My Favorite Web sites
Angelfire Home Pages
Free Web Building Help
Back to Part 2
3.3.7 Environmental Protection: 7 Zonings (clause 9, pp.26-29)
1. The basis upon which the Environmental Protection zonings were formulated in LEP 38, and which continue to underpin the draft LEP, is extremely confused and unsatisfactory. An examination of the existing zonings reveals that some reflect a land use [e.g. 7(c) Water Catchement, 7(g) Living Area, and 7(h) Hacking River Catchment], others are based largely on inherent environmental values [e.g. 7(a) Wetlands, 7(b) Estuarine Wetlands, 7(e) Escarpment, and 7(f) Foreshore]. This system is further complicated by 7(d) Scenic.
2. This approach was unacceptable, and CANS believes that the most productive way of proceeding to a reorganization of these zonings is to abandon the unsatisfactory approaches of the LEP 38 and the new draft, adopting instead a clear hierarchy of levels of protection. This would be complementary to other zoning classifications (e.g. residential, business, industrial) and would provide a rational system if increasing levels of protection for environmentally sensitive land.
3. There can be no doubt that current attempts to collapse the eight individual, environmental protection zonings into three results from partial recognition that zonings based solely on environmental characteristics are unworkable. Largely this is because different areas within each classification will require different zonings. For example, not all escarpment areas, or foreshore areas have the same values or attributes. 4. Many of the problems that have attended the current 7(e) zoning have been attributable to the fact that the zoning has had to nbe loose in order to accommodate the very different levels of development that have been sought. At one end of the spectrum, a large tourist/recreation/motel/convention centre/parking area complex has had to be accommodated within the 7(e) zoning along the escarpment, while at another location, a single dwelling can be refused or prohibited.
5. A single zoning that is so broad that it can permit such a wide range of activities against a backdrop of "environmental protection" must be seriously questioned. Similarly, a zoning that is applied equally to the most pristine areas of escarpment and to severely degraded, ex-mining sites has dubious value. The transfer of the bulk of current 7(e) land to a proposed 7(b) zoning is merely changing the label of this problem.
6. CANS recommends the following solution to these problems. The Environmental Protection zonings should identify a hierarchy of "levels of protection" 7(a) (Environmental Protection - Preservation), 7(b) (Environmental Protection - Community Recreation), and 7(c) (Environmental Protection - Special Uses). Proposed revisions are as follows:
7(a) Environmental Protection (Preservation)
Objectives of the zone: To afford the highest level of protection to areas of foreshore, escarpment, wetlands, floodplain or woodland because of their environmentally unique or ecologically sensitive character. To retain and enhance the quality of catchement areas providing water for human consumption.
Development permitted without consent: Nil
Development only with advertised development consent: Water storage dams, buildings and installations associated with such storage facilities, utility installations, recreation areas, mines and ancillary activities.
Prohibited: Any purpose other than a purpose for which development may be carried out with or without development consent.
7(b) Environmental Protection (Community Recreation)
Objectives of the zone: To permit and promote controlled community access to and passive recreational use of land withe significant environmental attributes. To permit the development of related educational, camping and visitor facilities. To protect sites of significant geological, biological and visual importance. To protect general catchment areas not related to stored waters (e.g. Hacking River).
Development permitted without consent: Nil
Development only with advertised development consent: Recreation areas, camping areas, educational facilities, utility services, visitor facilities, roads.
Prohibited: Any purpose other than a purpose for which development may be carried out with or without development consent.
7(c) Environmental Protection (Special Uses)
Objectives of the zone: To provide opportunities for recreational and tourist activities which are compatible with sensitive environmental area. To allow development which carries significant public benefit providing there is no degradation of ecological, aesthetic or scenic qualities.
Development permitted without consent: Nil Development only with advertised development consent: Recreation areas, camping facilities, hotels, restaurants, horticulture, education facilities, tourist facilities, visitor facilities, car parking, mines, utility installations.
Prohibited: Any purpose other than a purpose for which development may be carried out with or without development consent.
7. If areas are to be treated seriously as environmental protection (7(a) or
7(b), above), especially as maintaining land stability and minimizing downstream flooding are factors contributing to the objectives of the zoning, activities such as agriculture and buildings used in conjunction with agriculture must be specifically excluded. In areas which have been devoted to agricultural activities in the past, an objective should be the revegetation of already disturbed land with native tree cover, especially adjacent to water courses.
8. In view of the need to place more escarpment land into public ownership, to give it the level of protection afforded by the State Recreation Area, CANS proposes that Council identifies, with an appropriate zoning, land which should be incorporated in State Recreation Area but is currently in private ownership. Such land would thereby be protected from further degradation or development until funds can be mobilized to purchase the land.
3.3.8 Environmental Protection - Living Area
1. CANS argues that this zoning is unacceptable and should be dropped altogether from the LEP. This 7(g) zoning has proved to be a failure since its inception and there is little evidence or reason to suggest that it would operate any more effectively under the proposed title of 7(c).
There are two reasons for the failure of the 7(g) zoning. Primarily, it has sought to address two often incompatible objectives, namely environmental protection and residential development. In as much as it has been used as a zoning/land use device, it has failed to achieve any effective control or restraint over the environmentally sensitive land to which it has been applied. Many have interpreted it as a thinly veiled technique for converting or extending escarpment and foreshore land to a residential use.
Secondly, the 7(g) zoning has failed in its envisaged role as a development control device. This has been largely due to the absence of clear guidelines and/or standards that apply to what has become little more than a glorified residential zoning. The recently approved cliff top developments in Scarborough, the three-storey developments at Coledale and the subdivisions at Thirroul are all indicative of the failure of 7(g) to achieve any measure of control in relation to building height, scale, placement or design.
2. It is the strongly held view of CANS that the 7(g) zoning (7(c) as proposed) be abandoned. CANS proposes the following strategy for the successful, long-term resolution of zoning the sensitive escarpment and foreshore lands:
3. Firstly, a programme of identification must be commenced, which, in consulation with the community, will determine two ways of treating land currently zoned 7(g). Firstly, there are parcels of land that have been previously developed or degraded to such an extent that to apply an "Environmental Protection" zoning makes a mockery of the zoning. Where there is sufficient information available to Council to determine that, in the long term, it would be impractical to retreive the situation, Council should adopt an "up-front" residential zoning[CANS proposes Zone 2(d) (Residential - Controlled Development Zone) see below], accompanied by appropriate development controls which would address the specific constraints of the sites.
4. Secondly, there are large parcels of land currently zoned 7(g), especially at the escarpment/urban fringe, which are as yet undeveloped and about which there is too little information to apply a zoning with confidence. The effect of even well-controlled development on the stability, flooding and erosion on existing residences downslope is often not known. Equally, there are pockets of foreshore land that have sustained only minor incursions of residential development. CANS proposes that, in the long term, these lands which are identified as having been only minimally affected by development or other degradation should revert to public ownership.
5. CANS proposes that, for the great majority of land currently zoned 7(g) - proposed 7(c), and especially those parcels so zoned but as yet undeveloped, the zoning be deferred. Deferral should be used as an opportunity for the processes of identification (mentioned above) to take place. These processes will include a series of local environmental studies and community consultations to determine the best long-term zonings. If land owners desire to develop such deferred lands during this process, the minimum requirement for evaluation (including public display) must be a local environmental study, commissioned by Council but paid for by the applicant.
6. Following local environmental studies and community consultations, these deferred lands will be zoned either for environmental protection (7(a), (b) or (c), as appropriate) or a stongly controlled residential zoning (2(d), see below).
7. CANS proposed a new residential zoning to accommodate land currently zoned 7(g) but which is accepted as being more properly in a residential zoning:
2(d) Residential (Controlled Development) Zone
(a) to cater for limited, very low density residential and village development in selected areas possessing special environmental qualities or which may be affected by environmental hazards;
It is feasible that a zoning such as this could include Agriculture as a development with consent, especially if the area so zoned is adjacent to a specified Rural zoning. However, agriculture is seen as a prohibited development within any of the "Environmental Protection" zones.
3.3.9 Developments always requiring development consent (clause 10, p.31)
1. This clause should include: "alteration to or obstruction of natural watercourses by means of fill or excavation."
2. Also: "filling of land with coal wash or mine waste, exceeding some threshold volume."
3. (m) "clearing" and "partial clearing" needs to be defined.
3.3.10 Advertised development consent (clause 11, p.33)
1. The new category "advertised development consent" is not properly defined. Its implications are not clear and have not been explained to the community.
2. This third tier of development appears to be replacing "spot rezonings" in such a way as to avoid the current delays of processing by the Department of Planning. CANS believes that there are many instances in which proposed development should be advertised but not in the "fast-track" way indicated by "advertised development consent". Under no circumstances should advertised development consent be applied to proposals for environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. 7 zonings) or areas that are for public use (e.g. 6 zonings).
3. The implications of this new development category for "third party rights of appeal" after failed objections to proposed developments must be made clear. The process of involvement of residents and other parties, who are not directly affected by a proposed development but who have a real contribution, is especially important in the northern suburbs.
3.3.11 Subdivision of land (clause 13, p.34)
1. 13(3) is incomprehensible and needs to be reworded. It is presumed that the intention here is to provide allotments for non-dwelling houses.
3.3.12 Items of Environmental Heritage (clause 33, p.44 and Schedule 2 p.56)
1. CANS strongly supports Council's dedication to the preservation of items of natural heritage and historic significance. Community suggestions should be solicited by Council and attention is drawn to the suggestions brought forward to CANS during our community consultations (see Appendix 2).
3.4 The strengths of the supporting documents In contrast to many of the concerns held about zonings, outlined above, CANS believes that the Development Control Plan No. 9: Residential Standards is carefully prepared and contains many appropriate controls. This situation implies that the application of standards has not received sufficient attention in the past. The following comments highlight those portions of the Development Control Plan which have particular relevance to northern suburbs areas.
3.4.1 Densities (p.6)
See CANS proposal for 2(d) residential zoning: 3.3.8 - 2, above.
3.4.2 Set Backs (p.7, pp.37-40)
CANS supports strongly the need to control the style of residential flat developments, both to protect adjacent residents from being overlooked and to discourage the box-like, walk-up developments of the past. A 1:1 side setback is seen to be the most effective way of encouraging imaginative and sensitive developers. It is argued that both the current real estate market and the profit margins of good developers will easily tolerate this ratio.
3.4.3 Submissions (p.10-11)
1. CANS supports the need for an assessment of environmental quality to accompany every development application, and agrees with the list of items to be addressed by an applicant. In the northern suburbs, at least, storage and re-use of topsoil and prevention of erosion have frequently been neglected by developers (see Photograph). Clearly this development control must be more thoroughly applied.
2. With respect to areas known to be susceptible to landslip (p.11; also p.25 "Submissions"), CANS argues that a geotechnical report for the site alone is inadequate. Tree clearing and other activities during development and altered drainage after development may make adjacent and down-stream land more susceptible to slip. CANS has argued the need for a special zoning for such land (see Appendix 5, below; and section 3.2 - 6, above).
3.4.4 Subdivision - soil and water (p.13)
CANS supports the approach of the Lake Illawarra Catchment Committee regarding the need for a soil and water management plan for new subdivisions. However, this need is not confined to the Lake Illawarra catchment. The impact of clearing for subdivisions is potentially severe in the northern suburbs, given the steep terrain and the erodible creeklines. A proposed subdivision in this area should also contain a water management plan, which includes a mechanism for keeping stormwater runoff out of local watercourses.
3.4.5 Definitions (p.28)
The definitions here should also include an acceptable definition of "cabin", because such a term occurs in the draft LEP in relation to camping grounds and other temporary tourist residences. Several cabin developments have been proposed for the Helensburgh and other areas, and this Control Plan should be extended to cover such proposals.
3.4.6 Building heights (p.33)
1. CANS agrees with the statements in the Development Control Plan No. 9 regarding the importance of controlling building heights: "... if they are placed immediately adjacent to features like rivers, bays lakes or parks, they can detract from use and enjoyment of these and obstruct views." It is appropriate to list two additional, specific locations common in the northern Illawarra to which these comments pertain: namely, coastal headlands, and escarpment rim.
2. In relation to coastal residential developments, CANS proposes that the principles illustrated on p.36 relating to graduating the heights of building according to topography should apply specifically. Thus the buildings immediately adjacent to the coastal strip should have a 1-storey height limit (3.5 m ??), even in high density areas (Zone 2(c)). Increasing height may be permitted, according to the topography, with increasing distance from the coast.
3.4.7 Trees (pp.58-65)
1. The amount and detail of planning of recommendations regarding retention of existing trees and landscaping after development is most impressive in the Residential Standards document. Council clearly has available to it a great deal of local information, expertise and appropriate policy. This information should be much more widely disseminated to developers and the community in general - perhaps with the next rates notice!
2. The Council's "Tree Plan", described on p.60, should be made available for public information and comment as soon as possible.
3. Particular attention should be given to the statements regarding the control of tree clearing within development area (p.60). As there is apparently a "Landscape Manual" which includes information on how to protect trees, no developer should have an excuse for unnecessary damage during site clearance. This should be policed stringently by Council.
3.4.8 New Subdivisions (pp. 66-76)
1. The principles stated here are fully supported by CANS . Any new subdivision should "...make the most of the natural features of the site", "...allow dwellings to be properly related to their environment", and "...exclude through traffic and promote pedestrian priority." The problem as indicated by the style of current and past development is how to promote these principles.
2. In relation to stormwater runoff (p.74), CANS supports Council's desire to achieve a more efficient and "ecologically viable" drainage system, because this is of particular concern in the northern suburbs. Thus retention of natural vegetation wherever possible is necessary, and Council's planners should exercise tight control over precisely how much clearing is to be permitted.
3. However, the suggestion that natural watercourses in their natural state should be used for stormwater is unacceptable in the steep, northern suburbs. Replacement of natural vegetation by residential buildings and associated roads increases runoff, especially during the peak of heavy rains. Thus diversion of stormwater into creeks will produce heavier peak flows downstream than ever experienced before development. Since downstream development has usually preceded new subdivisions, increased erosion and flooding is inevitable. Council could be seen to be liable for erosion or flooding damage downstream once it has been informed of the potential danger here. The solutions are either to limit further developments in the urban fringe of the escarpment or to ensure that stormwater is not directed into existing watercourses.
3.4.9 Soil and Water Management (p.77)
1. As stated in the Residential Standards document (p.77), erosion and weed infestation follow urban development. Topsoil is essential for revegetation and landscaping of sites after clearing and building, yet even today, most new developments fail to adopt the techniques needed to stop topsoil loss. It is during the development phase that topsoil is most susceptible and material washed down creeks at this time clogs stormwater drains downstream and causes local flooding.
2. Although the Total Catchment Management committee for Lake Illawarra has apparently recognized this problem, it has been demonstrably ignored by Council in the northern suburbs (see photographs). Since the Residential Standards contains such clear guidelines, it is to be assumed that policing of this policy is at fault. Council must develop a mechanism for policing the standards set for (i) tree preservation; (ii) prevention of excessive water runoff during development; and (iii) disposal of stromwater away from escarpment creeks.
Authorised - Kerrie Christian
Note - Angelfire has no responsibility for the content of this web page
Return to Kerrie's Main ACT Web Page
Thank you for visiting my page at Angelfire. Please come back and visit again!