will occupy 1.5 ha of the site. The 19000 litres of wastewater that may be applied to the disposal area each day poses a number of risks to the Endangered Ecological Communities at the site:

• The wastewater will introduce nutrients for which native vegetation has reduced tolerance.
• The added water and nutrients will also encourage the spread of weeds at the site.
• Waterlogging of the soil puts mature trees at increased risk of falling over and at risk from oxygen depletion in the root zone.

Given the conservation status of the two Endangered Ecological Communities at the site this oversight is a fatal flaw. Consequently this plan can not be relied upon in support of the development application.’

The Watercycle Study also calls for plantings of native species “most likely to survive when using surface irrigation” and “which prefer richer conditions, and therefore more compatible with irrigation areas”. Presumably the existing vegetation is not “most likely to survive”, does not “prefer richer conditions” and therefore is not “more compatible with irrigation areas”. The plan seems to expect existing species that make up the endangered ecological communities will die out and make way for the nutrient tolerant plantings.

Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

Under this act it is necessary to obtain an approval from the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage to carry out a “controlled action”.
“Controlled Actions” include actions likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. Matters of national environmental significance include a listed ”threatened ecological community” such as the Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) reported at this site by the Flora and Fauna Report.
Developers have a duty to refer the proposed development to the Minister for a decision as to whether the proposed action is a “controlled action” and therefore requires assessment and approval .
Given that:
• the development application proposes removing many of the trees that make up this endangered ecological community
• the development application proposes locating a wastewater disposal area in this endangered ecological community
• the EEC is beyond the limit of its known distribution and as such is recognised as very significant under the EPBC Act as its destruction would reduce its range


Map showing known distribution of SSTF (red) and SSTF detected at site (stars)

• the Bushfire Assessment Report specifies that “All achievable asset protection zones must be maintained as IPA.” and so extensive clearing will be required throughout the entire SSTF

I would like to request that Council requires that the developer refer the development to the Federal Minister for Environment and Heritage for a decision.

International treaties

Under the China Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA), Latham's Snipe (Capella hardwickii) and the Painted Snipe (Rostratula benghalensis) are listed as migratory species who must be protected and whose habitat must be protected. Latham’s Snipe is also listed under the Japan Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA). Both these species are listed in the “Species of National Environmental Significance Database” as either occurring in this area or having habitat in this area. The habitat of both these birds is wetlands and the development site is in the catchment of both wetlands in the area. Since runoff from the effluent disposal area drains to both these wetlands it is incumbent on the developer to assess the impact on these species. The EPBC Act also defines these species as “a matter of national environmental significance” and so the developer has a duty to refer this to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2 - 1997)

Under the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 (SREP 20) Local Councils are the consent authority. As the consent authority the council must implement the policies and strategies of that plan. These include the following (shown in italics):

Wetlands

• Protect wetlands (including upland wetlands) from future development and from the impacts of land use within their catchments.

• Maintain a variety of wetland flora and fauna species in the region and consider the scarcity of particular species on a national basis.

• Encourage the appropriate management of wetlands, including monitoring and weed control.

• Consider the need to protect and improve the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater entering wetlands by controlling development in the catchment of wetlands.

The development is in the catchment of two mapped wetlands under SREP 20. One is wetland number 94 on map 15 which is located at the corner of Wheelbarrow Ridge Rd and Greens Road.

Wetland at the corner of Wheelbarrow Ridge Rd and Greens Rd that is fed by a creek that collects runoff from the effluent disposal area. The wetland is mapped wetland no. 94 in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20. Any potential impact on mapped wetlands must be addressed.

This wetland is fed by a creek that runs from north west of the development and is fed by runoff from the proposed effluent disposal area and from seepage along the rock shelf that underlies the disposal area.

Map showing location of wetlands and river in relation to effluent disposal areas


The other is wetland number 93 on map 15 which is located north of and down gradient from the site. Since the application does not acknowledge the wetlands it has not addressed the impact on them. Also the Watercycle study claims to have calculated nutrient loadings but bases its calculations on unjustified assumptions, leaves out considerations recommended by On-Site Wastewater Management Systems for Single Households (which it claims to have complied with), uses values in its calculations that bear no resemblance to the proposed system, contains arithmetic errors and is based on ridiculous models that appear to be specifically designed to underestimate the impact of the effluent disposal (see separate section on the Watercycle Study). The application has not complied with requirements of the SREP 20 in these respects. I cannot see how Council can fulfil its obligations under SREP 20 in this case.

Clearing

• New development in conservation area sub-catchments should be located in areas that are already cleared.

• Locate structures where possible in areas which are already cleared or disturbed instead of clearing or disturbing further land.

So Council has a duty under SREP 20 to encourage new developments in areas that are already cleared. The most obvious way to encourage this is to discourage development that requires clearing of the scale proposed in this development.

Flora and Fauna

• Consider the need to provide and manage buffers, adequate fire radiation zones and building setbacks from significant flora and fauna habitat areas.

• Consider the need to control access to flora and fauna habitat areas.

• Minimise adverse environmental impacts, protect existing habitat and, where appropriate, restore habitat values by the use of management practices.

• Conserve and, where appropriate, enhance flora and fauna communities, particularly threatened species, populations and ecological communities, aquatic habitats, wetland flora, rare flora and fauna, riverine flora, flora with heritage value, habitats for indigenous and migratory species of fauna, and existing or potential fauna corridors.

• Consider the range of flora and fauna inhabiting the site of the development concerned and the surrounding land, including threatened species and migratory species, and the impact of the proposal on the survival of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, both in the short and longer terms.

The proposed development site has been identified as containing at least three threatened species and two endangered ecological communities. Since the Flora and Fauna Report:

- fails to acknowledge the existence of a published Recovery Plan for the Yellow-bellied Glider (and the developer has a statutory obligation to take any published recovery plan into account)
- fails to address in any way the effect of effluent disposal on the two endangered ecological communities (Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and the Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest)

Council is left unable to claim to have complied with the above policies and strategies of SREP 20.

Aboriginal Heritage

• Protect Aboriginal sites and places of significance.

• Consider an Aboriginal site survey where predictive models or current knowledge indicate the potential for Aboriginal sites and the development concerned would involve significant site disturbance.

Since current knowledge indicates that there is a cave containing an Aboriginal painting on the site (I believe this was reported in the Gazette in the 1990’s), Council has a duty to instigate an Aboriginal site survey to determine if the development would involve significant disturbance.

Effluent Disposal

• Consider the impact on ecological processes, such as waste assimilation and nutrient cycling.

• The suitability of the site for on-site disposal of effluent or sludge and the ability of the sewerage systems or works to operate over the long-term without causing significant adverse effects on adjoining property.

• The likely effect of any on-site disposal area required by the proposed development on:
    •  any water bodies in the vicinity (including dams, streams and rivers), or
    •  any mapped wetlands, or
    •  any groundwater, or
    •  the floodplain.

• The adequacy of wet weather storage and the wet weather treatment capacity (if relevant) of the proposed sewerage system or works.

Unfortunately the Watercycle Study is fatally flawed (see separate analysis of this). The mapped wetlands are not acknowledged in the application which also falsely claims to have observed buffer distances around the effluent disposal area.

No attempt has been made to assess the impact of effluent disposal on the endangered ecological communities at the site and nutrient loading standards used are those for agricultural purposes, ignoring the increased sensitivity of native plants that make up the two endangered ecological communities.

Again Council is left without the ability to comply with these policies and strategies.

Hawkesbury River

• Whether the proposed development incorporates measures to prevent the escape into the waterway of fuels, oils, grease, anti-fouling chemicals and other chemicals.

The boats housed in the boatshed will no doubt be refuelled and washed down and any drainage from this site will eventually drain to the Hawkesbury River. The SREP No. 20 maintains that the definition of a marina includes any adjoining land used for any support facilities. Then the Council has an obligation to determine whether the proposed development incorporates measures to prevent the escape into the waterway of fuels, oils, grease, anti-fouling chemicals and other chemicals. In fact the Impact Assessment Report for Construction of a Boat Shed recommends installation of a high-performance stormwater pollution trap. The location and details of this engineering solution has not been shown in this application. This is clearly in breach of SREP 20.

Land uses in riverine scenic areas

• The need to prevent large scale, high density or visually intrusive development on waterfront land or on slopes and ridgetops which are visible from the river or the surrounding visual catchment. (This requires consideration of the proposed form and siting of buildings, of the colours and building materials used, and of landscaping.)

The site is shown on map 15 of the SREP 20 as being of scenic significance beyond the region (the highest classification of scenic significance - this also includes it as being of scenic significance in the region). It is important to note that this requirement is “to prevent large scale, high density or visually intrusive development”. It may be possible to prevent the development from being visually intrusive but it is not possible to prevent it from being large scale or high density. This is definitely large scale and high density and will be visible from the river and surrounding visual catchment. This policy is not observed by this development. To “prevent” such developments Council has the power to withhold consent and is bound to exercise this power.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above analysis that this development application does not comply with statutory obligations embodied in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20. As consent authority Council is bound to observe these obligations and so should not grant consent for this development.

Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan and Amendment 108

Fails to meet the objectives of zone 7(d)

Zone 7(d) Environmental Protection - Scenic lists among its objectives:

(a) to preserve the existing wooded ridges and escarpments.

(b) to protect hilltops, ridgelines, river valleys and other local features of
scenic significance by controlling the choice and colour of building
materials and the position of building, access roads and landscaping;

Tree clearing has already commenced at the development site and a few trees earmarked for retention were marked with a blue ribbon. The developer indicated to us that trees not so marked would be removed. This would leave a small number of trees here and there which would then be vulnerable to dieback that results from clearing and would no longer be protected by surrounding trees from prevailing winds which are particularly strong on the mountain top. There is a real risk that many of the remaining trees would be lost with no way of replacing them within our lifetimes.

The effect of this clearing is already evident from the surrounding areas and if the proposed clearing takes place the wooded ridgeline will be lost.

Further trees will be removed to make way for the cabins, residences, convention centre, laundry, storage tanks, two swimming pools, treatment works and parking area. Although not marked on the development plan all these facilities will have to have access roads and trees will also have to be removed for these.

The plan submitted with this application is misleading in its depiction of trees on the site and trees to be removed. The plan only shows a total of 183 trees in and around the PDA of which 118 are to be retained while 64 are to be removed. However, in a previous application for a single dwelling on the same site (DA0622/04) in a letter to Council dated 6 August 2004 the owner gave a count of “trees to be removed to open up the canopy as per fire regulations” of 153 trees greater than 100mm in diameter, 113 of which were greater than 150mm in diameter. Presumably these 153 trees and more will be removed “to open up the canopy” in this application for more than 30 buildings. The trees that will be felled for fire control are not indicated on the plan. In fact the Bushfire Management Plan states that all achievable asset protection zones must be maintained as IPA. This means that almost the entire plateau will be cleared to IPA standards and more. There are far more trees on the site than are indicated on the site plan and far more trees will be removed than those indicated.

One of the “proposed” fire trails has already been pushed through and several large trees were removed in the process. The fact that the proposed fire trails go straight through many large trees that they could go around and that there are already trails running near and parallel to the proposed ones suggests that the purpose of these trails is to justify removal of trees so that cabins will have views of the river.

Fails to meet the objectives of zone Environmental Protection - Mixed Agriculture

The application is also not consistent with the Draft Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 1989 (Amendment No. 108). Under this draft plan the development site is to be zoned “Environmental Protection - Mixed Agriculture” which lists among its objectives:

(e) To promote the conservation and enhancement of local native vegetation including the habitat of threatened species, populations and ecological communities by encouraging development to occur in areas already cleared of vegetation;

With habitat of threatened species and ecological communities identified at the site Council should encourage this development “to occur in areas already cleared of vegetation” by refusing the development application.

(i) To ensure that development does not create unreasonable or economic demands, or both, for provision or extension of public amenities or services;

Even if we accept that only 120 trips per day may occur, with half of these using the Lower Portland Ferry, that is 60 extra vehicles per day on the ferry. Since some of these should be expected to be towing boats and with the ferry having a capacity, at most, of 2 or 3 vehicles (1 if towing a boat), this may amount to 30 extra ferry trips per day. At 10 minutes for the round trip this would involve an extra 5 hours of operation per day. This would certainly create an unreasonable demand for this public amenity given that lengthy delays already occur at the ferry crossing in peak demand periods.

The public boat ramp in Skeleton Rock Reserve would also experience increased demand during periods when it is already congested.

Clearing requires consent of Minister under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

The forests that make up the two endangered ecological communities identified at this site are “remnant native vegetation” under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and so any proposed clearing requires consent of the Minister. The Vegetation Management Plan failed to list this act and did not consider the implications of this act.

The NVA 2003 defines remnant vegetation in this way:

9 Meanings of remnant native vegetation and regrowth
(1) For the purposes of this Act, remnant native vegetation means any native vegetation other than regrowth.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, regrowth means any native vegetation that has regrown since the earlier of the following dates:
    (a) 1 January 1983 in the case of land in the Western Division and 1 January 1990 in the case of other land,
    (b) the date specified in a property vegetation plan for the purposes of this definition (in exceptional circumstances being a date based on existing rotational farming practices).
(3) In subsection (2) (b), existing rotational farming practices means rotational farming practices:
    (a) that are reasonable and in accordance with accepted farming practice, and
    (b) that have been in place since the date specified in the plan.
(4) Regrowth does not include any native vegetation that has regrown following unlawful clearing of remnant native vegetation or following clearing of remnant native vegetation caused by bushfire, flood, drought or other natural cause.

The native vegetation is either remnant by virtue of the fact that it already existed in 1990 or by virtue of clause (4) of the definition above.

Any clearing in relation to the previous development application for this site (DA0622/04), other than clearing that is “to the minimum extent necessary for the construction of the dwelling“ also requires consent of the Minister under this act and the Draft Native Vegetation Regulation (2004).

Traffic Risk

Traffic Impact Assessment

Section 2.2.2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment claims that there is “more than 50 m of available sight distance in each direction” and that vehicle speeds are low in this section of road. In fact there is less than 50 m of available sight in each direction and local residents approaching from the north regularly drive this section of road at the speed limit which is 80 km/hr.

view from 50m to the south of 4wd wagon (obscured) exiting the site access road	view from 50m to the north of 4wd wagon (obscured) exiting the site access road

Even if there was 50 m of sight, at these speeds that distance would be covered in 2.25 seconds and total stopping distance far exceeds 50 m even on a sealed road. The claim that “the more than 50m available sight distance in each direction from the access point meets the requirements of the RTA’s Road Design Guide” is in fact false. The relevant distance is the Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) which is given in the Road Design Guide as follows:

The only way 50m could be considered to meet the requirements would be to use the inappropriate Approach Sight Distance (ASD) and assume speeds of no more than 50 km/hr. SISD is clearly the appropriate distance to use in this situation as it is defined by “This [SISD] provides sufficient distance for a driver on an approach with priority to observe a vehicle entering the road, decelerate and stop prior to a point of conflict.” Using these figures, sight distances of 160m are more appropriate and 105m could be considered an absolute minimum. These figures are derived using coefficients of longitudinal friction based on sealed roads, since friction is much lower on unsealed roads, sight distances would be significantly longer than those given. Add to this the fact that the approach from the south is around a bend and serious accidents would appear inevitable.

The Hawkesbury Development Control Plan specifies at least 70m sight distance for access to public roads and notes that even greater distances are required on high speed roads.

This corner is already prone to regular accidents but since the Police consider this a “no fault” road, few records of this accident history are available. Given that the cabin occupiers are expected to be towing boats when they leave the site, the possibility of accidents is increased even further.

Directly opposite the entrance to the development site is the entrance to the Hawkesbury Riverside Retreat which has provision for 72 cabins. During holidays and weekends this section of road has numerous pedestrians and cyclists from the Retreat and from Una Voce which only increase the dangers at this point.

Sections 1.3.2 and 2.2.5 of the Traffic Impact Assessment claims that there is only 350 m of unsealed road from the site access point. In fact there is 500 m of unsealed road. It also claims that only 200 m of this is adjacent to the site and gives the site as Lot 201. In fact the combined sites of Lot 202 and the related development of Lot 201 front to the entire 500 m of unsealed road. So even if 200 m of road was sealed there would still be 300 m of unsealed road (not the 125 m stated) and all of this would be adjacent to the site.

The Traffic Impact Assessment fails to address the impact of dust on the river and residents on the other side of the river.

The Traffic Impact Assessment claims that occupiers of the cabins will stay on site during their stay. This is inconsistent with the provision of boat sheds and the claim that the tourists will benefit the Hawkesbury area. Obviously the occupiers, hemmed in between the cabins and the warning signs on the extensive effluent disposal area, will venture off site to the surrounding area.

The claim that occupiers will use golf buggies to commute from the top of the plateau to the restaurant at the foot of the extremely steep driveway (up to 12.5 degrees or over 22%) provokes scepticism. Death seems the inevitable outcome of any such foolish attempt. Tung, Hong and Chan (2000) in Golf Buggy Related Head Injuries point out the dangers of golf buggies overturning when being driven down a slope and the subsequent head injuries that can result.

Details of above objections - DA0476/05 Change of use to Restaurant

Effluent Disposal

Watercycle Study

The Study contains information that indicates there is inadequate water supply to support the development and that the wastewater disposal area is inadequate and fails to comply with buffer zone restrictions. The Study is based on a variety of figures obviously cobbled together using data from other developments. One is left wondering if the calculations for this development application were ever carried out. The following points indicate these shortcomings:

The bore license furnished with this application is to supply water for Lot 202 only. The license does not allow for supply to Lot 201.

Section 2.4 and 2.9 state that “water is to be applied to the soil only when soil moisture is suitable to receive it” but does not indicate who will determine this, how it will be determined and what will be done with wastewater if storage is full and the soil moisture is not suitable to receive it.

Section 2.9 proposes buffer zones but Figure 3 shows the disposal area is within 6 metres of the property boundary. The disposal area is also only 50 metres from the Hawkesbury River and so there is not a 100 metre buffer to watercourses.

Section 3.2 claims 0.6 metres soil depth is adequate but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) makes it clear that the soil depth recommendations of table 6 are based on ideal soil conditions. No attempt has been made to demonstrate that soil conditions are ideal and since the claimed depth is only marginally adequate, this would seem essential.

Section 3.3 states that “the watertable was not intersected during bore log investigations” but the investigations were carried out during a drought when the watertable drops appreciably. No attempt was made to determine the depth of the high episodic watertable.

Section 3.7 reports the pH range of the soil landscapes of this type but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) requires that pH is measured.

Section 3.8 reports that electrical conductivity was not measured but measurement is required by On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998).

Section 3.10 admits that cation exchange capacity is low to very low. This would indicate that the soils may be unable to hold nutrients which would lead to runoff of nutrients. Measurement is required by On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) unless a detailed survey was undertaken at subdivision stage.

Section 3.11 points out that the two soil types have differing phosphorus sorption capacities but On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) requires measurement of this unless a detailed survey was undertaken at subdivision stage.

Section 5.2.3 claims a 1000kL of storage will be provided for fire protection but plans do not show this.

Section 7 refers to “the significant area available on the plateau” but the disposal area is located at the bottom of the site far removed from the plateau. It also claims that “Figure 6 illustrates the layout of the subsurface irrigation”. In fact Figure 6 shows a graph of irrigation area storage requirements. There is no diagram showing the layout of the subsurface irrigation.

Section 7.3 shows calculations for phosphorus sorption based on 19000 L/day of effluent with phosphorus concentration of 5 mg/L yet table 5 in section 7.2 gives the expected concentration as <15 mg/L and the effluent volume is 1143 L/day. The calculation gives a result of a minimal disposal area of 0.8 ha while the proposal is for a 0.1 ha disposal area.

Section 7.4 shows calculations for nitrogen based on 25 mg/L nitrogen, 45000 L/day of effluent and 4.5 ha application area while table 5 in section 7.2 gives expected nitrogen concentration of <50 mg/L, the effluent volume is 1143 L/day and the application area is 0.1 ha. With the real figures there is a daily input of 568 g/ha rather that the 247 g/ha claimed.
The calculation for soil concentration where
6.66 x 1000 x 1000 x 25 mg/L /(0.3 x 10000 x 1800 kg/m²)
is claimed to yield 25 mg/kg in fact yields 30.8 mg/kg.

Using the figure for concentration given in table 5 of 50 mg/L and using the formula for calculating the minimum area for disposal from On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998):

A = C x Q / L_n
where
A is minimum disposal area (m²)
C is concentration of nitrogen in effluent (mg/L)
Q is daily volume of effluent (L)
L_n is critical loading rate for nitrogen (mg/m²/day)
and assuming the typical 25 mg/m²/d critical loading rate for nitrogen we get

minimum area = 50 x 1143 / 25 = 2285 m²
ie a minimum area of 0.228 ha which is significantly larger than the 0.1 ha allowed for in the application.

Traffic Risk

See traffic risk assessment in previous section for DA0439/05. In the case of the restaurant there is the added risk that patrons may have consumed alchoholic beverages.

Draft Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 1989 Amendment 108

Inconsistent with objectives of zone Environmental Protection - Mixed Agriculture which lists among its objectives:

(i) To ensure that development does not create unreasonable or economic demands, or both, for provision or extension of public amenities or services;

The traffic generating aspects of this development and its effects on local amenities has be covered in a previous section for DA0439/05.

Conclusion

Both proposed developments are totally inappropriate for the sites and should be refused by Council for the reasons outlined above.

In order to comment further on the conclusions of these development applications I need certain information that was missing or misrepresented in the applications. Could I please request the following information to enable me to complete my comments:

DA0439/05

1. Location and extent of effluent disposal area once it no longer extends onto our property.

2. Layout, spacing and depth of subsurface irrigation lines.

3. Nature of soil amelioration proposed and its effect on threatened ecological communities.

4. How this amelioration will achieve a phosphorus sorption rate of 0.36g/kg and whether this figure represents the phosphorus sorption capacity or the achievable sorption rate.

5. Any calculation using a recognised method of determining the minimum area required for phosphorus disposal or any calculation based on a realistic model using verifiable figures and figures consistent with the proposal.

6. The plan for remediation of the effluent disposal area when phosphorus sorption capacity is exceeded and the effect of this remediation on any remaining endangered ecological communities.

7. Amount of gypsum to be applied to soil annually and its effect on threatened ecological communities.

8. Demonstration that apart from soil depth, other soil factors make the soil conditions ideal for effluent disposal.

9. The depth of the high episodic watertable.

10. The measured pH of the soil in the effluent disposal area.

11. The measured electrical conductivity of the soil in the effluent disposal area.

12. The measured cation exchange capacity of the soil in the effluent disposal area or the results of any previous detailed survey.

13. The measured phosphorus sorption capacity of the soil in the effluent disposal area or the results of any previous detailed survey.

14. A map showing any existing buildings within 250m of the sewage management facility or land application area.

15. A map showing the location of any dams, watercourses, drainage lines or pipe work, vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas within 100 metres of the sewage management facility or land application area.

16. How it will be determined when soil moisture is suitable to receive effluent, who will determine this and what will be done with effluent when storage is full and the soil moisture is not suitable to receive it.

17. Any sound information on expected denitrification rates in effluent disposal area.

18. Any calculation using a recognised method of determining the minimum area required for nitrogen disposal or any calculation based on a realistic model using verifiable figures and figures consistent with the proposal.

19. An assessment of the exposure and potential for evaporation in the effluent disposal area and any measures required to achieve suitable exposure and the effect of these measures on endangered ecological communities.

20. An assessment of the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on native vegetation.

21. A justification of the claimed expected concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the treated effluent.

22. How the expected concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus will change over the lifetime of the system.

23. Water analysis to back the claim that the bore water is potable.

24. The expected effect of sodium in the bore water on sodium levels in the treated effluent and the effect of this on soil structure and ability to accept nutrients.

25. The location and depth of diversion trenches upslope from the effluent disposal area and an indication as to where the diverted water will go.

26. How roofwater will be kept separated from surface water.

27. A detailed Soil and Water Management Plan.

28. Considerations of relevant parts of the Recovery Plan for Yellow-bellied Gliders.

29. An indication of the number of trees that will be removed for construction and maintenance of all the achievable APZ to IPA conditions.

30. Details of any plan to ensure a succession of hollow bearing trees for the threatened species on the site.

31. An assessment of the effect of the development on nearby wetlands and migratory birds protected by international treaty.

32. A plan to ensure that the cave with aboriginal paintings is not disturbed.

33. Details of measures to ensure that fuels, oils, grease, anti-fouling chemicals and other chemicals do not escape into the Hawkesbury River from the proposed boatshed.

34. Details of any lawful clearing of native vegetation that has taken place since 1990 that may justify the claim that the forests consist of “regrowth”.

35. Justification of the claim that sight distances at the entrance to the development are adequate, taking into account the unsealed road surface and detailing the vehicle speeds along Greens Road used to calculate the sight distances and why the figure specified in the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan need not be observed.

DA0476/05

1. Layout, spacing and depth of subsurface irrigation lines.

2. Nature of soil amelioration proposed.

3. How this amelioration will achieve a phosphorus sorption rate of 0.36g/kg and whether this figure represents the phosphorus sorption capacity or the achievable sorption rate.

4. Any calculation using a recognised method of determining the minimum area required for phosphorus disposal or any calculation based on a realistic model using verifiable figures and figures consistent with the proposal.

5. The plan for remediation of the effluent disposal area when phosphorus sorption capacity is exceeded.

6. Demonstration that apart from soil depth, other soil factors make the soil conditions ideal for effluent disposal.

7. The depth of the high episodic watertable.

8. The measured pH of the soil in the effluent disposal area.

9. The measured electrical conductivity of the soil in the effluent disposal area.

10. The measured cation exchange capacity of the soil in the effluent disposal area or the results of any previous detailed survey.

11. The measured phosphorus sorption capacity of the soil in the effluent disposal area or the results of any previous detailed survey.

12. A map showing any existing buildings within 250m of the sewage management facility or land application area.

13. A map showing the location of any dams, watercourses, drainage lines or pipe work, vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas within 100 metres of the sewage management facility or land application area.

14. How it will be determined when soil moisture is suitable to receive effluent, who will determine this and what will be done with effluent when storage is full and the soil moisture is not suitable to receive it.

15. Any sound information on expected denitrification rates in effluent disposal area.

16. Any calculation using a recognised method of determining the minimum area required for nitrogen disposal or any calculation based on a realistic model using verifiable figures and figures consistent with the proposal.

17. A justification of the claimed expected concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the treated effluent.

18. How the expected concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus will change over the lifetime of the system.

19. An indication of where the water supply will come from given that the bore licence furnished with the application is not valid for this site.

20. Justification of the claim that sight distances at the entrance to the development are adequate, taking into account the unsealed road surface and detailing the vehicle speeds along Greens Road used to calculate the sight distances and why the figure specified in the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan need not be observed.

Could you please reply to this submission.

I would like to request that I be informed of any changes that are made to the development applications up until it is decided by Council and I would like to request the right to comment on any changes that are made.

I would like to request the right to speak at any Council meeting that decides these development applications.

I would also like to request an appointment to discuss the issues outlined in this submission. I can be contacted on 45755105.


Yours sincerely



Bill Stern

-- end of submission --