Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategycouncil.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/development... · the...

Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy 1 June 2007 Prepared for: Wollongong City Council Report by: HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited ABN: 34 060 204 702 Level 5, 828 Pacific Highway Gordon NSW 2072 PO Box 726 Pymble NSW 2073 Ph: +61 2 8484 8999 Fax: +61 2 8484 8989 HLA Ref: S6011612_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc

Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy

S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc

DISTRIBUTION Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy 1 June 2007 Copies Recipient Copies Recipient 3 Ms Lisa Miller

Project Manager Wollongong Council 41 Burrelli Street Wollongong 2500

This document was prepared for the sole use of Wollongong City Council and the regulatory agencies that are directly involved in this project, the only intended beneficiaries of our work. No other party should rely on the information contained herein without the prior written consent of HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited and Wollongong City Council. By HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited ABN: 34 060 204 702 Level 5, 828 Pacific Highway Gordon NSW 2072 PO Box 726 Pymble NSW 2073 ____________________________________ Catherine Brady Principal Environmental Planner

Technical Peer Reviewer: Date:

Peter Wright Principal Environmental Scientist


S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc i

CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS.............................................................................................................. IV 1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Commission of Inquiry .................................................................................... 1 1.3 Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan ........................................ 2

1.3.1 Land Classification .......................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Areas of Special Interest ................................................................. 4

1.4 Land Use Review Strategy............................................................................. 4 1.5 Parallel Studies............................................................................................... 6 1.6 Existing Planning Framework ......................................................................... 6 1.7 How to Use this Document ............................................................................. 6

2 OVERALL APPROACH ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Sustainable Environment................................................................................ 7 2.2 Spatial Analysis .............................................................................................. 7

3 APPROACH TO LAND USE REVIEW.......................................................................... 9 3.1 Overview......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Land Use Review ......................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Approach....................................................................................... 11 3.3 Precincts ....................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Precinct Definition ......................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Precincts........................................................................................ 14 3.3.3 Precinct 1: Marshall Mount............................................................ 17 3.3.4 Precinct 2: West Dapto Bowl......................................................... 19 3.3.5 Precinct 3: The Heights................................................................. 23 3.3.6 Precinct 4: Mt Kembla ................................................................... 26 3.3.7 Precinct 5: Mt Keira....................................................................... 28 3.3.8 Precinct 6: Balgownie Valley......................................................... 31 3.3.9 Precinct 7: Coastal Ridges............................................................ 32 3.3.10 Precinct 8: Cliff Coast.................................................................... 35 3.3.11 Precinct 9: Stanwell....................................................................... 37 3.3.12 Precinct 10: Maddens Plains......................................................... 39 3.3.13 Attribute Values............................................................................. 40

4 PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................ 42 4.1 Outline .......................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Cultural Landscape....................................................................................... 42

4.2.1 Principle......................................................................................... 42 4.2.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 42

4.3 Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 43 4.3.1 Principle......................................................................................... 43 4.3.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 43

4.4 Built Environment ......................................................................................... 43


S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc ii

4.4.1 Principles....................................................................................... 43 4.4.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 44

4.5 Landscape .................................................................................................... 44 4.5.1 Principles....................................................................................... 44 4.5.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 44

4.6 Rural Landscape .......................................................................................... 44 4.6.1 Principles....................................................................................... 44 4.6.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 45

4.7 Water Resource............................................................................................ 45 4.7.1 Principles....................................................................................... 45 4.7.2 Issues ............................................................................................ 45

5 STATUTORY CONTEXT............................................................................................. 46 5.1 Review of Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007 ................................................ 46 5.2 Land Use Zones ........................................................................................... 46

5.2.1 Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007.................................................. 46 5.2.2 West Dapto LEP 2006................................................................... 47 5.2.3 Commentary.................................................................................. 48

5.3 Landscape Support for Core/ Escarpment Interface.................................... 49 5.3.1 Biophysical Support for Core - Areas of Special Interest.............. 50

6 REVIEW OF DRAFT WOLLONGONG DRAFT WLEP 2007 PLANNING INSTRUMENT.............................................................................................................. 52 6.1 LEP Text ....................................................................................................... 52 6.2 Part 1 - Preliminary....................................................................................... 52 6.3 Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development............................................. 52

6.3.1 Land Use Zones............................................................................ 52 6.3.2 Zone Objectives ............................................................................ 53 6.3.3 Additional Permitted/ Prohibited Uses .......................................... 54 6.3.4 Subdivision – Consent Requirements........................................... 54

6.4 Part 3 Exempt and Complying Development ............................................... 55 6.4.1 Exempt Development.................................................................... 55 6.4.2 Complying Development ............................................................... 55

6.5 Part 4 Principal Development Standards ..................................................... 56 6.5.1 Lot Size ......................................................................................... 56

6.6 Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions................................................................... 56 6.6.1 Relevant Provisions ...................................................................... 56

6.7 Recommended Miscellaneous Provisions.................................................... 58 6.7.1 Land Management Agreement (LMA)........................................... 59 6.7.2 Restrictions on Granting Certain Consents................................... 59 6.7.3 Agriculture in Zone RU2 Rural Landscape ................................... 60 6.7.4 Objectives of Land Use Zones...................................................... 61

6.8 Schedule to LEP – Schedule 1B .................................................................. 61 6.9 Dictionary...................................................................................................... 61

7 IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS........................................................................... 63 7.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 63 7.2 Recommended Implementation Strategy ..................................................... 63


S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc iii

8 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FRAMEWORK ............................................................. 66 8.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 66 8.2 Escarpment Modification Threats................................................................. 66 8.3 Characterisation of Land .............................................................................. 68

8.3.1 Environmental Envelope ............................................................... 69 8.4 Proposed Amendments to DCP No 49......................................................... 70

9 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 71

TABLES Table 1: Attribute Values ............................................................................................................. 41 Table 2: Comparison of Zoning................................................................................................... 47

FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area Figure 2: Methodology Figure 3: Precincts Figure 4: Areas of Special Interest Figure 5: Landscape for Core Escarpment Interface Site Analysis - Index (Appendix A)

APPENDICES Appendix A : Review of Land Use Zones Draft WLEP 2007


S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc iv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS APZ Asset Protection Zone

COI Commission of Inquiry

DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change

DOE Development Opportunity Envelope

DoP Department of Planning

ECC Endangered Ecological Community

FTP Fair Trading Policy

GIS Geographical Information System

IESMP Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan

IEWP Illawarra Escarpment Working Party

IREP Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan

LEP Local Environmental Plan

DRAFT WLEP 2007 Draft Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007

LGA Local Government Area

PCT Project Coordination Team

RRP Rural Residential Policy

VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

WCC Wollongong City Council

WDLEP Draft Wollongong LEP 2006 – West Dapto


S60116_FinalLURRpt_01Jun07.doc 1

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction It is generally accepted that the Illawarra Escarpment and its environmental attributes play a significant role in enhancing the setting of Wollongong and the amenity enjoyed by residents in the area. While the Escarpment has significant natural value, it is the scenic and landscape attributes which provide the dominant element when considering the value of the Escarpment. Previously, the visual quality of the Escarpment has been ranked as exceptional or very high. Its visual character is dominated by the dramatic landform which sweeps from high on the plateau to coastal plain. Views of the Escarpment are afforded from all areas of the coastal plain below and from lookouts at its highest point. Passes and road crossings provide views along the escarpment and across the coastal plain to the ocean edge. The high regions of the Escarpment afford extensive views over Wollongong, it’s beaches and the coast in general, and as a consequence are under pressure from development. These areas often abut National Parks lands and reserves, contain sensitive ecological communities and riparian corridors or are suspected landslip areas and susceptible to bushfire. The often piecemeal manner in which development has occurred on the Escarpment is significant. Incremental growth occurring without reference to cumulative impact has not only implications for the future health of the Escarpment, but also for the receiving environment below.

1.2 Commission of Inquiry The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning announced a ‘Commission of Inquiry into the Long Term Planning and Management of the Escarpment’ in October 1998. The decision was prompted by concerns expressed by the community with regard to the management and planning of the Escarpment, and the overall contribution the Escarpment plays to the physical setting of Wollongong, together with its’ natural and cultural significance’. The Commission of Inquiry (COI) delivered its final report in May 1999. The Commission was critical of, amongst other matters:

• the lack of understanding of the environmental threshold / capacity of the Escarpment and foothills; and

• the lack of comprehensive and integrated information on the conservation and significance of the area.

The Commission was, in particular, critical of the lack of comprehensive constraints mapping to underpin Wollongong City Council’s (WCC) Fair Trading Policy (FTP) and the Rural Residential Policy (RRP), in force at the time. The Commissioner felt that rigorous constraints mapping should have been used to inform these policies, rather than relying on individual landowners to provide analysis on a site by site basis. In the intervening period, a substantial volume of work has been undertaken by Council, various State agencies and others, to close this information gap and provide the necessary data to inform a coordinated approach to planning in the Escarpment area.



1.3 Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan The Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan (IESMP) was prepared in 2005 to address the long term planning and sustainable management of the escarpment. Prepared by WCC with input from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (now Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC)), Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (now Department of Planning (DoP)), the Illawarra Escarpment Community Reference Group, local Aboriginal representatives, CSIRO, University of Wollongong and a number of heritage consultants, the primary objective of the plan was to:

• identify important environmentally significant areas of the escarpment and foothills;

• assess the existing land use zones within the escarpment and identify changes to the zoning regime to align conservation requirements and land use zones;

• provide a framework for consistency in applying WCC land use planning policies to current and future public and private land use;

• identify voluntary land management options for all land tenures consistent with the conservation values;

• outline potential implementation strategies to facilitate partnerships between public and private land holdings with respect to voluntary management options; and

• discuss possible conservation incentives to encourage conservation outcomes.

The IESMP defined a study area boundary which is a composite of a number of features as follows.

In the north the boundary is the line used by the Illawarra Escarpment Working Party (IEWP). The western boundary adopted the escarpment watershed line determined by DEC, with a 150 m buffer. The southern study area boundary is the Local Government Area (LGA) boundary. To the east, the boundary is a combination of the IEWP line and the 50 m RL (contiguous land at 50 m elevation or higher above sea level but excluding land that is zoned residential (2 zoning), commercial (3 zoning) or industrial (4a and 4b zoning). Whichever line is the furthest east was adopted.

It is noted that the use of the 50 m RL was determined following deliberations of a Project Coordination Team (government agencies and WCC) (PCT), which looked for a biophysical justification for establishing a study area boundary as follows:

The 50 m RL provided an approximate distinction between ‘escarpment influenced’ and ‘coastal influenced’ vegetation communities. Limitations of establishing lines on a map for landscape management are acknowledged, as are views that from a landscape perspective, escarpment processes and coastal processes are inextricably linked. In view of the above, and the fact that there was no strongly argued alternative, and given that there are only small areas of land that fall between the IEWP line and the 50 m RL, it was felt this eastern boundary was justifiable (IESMP).

The IESMP embraced the finding of the COI that ‘the provision of limited residential development must be considered within the context of active conservation and as a secondary



outcome’. It assessed the current condition of the Illawarra Escarpment, identified the threatening processes that degrade this asset and outlined proposed planning, management and implementation strategies to sustainably plan and manage the Escarpment into the future.

1.3.1 Land Classification The IESMP identified four clear attribute classifications for the area, namely:

• Core

• Biophysical Support for Core

• Landscape Support for Core

• Escarpment Interface and recommended that zoning and permissible uses defined for the area by Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 (LEP 1990) be revised. It is noted that:

Core escarpment includes areas of the escarpment and foothills which contain the highest environmental values, including areas of conservation significance that include riparian corridors and large patches of intact endemic vegetation that support ecological corridors and high levels of species richness and diversity. Biophysical Support lands are those areas in the escarpment and the foothills that remain on the whole well vegetated and contain natural areas and cultural heritage areas of conservation significance but have greater levels of disturbance most commonly from weeds. These areas are still considered to have high conservation and protection value.

Landscape Support areas are those areas of land that form a link between core and support areas of the escarpment and foothills within the coastal plain. These areas have some scientific significance, as it relates to corridors and vegetative links, but are fragmented and do not always form contiguous links to core and support land. The Escarpment Interface areas provide the gradation between the naturally vegetated areas and foothills with the rural and urban or proposed urban areas of the coastal plain. (IESMP)

The IESMP recognised that there is some land within the Landscape Support for Core area which may provide development opportunities including environmentally appropriate residential development, agricultural pursuits, ecotourism and recreation, but only as a secondary consideration as articulated by the COI, and with no clearing of vegetation. These areas generally lie at high elevations, in locations between areas of high conservation value, in visually prominent areas and in some areas such as the North Marshall Mount and Calderwood areas, where land is totally surrounded by high conservation lands. These lands are addressed in Section 5.3 of this report. Furthermore the IESMP acknowledged that there are some areas in the Biophysical Support for Core area which could with appropriate planning controls support some level of residential development to drive a better conservation outcome of the land. Special consideration needs to be given to the escarpment attributes that prevail over these sites and the implications of these attributes including presence of threatened species, regionally significant vegetation communities, habitat for threatened fauna, proximity to watercourses amongst others. These



lands are shown in Figure 4.1 of the IESMP and referred to in this report as the Areas of Special Interest (see Section 1.3.2 and 5.4). The Escarpment Interface areas given their proximity to existing urban areas also require careful attention. The IESMP considered that these areas provided an important buffer to the integrity of lands of higher ecological value and therefore needed to be planned to ensure that the buffer status is maintained and enhanced, while at the same time provide for, where appropriate, residential development.

1.3.2 Areas of Special Interest The Biophysical Support for Core areas identified in Figure 4.1 of the IESMP are located in the southern extent of the Wollongong LGA. Of the seven sites identified for further consideration, four are located in the sensitive Marshall Mount area off North Marshall Mount Road, two are former mine sites at Avondale and Huntley and land at Dombarton sits at high elevation to the north east of Wongawilli. The IESMP considered that limited development may be possible on these lands having regard to the environmental sensitivity of the receiving environment and provided there were mechanisms in place to drive rehabilitation and restoration of the land and its surrounds. The Areas of Special Interest are addressed separately in the Section 5.4 of this report.

1.4 Land Use Review Strategy The COI and IESMP identified the need to carry out a Land Use Review Strategy (Masterplanning for developable land) to replace the RRP and FTP. It envisaged that the Land Use Review Strategy would provide clear development and conservation parameters for the proposed environmental conservation and management zones which would apply to the Escarpment area following a comprehensive review of LEP 1990. HLA was commissioned by WCC in May 2006 to undertake the Land Use Review Strategy. Essentially the Strategy provides a framework to guide any future development or redevelopment within the Escarpment Area (Study Area) as defined by the IESMP and shown in Figure 1. It identifies potential development areas where environmentally appropriate residential development may occur, as well as areas where the existing planning controls will need to be strengthened, to allow the protection or enhancement of conservation values. The Strategy has addressed national, regional and local planning guidance and provided input to the review of detailed land use policies currently being undertaken by WCC as discussed in 1.6 below. The Strategy has a geographical or spatial focus underpinned by the principles set out in the IESMP namely:

• a gradation and increasing lot size and reduced density from high density urban development to no development from east to west must apply;

• riparian corridor buffers are applied consistent with the recommendations contained within the Riparian Corridor Management Study (WCC 2004);

• only use land for development that is not suitable for agriculture;

• no clearing of native vegetation for the location of a dwelling site, provision of services/infrastructure or for the implementation of bushfire controls;

1

FIGURE

Escarpment Study AreaWollongong City CouncilIllawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy

PROJECT-FILE NAME DATE DRAWN APPROVEDS30116 31 May 2007 TO

0 4.5kmHLA

G:\J

obs\

S3\

S30

100_

S30

199\

S30

116\

S30

116

F1.

cdr

3105

2007

ww

w.h

la-e

nviro

.com

.au

Study area

Source: Wollongong City Council



• Asset Protection Zones (APZ) are contained within already cleared areas and that no native vegetation be removed for development of an APZ;

• no overt increase in the density of development so as to retain rural atmosphere (for instance dwellings need to be hidden or clustered);

• development needs to contribute to the improved management of adjoining high conservation value lands through for example, ecological restoration where possible;

• environmental controls, such as effluent management, can be incorporated and contained within the site;

• there are sufficient water resources for domestic and fire fighting purposes;

• provision of vegetated buffers to adjoining high conservation value land;

• identification of appropriate sites, to be managed under an agreed environmental management plan; and

• identification of appropriate sites to be managed under a voluntary conservation agreement. (IESMP).

1.5 Parallel Studies The extensive volume of data commissioned by WCC, DoP and DECC since the COI informed the Strategy. WCC also commissioned dsb Landscape Architects and Mayne – Wilson and Associates Heritage Consultants in mid 2006 to prepare a visual analysis and heritage assessment to inform the strategy. The reports Visual Quality Analysis of Escarpment Scenic Values (dsb Landscape Architects 2006) and Illawarra Escarpment Heritage Assessment ( Mayne – Wilson and Associates 2007) have been referenced throughout preparation of the Strategy. In addition HLA and it’s subconsultants prepared a number of reports to supplement the information available addressing built form, stormwater, water, traffic and geotechnical matters, riparian corridors and bushfire.

1.6 Existing Planning Framework In tandem with the preparation of the Land Use Review Strategy, WCC has been undertaking a comprehensive review of LEP 1990, Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007(DRAFT WDRAFT WLEP 2007), and finalising studies to enable the West Dapto LEP 2006 (WDLEP 2006) to be placed on public exhibition. Draft WLEP 2007applies to the majority of land within the Study Area, and the West Dapto LEP area includes some Escarpment lands above the 50m contour. HLA and it’s subconsultants have used the findings of the Land Use Review Strategy and it’s associated studies to consider the appropriateness of proposed new zonings and associated planning provisions for these areas, and where relevant recommend amendments or matters for further consideration (see Sections 5 and 6).

1.7 How to Use this Document The Land Use Review Strategy consists of this Written Statement outlining the approach taken, principles adopted and recommendations for future planning of the Escarpment Area. It is accompanied by an Explanatory Document which details the Land Use Review Strategy methodology, workshops held, findings from parallel studies, the statutory context and relationships to statutory documents currently under review by Council. A series of six maps in A0 format illustrate the key zoning recommendations and are to be referred to in conjunction with Table A1 in Appendix A to this document.



2 OVERALL APPROACH

2.1 Sustainable Environment The principles of sustainability as defined by the Town and Country Planning Association UK in it’s report Planning for a Sustainable Environment, have underpinned the approach taken by HLA in developing this Land Use Review Strategy. The report states that:

Sustainable development is development that enhances the natural and built environmental in ways that are compatible with:

• The requirement to conserve the stock of natural assets, wherever possible, offsetting any avoidable reduction by a compensating increase so that the total itself is left undiminished.

• The need to avoid damaging the vegetative capacity of the world’s ecosystems.

The lack of attention to the principles of sustainability has resulted in development in a number of areas on the Escarpment which detracts from, and in some instances diminishes, the value of this important environment. While the COI sought to address the appropriateness of development in certain areas, and the IESMP identified areas under threat from development (Core and Biophysical Support for Core areas), there is still a perception in the wider community that there is potential for residential or other development in most areas on the Escarpment, regardless of zoning. The Land Use Review Strategy has sought to redress this, by identifying areas with potential development opportunity and recommending appropriate zoning across the Escarpment area with reference to dwelling entitlements. In relation to the built environment, HLA considers that the development and use of the built environment should respect and be in harmony with the natural environment, and the relationship between the two should be designed to be one of balance and mutual enhancement.

2.2 Spatial Analysis To fully understand what is happening in the area identified for further study, HLA adopted a spatial approach to land use planning. Using the wealth of background information encapsulated in Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS), a holistic review of all land in the study area was carried out. The study team, comprising environmental planners, engineers, urban designers, landscape architects and bushfire specialists, used its combined knowledge to predict potential environmental impacts for a range of likely development options. This knowledge of environmental impacts and ways of conceptualising them, together with environmental management expertise, formed the basis of the strategic environmental assessment. In short, this Strategy has been approached from an environmental planning perspective which focuses on potential impacts, defines limits (environmental envelopes on nominated sites) and provides recommendations on desired outcomes for the Escarpment, such as zoning amendments and augmentation of planning instruments which apply to the land. While it has often been argued that this ‘sieve’ approach to land use suitability is a traditional planning approach, and may not deliver an in-depth analysis of all lands in the area, the considerable spatial extent of the Study Area, meant that this was the only viable approach to understanding what potential there may or may not be for development in the area. Reference



to environmental information derived from studies commissioned as a result of the COI and contained in the GIS, enabled the study team to provide a spatial understanding of what land would likely be severely constrained or unconstrained, by reference to various environmental criteria. These criteria included:

• vegetation;

• fauna habitat;

• areas of conservation significance or endangered ecological communities (ECC);

• landslip risk – high, medium, low;

• contours;

• slope analysis;

• riparian corridors;

• heritage (Indigenous and Non - Indigenous);

• bushfire; and

• flood data. The data used to inform the constraints analysis was derived from a number of sources including Council’s GIS:

• vegetation mapping;

• fauna habitat surrogates;

• area of conservation significance or ECC;

• land use zoning (existing and proposed);

• landslip risk;

• contours;

• slope analysis;

• riparian corridors;

• heritage (Indigenous and Non - Indigenous);

• bushfire (APZ definition);

• cadastre;

• lot size;

• flood data; and

• aerial photos. Interrogation of the GIS data provided the level of information necessary to strategically assess potential development opportunity and the extent to which development may impact on the Escarpment receiving environment. This analysis was supported by reference to the Visual Assessment Study undertaken by dsb, which addressed the visual context within which the proposed development may sit.



3 APPROACH TO LAND USE REVIEW

3.1 Overview Extensive fieldwork, workshops with Statutory Authorities (DoP and DECC), internal workshops within WCC, close examination of the WCC GIS and various sub consultant studies addressing built form, water management, riparian corridor, visual, heritage and bushfire matters, all informed the development of the Strategy. Review of LEP 1990, the Draft WDLEP 2006 and Draft WLEP 2007 illustrated the intricate nature of land use planning in the Escarpment Area. Key threatening processes and the complex ecological and visual structure of the area, all influenced recommendations for amendments to the current planning framework as discussed later (see Sections 6 and 7). The Methodology and approach to development of the Strategy is discussed in the accompanying explanatory document and illustrated in Figure 2.



Figure 2 Approach

VISUAL ANALYSIS

VISUAL ASSESSMENT

Recommended Amendments to Draft WLEP 2007 and Draft WDLEP 2006

Workshop 1 Issues Identification

Familiarisation with AreaSite Visits – Fly Over

Workshop 2 Precinct Definition

PRECINCT DEFINITION

Review of Zonings in Study Area Landscape Support for Core/Escarpment

Interface areas

Workshop 3 Visual Quality Analysis

Land Use Review Review of Development

Standards

Identification of Potential

Development Areas

INPUT FROM IESMP

INTERFACE AREAS MINE SITES

RURAL POCKETS

Definition of Environmental Envelope Carrying Capacity of Land

(Constraints Analysis) Layering of Environmental Values

Prepare Issues Based Controls for Land above

50m on Escarpment

Recommended Amendments to DCP No.

49

Site Specific Controls Areas of Special Interest

Vegetation Key Element

PREPARE LAND USE REVIEW STRATEGY

REVIEW WCC AND AGENCIES

FINAL LAND USE REVIEW STRATEGY

Councillor Briefing Recommended Amendments

Draft WLEP 2006 Draft WLEP 2007

DCP No. 49

Internal Mapping Workshops WCC



3.2 Land Use Review

3.2.1 Approach The approach taken throughout the Land Use Review was to address issues at a strategic level focusing on the conservation of biodiversity while allowing for site sensitive development that responds to individual parts of the Escarpment. It is acknowledged that large areas of the Escarpment by virtue of proximity to lands zoned National Park will be afforded a higher level of conservation. The visual, ecological, geophysical and heritage characteristics of the land have been well documented. HLA has taken this information and determined the degree of planning flexibility needed to enable a range of development types which respond to these attributes. The Team has also addressed the longer term development window, acknowledging there will be changed environmental and other expectations as to the form and extent of development that will be permissible over time. This is particularly relevant in the southern parts of the Study Area within the WD LEP 2006 boundary, earmarked for development as part of Stage 4 of the West Dapto Release area. As discussed earlier, preparation of a Land Use Review Strategy was one of the key recommendations of the IESMP. As a consequence it is fundamental that the Land Use Review Strategy draws on the findings and key outcomes of the IESMP, provides a clear path forward and addresses key issues arising from the IESMP and indeed the COI. This approach was endorsed by DoP at an early workshop in the Strategy preparation process. The IESMP determined there may be some development potential on land classified as Landscape Support for Core, Escarpment Interface and to a limited extent Biophysical Support for Core. In order to understand the issues likely to determine whether development may occur in these areas, HLA investigated the potential to develop lands zoned (1) Non Urban, 4(c) Extractive Industry, 7(b) Environmental Protection Conservation, 7(c) Environmental Protection Residential, 7 (c1) Environmental Protection Rural Residential and 7(d) Environmental Protection Port Hacking River, from south to north. Later HLA widened the investigation to consider all lands zoned 1 Non Urban, 7(b) and 7(c) regardless of landscape classification within the Escarpment. Land which was considered to be visually prominent, encumbered by various environmental constraints or which did not provide a logical fit with adjoining zoning, were selected for more rigorous review. It is noted that while attention was directed to specific sites, review was carried out in a strategic manner covering a broad area to form an understanding of the environmental characteristics of the land. A more detailed analysis would be required should there be any future development in an area. Attention was also paid to the principle of not developing land constrained by the following:

• Core escarpment lands

- as defined in the IESMP.

• Requirement to clear native vegetation

- for buildings, access, ancillary infrastructure services.

• Water quality issues

- potentially isolated from infrastructure services;

- proximity to creeks; and

- limited land area for effluent irrigation (if only option).



• Instability

- suspected landslip areas; and

- recorded areas of landslip (geotechnical series maps).

• Bushfire hazard

- APZ Priority Areas.

• Riparian corridors

- riparian corridors for category 1-3 Creeks and appropriate buffers.

• Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage.

• Buildings and services

- existing infrastructure.

• Ridgelines

- significant from an Indigenous Heritage and visual perspective.

• Visual Amenity

- visual quality analysis.

• Slope. The key principles which informed development of the strategy are discussed in Section 4. Where relevant, reference was made to the ‘Locality and Site Specific Submissions’ section of the COI report to provide an understanding of the Commission’s view on development in specific areas. The Review indicated that there are a number of sites which could facilitate a different form of development (following a potential rezoning) given the environmental characteristics of the land. These sites would require more rigorous environmental analysis should a proposal be submitted to develop the land in the future. The capability and limitations of the Escarpment were examined to determine to what extent it could sustain new development and how future activities must be managed (i.e. permitted, modified) drawing on the extensive environmental, visual and engineering and built form experience of the study team, to achieve the intended outcomes. The analysis provided the necessary input to the development of an appropriate set of management tools discussed later in Section 6 and 7 of this report. Reference was also made to the findings of the ‘Visual Quality Analysis of Escarpment Scenic Values’ (dsb 2006) when examining the capacity of a particular area to absorb development without creating a significant change in visual character or a reduction in scenic quality of the area. It found that:

• siting of development within the Escarpment area needs to be undertaken in such a manner as to achieve a net gain in the scenic and aesthetic values of the Escarpment so that development is not visible from nominated view locations.

• small clearings in the escarpment forest are most capable of accepting development without creating a significant change in visual character. The view of the gap in the clearing is read as a variation in the forest canopy texture and the prominence in the landscape is negligible. As long as the



development area does not extend beyond the top third of the screening foreground forest canopy, there will be negligible adverse impact on the visual character.

• Large clearings in the Escarpment forest are least capable of accepting development without creating a significant change in visual character, as the view of the gap in the forest canopy across the large clearing varies depending on the length of the clearing up the slope. As the length of the clearing up the slope increases the view of the Escarpment clearing exponentially changes.

3.3 Precincts

3.3.1 Precinct Definition Early in the Land Use Review process, HLA and its visual analysis consultant dsb Landscape Architects, carried out extensive site surveys of the land above the 50m contour and all key visual vantage points and flew the length of the Escarpment area. Specifically the team looked at:

• The development pattern and how it fits within the landscape.

• Riparian corridors and other significant topographic elements.

• Areas where environmentally appropriate development could occur without comprising suitability principals and land capability controls in the IESMP.

• Priority areas form the maintenance, enhancements and/or restoration of the landscape character.

HLA and dsb Landscape Architects held internal workshops to more fully understand what were the key factors affecting development within the Study Area. Although there may be significant non-visual constraints determining the nature of development in key areas, criticism of development at the interface and within Core Escarpment areas is often levelled by the community, where development is visually prominent or out of character with it’s surrounds. HLA and dsb were tasked with determining which factors led to this often emotive response. It became clear that vegetation was the key variable and that in many instances it was not the vegetation in the Core area which was significant but that in the foreground. This clearly validates Council’s approach of ‘no clearing of native vegetation’ but draws attention to vegetation outside the Study Area at lower elevations and the mosaic of vegetation on valley floors (West Dapto), as providing a significant contribution to the visual screening of development. The Study Team also noted that the Escarpment could not be viewed or assessed as a whole but rather as a discrete number of precincts all with a distinct character. Analysis of aerial photos and site inspections showed rural and urban landscape character, landform, landuse, distinctive changes in the landscape and urban form, were the determining factors when identifying Precincts. The landscape description and inventory documented general landscape description, boundaries and edges, landform, vegetation, water bodies and drainage systems, focal attractions and existing landuses. These factors were examined as if they can or will be seen, by observers from selected viewpoints, in terms of form, line, colour and texture, related to scale and spatial dominance.



From south to north ten precincts were determined based on characteristics that separate each precinct from adjacent precincts and having regard to local conditions as a component of the whole Escarpment. The Precincts illustrated in Figure 3 include,

• Marshall Mount

• West Dapto Bowl

• The Heights

• Mt Kembla

• Mt Keira

• Balgownie Valley

• Coastal Ridges

• Cliff Coast

• Stanwell, and

• Maddens Plains.

3.3.2 Precincts Each of the ten precincts within the Study area has its own distinct characteristics and has clear environmental variables which demarcate the precinct. The descriptions of the precincts below are an abridged version of those in the Visual Quality Analysis of Escarpment Scenic Values (dsb 2006) in Appendix B of the Explanatory Document. Each precinct is discussed in terms of its:

• Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) which is an estimation of the capacity of a particular area to absorb development without creating a significant change in visual character or a reduction in the scenic quality of an area. The capacity to visually absorb development is primarily dependant on landform, vegetation and existing development; and

• Development Opportunity Envelope (DOE) which identifies the limits of development form that may enable the satisfaction of the objective - net gain in the scenic and aesthetic values objective.

As discussed earlier in Section 3.2.1, small clearings in the escarpment forest are most capable of accepting development as the view of the gap in the clearing when read as a variation in the forest canopy texture and where the prominence of the clearing in the landscape is negligible. These areas are considered to have high DOE potential. On the other hand, large clearings in the Escarpment forest can less readily absorb development without creating a significant change in visual character and have low or no DOE potential. The capacity of a precinct to absorb development and information on the visibility of an area, should be incorporated into Precinct Character Statements, which could form an Appendix to Development Control Plan No. 49 Residential Development (DCP No. 49) (WWC 2006). These Statements would provide all potential developers with the information on:

• The key factors which determine the character of an area; and



• Key viewpoints which offer views of development within the precinct (either of a local or regional nature).

Inclusion of Precinct Character Statements within the DCP will provide a guide to potential developers when addressing visual quality issues as part of the overall environmental assessment to accompany any DA, for development in the Study Area (see Section 8.4).

3

FIGURE

PrecinctsWollongong City CouncilIllawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy


As Shown

HLA

G:\J

obs\

S3\

S30

100_

S30

199\

S30

116\

S30

116

F3.

cdr

3105

2007

ww

w.h

la-e

nviro

.com

.au




A brief description of each precinct is provided below.

3.3.3 Precinct 1: Marshall Mount The Marshall Mount precinct includes the western return of the Escarpment towards the WCC LGA Boundary near Macquarie Pass. The landscape includes steep sided valleys below the Escarpment with a rural/rural residential patchwork mosaic of cleared valley floors and remnant vegetation on side slopes and ridgelines. The precinct valleys are Marshall Mount/Calderwood, North Marshall Mount and Avondale. Elevated ridges, running eastwards from the Escarpment, dominate the landform. The precinct edge is the end of the ridges. The “Cedars” rural residential development is located on the end of the Avondale ridgeline overlooking the adjacent precinct to the north- the West Dapto Bowl. The elevated clearings on the 220m contour are highly visible from a distance. The steep slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE within these cleared areas. North Marshall Mount valley is a contained landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential. Ridgelines adjacent to Huntley Colliery provide landform screening and a high VAC and DOE potential. Bong Bong pass mine stockpile site provides the opportunity for siting development at the rear of landform benches and installation of foreground screening forest on bench fronts. This is a highly visible site capable of modification for a high VAC and DOE potential.

Calderwood Precinct looking north from Albion Park.



Aerial view looking west with Marshall Mount, North Marshall Mount Valley, Avondale ridgeline and Huntley Colliery coal storage.

Aerial view looking west up Calderwood valley.

Aerial view looking north along east facing escarpment.

Aerial view north over Marshall Mount, North Marshall Mount valley and Avondale ridgeline.



Aerial view south across Bong Bong Pass and Avondale ridgeline to Albion Park.

View west from F6 Freeway at Penrose to “Cedars” on end of Avondale ridgeline. Remnant vegetation of valley foreground and ridgetops extends illusion of escarpment vegetation to valley floor. Grass clearing on 220m contour evident in escarpment.

Isolated residence within a 220m contour clearing above Calderwood valley

3.3.4 Precinct 2: West Dapto Bowl This precinct extends from the “Cedars” rural residential development on the Avondale ridgeline to the south, to the Farmborough Heights ridgeline above Kembla Grange to the north. The landscape contains the Escarpment and footslopes down to the low flat valley floor of the West Dapto future urban areas. The landscape form is a concave shape of Escarpment falling to valley floor over a distance of 1-1.5km and a valley floor 3-4km wide. The Escarpment visual



character is one of existing vegetation interrupted with cleared vegetation/development mosaics. The interruptions in the Escarpment include, the revegetated mine dump adjacent to the end of Bong Bong Road, isolated individual rural residential development on ridgetops and prominent locations, Wongawilli Mine, and Dombarton area rural residential areas adjacent to Smiths Lane/ Sheaffes Road, Paynes Road and Redalls Road. Bong Bong Pass to Wongawilli Clearings extending up to the escarpment are highly visible from a distance. The steep slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE. Wongawilli Clearings within the escarpment associated with colliery development are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential. Wongawilli through Dombarton to Redalls Road Clearings within the escarpment associated with rural residential development have long slope lengths on less steep slopes and are highly visible from a distance. The slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE. Clearings within the escarpment associated with rural residential development with foreground screening forest are less highly visible from a distance. Potential exists following revegetation works for a high VAC and DOE potential. Redalls Road to Farmborough Heights Clearings within the landscape associated with urban infrastructure development are well screened by siting behind landform or landscape screening. Clearings above the urban infrastructure development have long slope lengths on less steep slopes and are highly visible from a distance. The slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE.

West Dapto Bowl precinct looking north from Albion Park



Bong Bong Pass to Wongawilli.

Wongawilli to Dombarton.



Dombarton to Precinct edge with The Heights.

Mt Kembla to Horsley across Dombarton and Mullet Creek valley.

View south along escarpment and Wongawilli.

View west to escarpment from F6 Freeway at Penrose.



View west to escarpment from Bong Bong Road.

View of rural residential development north of Wongawilli.

View across Kembla Grange from F6 Freeway to Mt Kembla and Farmborough Heights ridgeline.

View across valley and Horsley to Dapto and Lake Illawarra.

3.3.5 Precinct 3: The Heights The Heights precinct includes the contained concave landform between the Mt Kembla footslopes and Mt Keira footslopes. The precinct edges are the Farmborough Road ridgeline to the south and the O’Brien’s Road ridgeline in the north. The suburbs of Farmborough Heights and Cordeaux Heights, the catchments of Jenkins Creek and Charcoal Creek and the lower catchments of American Creek, Brandy and Water Creek occur within this precinct. The precinct is urban in character with elevated landforms and Escarpment behind. A remnant vegetation/cleared grass mosaic dominates the landscape character on the urban edge. The built environment encroaches on the Cordeaux Heights ridgeline and the footslopes of Mount Kembla without any apparent purpose or design intent. Clearings above the precinct associated with remnant vegetation/cleared grass mosaic have long slope lengths on less steep slopes and are highly visible from a distance. The slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE.



Aerial view over precinct.

Aerial view of precinct edge.



Cordeaux Heights Ridgeline.

View north from Farmborough Heights to Mt Nebo and Mt Keira.

View northwest from Farmborough Heights to Mt Kembla.

View west from F6 Freeway at Five Islands Road.

Detail of view west from F6 Freeway at Five Islands Road.



Detail of Cobblers Hill viewed from F6 Freeway at Five Islands Road.

View west from Five Islands Road Cringila.

View west from Five Islands Road to Mt Nebo and escarpment beyond. The Heights precinct is to the south of Mt Nebo.

3.3.6 Precinct 4: Mt Kembla This precinct includes the elevated, closed and contained landform of the suburbs of Mt Kembla and Kembla Heights. The escarpment is behind and Cordeaux Heights is to the east. The elevated vegetated landforms of Mt Kembla and Mt Keira dominate to the north and south. Mt Kembla precinct is a contained landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential.



Aerial view of escarpment with Mt Kembla to left and Mt Nebo to right and escarpment beyond.

View west from Five Islands Road Cringila.



Composite view of precinct looking east from above the escarpment. Mt Nebo and Kemira Colliery to left.

Composite view of Mt Kembla village from above the escarpment.

3.3.7 Precinct 5: Mt Keira Mt Keira covers the elevated footslopes of Mt Keira extending from the O’Brien’s Road ridgeline, Figtree, in the south, through the Mt Keira Road ridgeline, West Wollongong, to the Keiraville/University of Wollongong ridgeline in the north. The landform is of a concave landscape elevated above the surrounding Wollongong urban areas to the north and south, and Wollongong City to the east. The precinct is urban in character with elevated vegetated landforms and Escarpment behind. A remnant vegetation/urban development mosaic dominates the landscape character on the Escarpment/urban edge interface. Clearings within the escarpment associated with Kemira colliery development are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential.



Aerial view of southern portion of precinct. Mt Nebo centre and Figtree and Mt Keira below.



Aerial view of northern portion of precinct. Wollongong University and Mt Keira below Mt Keira.

Aerial view of precinct from above the escarpment. View between Mt Keira and Mt Nebo with Figtree beyond.

Aerial view of Mt Keira and Wollongong University from Mt Keira Lookout.



View west from Five Islands Road to Mt Nebo and escarpment beyond. The Mt Keira precinct is to the north of Mt Nebo.

3.3.8 Precinct 6: Balgownie Valley This Balgownie Valley precinct is a contained concave distinct valley extending further back from the coastal plain to the Escarpment between the prominent landforms of Mt Keira and Brokers Nose. The precinct edges are the Keiraville/University of Wollongong ridgeline to the south and the vegetated ridgeline and Towradgi Creek below Brokers Nose in the north. The precinct is urban in character with elevated vegetated landforms and Escarpment behind. A remnant vegetation/urban development mosaic dominates the landscape character on the urban edge. The urban edge contains a mix of development types including very large block/large house rural residential, older standard urban development, and recent urban development of large block/very large house. This mix of development type contributes to a variable quality landscape and visual quality escarpment/development edge. Clearings within the escarpment associated with the Corrimal colliery development are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential.



Aerial view of Balgownie Valley Precinct with Mt Keira to the south.

Aerial view of Balgownie Valley from above the escarpment.

View to escarpment from within Balgownie.

3.3.9 Precinct 7: Coastal Ridges The Coastal Ridges precinct extends from Brokers Nose in the south to the vegetated ridgeline separating Thirroul and Austinmer in the north. The Escarpment slopes down to the coast and the landform is dissected by minor ridgelines and creeklines that establish an undulating landscape and urban landform. In this area roads run up the ridgelines with little or no interconnectivity between ridges, providing quite distinct neighbourhood patterns. This part of the Escarpment is linear in form and similar in landscape characteristics. The principal lookouts of Bulli Lookout and Panorama House are located on the Escarpment above. The coastal edge/urban form/Escarpment landscape of this precinct as viewed from the lookouts above is typical and iconic of the Illawarra. Clearings within the escarpment associated with South Bulli colliery development (Bellambi Mine) on escarpment benches are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential. Other clearings within the escarpment associated with South Bulli colliery development have long slope lengths on less steep slopes and are highly visible from a distance. The slope angle and visible grass surface limits identification of DOE. Clearings within the escarpment associated with South Bulli colliery with foreground screening forest are less



highly visible from a distance. Potential exists following revegetation works for a high VAC and DOE potential. Clearings within the escarpment associated with rural residential development on escarpment benches on Bulli Pass when viewed from below are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential.

Aerial view Tarrawanna to Russell Vale.



Aerial view Russell Vale to Bulli.

Aerial view Bulli to Thirroul.

Aerial view from above the escarpment, Thirroul to Bulli.

Aerial view from above the escarpment, Bulli to Russell Vale.



Aerial view from above the escarpment, Russell Vale to Corrimal.

Aerial view from above the escarpment, Corrimal to Tarrawanna.

3.3.10 Precinct 8: Cliff Coast This precinct extends from the vegetated elevated ridgeline adjacent to Mountain Road Thirroul, in the south, to the end of the Escarpment at the School of Arts at Clifton in the north. The landscape form consists of Escarpment / vegetated Escarpment footslopes / urban development edge above beaches and cliffs. The precinct is tightly located between the Escarpment and the ocean, with a landscape treed canopy extending down to a tight urban form located below the railway line and above the beaches and cliffs. A linear strip of dwellings extends along a natural ‘bench’ within the foothills landform from Austinmer to Wombarra along Buttenshaw Drive and Morrison Avenue. Extensive vegetation provides few opportunities to view this development from Lawrence Hargrave Drive and beaches. There are however a number of ‘natural’ benches further up into the Escarpment above Buttenshaw/Morrison Avenue in the Coledale/ Wombarra area which owing to breaks in vegetation in gullies and on ridges, afford extensive views of the coast and if inappropriately developed may be viewed from some distance. The significance of these natural benches within the visual landscape necessitated careful consideration of the most appropriate zoning under Draft WLEP 2007for these areas, as discussed in Section 5. Transition through this precinct along Lawrence Hargrave Drive presents the views to the north of treed canopy below the Escarpment to the urban edge, and views south of expansive landscapes of the Escarpment / Illawarra Coastal Plain. Lawrence Hargrave Drive undulates and twists vertically and horizontally such that the views from the road alternate between expansive Escarpment and ocean views and tight urban development. Progress along the road alternates between beachfront and clifftop locations. Clearings within the Escarpment associated with residential development on Escarpment benches immediately above the railway line are indistinct in the landscape with a high VAC and DOE potential.



Aerial view of Austinmer to Wombarra.

Aerial view of Coledale to Clifton.



Escarpment and Mountain Road, Austinmer ridgeline defines southern precinct edge.

View north along Lawrence Hargrave Drive at Wombarra.

View north along Lawrence Hargrave Drive at Clifton.

View south along Cliff Coast Precinct from Scarborough.

3.3.11 Precinct 9: Stanwell The re-entrant headlands and valleys, indicative of the Hawkesbury Sandstone landscape, of Coalcliff and Stanwell Park between Clifton and Bald Hill comprise the Stanwell precinct. Urban development is located adjacent to and behind the beaches between the headlands. Colliery industrial landscape is located above and behind Coalcliff. The railway follows the contours around the landform, through the forests behind Stanwell Park, around the headlands with expansive ocean views and through the industrial landscape behind Coalcliff. The landscape includes a different vegetation mosaic to the Illawarra Escarpment with low heathland



vegetation on prominent headlands adjacent to Stanwell Park, contrasting with eucalypt forest behind the beaches. Development within the Stanwell precinct should be complimentary with the existing landscape / urban character.

Aerial view Seacliff Bridge to Stanwell Park.

Aerial view Coalcliff to Bald Hill.



View south from Bald Hill over Stanwell Park and Coalcliff.

View north from Seacliff Bridge to Coalcliff and Bald Hill.

View north from Lawrence Hargrave Drive Coalcliff to Bald Hill.

3.3.12 Precinct 10: Maddens Plains The Maddens Plains precinct is located within undulating perched heathland above the escarpment adjacent to the existing Illawarra and Boomerang Golf Courses. It is a low undulating landscape with small stature vegetation adjacent to the Freeway and Princes Highway and more distant Stanwell Tops and Helensburgh urban areas. The landscape includes dams, service roads and telecommunications facilities. The visual character is dominated by High Voltage electricity towers and conductors strung across the landscape. The low stature of the landscape vegetation and the proximity to the escarpment edge ensure a low VAC and no DOE potential.



Aerial view of Maddens Plains looking south over escarpment to ocean.

3.3.13 Attribute Values The landscape and urban resources within each precinct – the landforms, vegetation, and built environment – were examined by dsb Landscape Architects and described according to their level of value as suggested in Foundations of Visual Project Analysis (Smardon 1986). “Value” is taken to mean 'recognised as valuable', either by institutional policy/law and /or some segment of the public. Although resources may be valued for their recreational, aesthetic, scientific, economic, heritage and/or infrastructure qualities, the landscape description used in this study considered only aesthetic values. The description of landscape and urban resources addressed the landform (gradient, variety, features, integrity, scarcity); vegetation (variety, relevance to landform, integrity (degree of modification), significance (importance ecologically and/or culturally and/or aesthetically) and the built environment.



dsb (2007) evaluated the landform, vegetation and the built environment to determine the value which could be allocated to each attribute by precinct. Table 1 illustrates the attribute values and clearly shows that the majority of precincts have medium to high landform scarcity, indicating a unique landform and are rated as being aesthetically important. The Mount Keira precinct is considered to provide the best fit between built form elements and the environment. It is noted that the Heights precinct faired poorly against all variables. Table 1: Attribute Values

Precinct Landform Scarcity1 Vegetation Significance2

Built Environment Features3

Marshall Mount H H M-H

West Dapto Bowl M-H H L - M

The Heights L L L

Mt Kembla M-H H M-H

Mt Keira H H H

Balgownie H H M-L

Coastal Ridges M H M

Cliff Coast H H M-H

Stanwell H H M-H

Maddens Plains H H M-L Note 1 H-Unique landform M- repetitive landform L – common landform

2 H- aesthetically important 3 H – modification blends with landscape character

M-H modification sympathetic with landscape character L- urban infrastructure detracts from built landscape



4 PRINCIPLES

4.1 Outline In accepting that a certain level of development needs to occur, for a variety of reasons whether social or economic, some trade-off with environmental factors will need to take place. However, the approach has been where possible to minimise the impact on the environment and ensure the most important environmental assets are given full protection. In undertaking the Land Use Review each of the principles below was considered in the context of a potential development of land. For cleared areas on Landscape Support for Core or Escarpment Interface areas, the analysis was taken a step further, as the Study Team considered whether development in these areas could be accommodated while satisfying the objectives of sustainable development outlined in the IESMP (see Section 1.4) The analysis found that there are certain key issues that are fundamental to a sustainable approach to development with the Escarpment area. Consideration of these issues during preparation of the Land Use Review, enabled the Study Team to determine where development could occur in patterns and locations which best meet sustainability objectives. It is important that where change does take place, it contributes to the enhancement of the landscape, respects the distinctiveness of individual precincts and is located where it is limited in its visual impact. The principles and key issues considered during the Land Use Review process are set out below in alphabetical order and not in order of importance.

4.2 Cultural Landscape

4.2.1 Principle • Protect the cultural heritage of the Escarpment.

• Where a heritage site is to be affected, development may be acceptable if it allows its preservation in situ, or, where this is impractical, its investigation and recording.

• Development will only be acceptable in areas of archaeological potential if proper evaluation of the archaeological implications of the proposed development has been undertaken and taken into account.

4.2.2 Issues Issues considered included heritage impact of development proposals (as lack of site-specific information precluded the proper assessment of the area, developers will be required to arrange appropriate archaeological assessment as part of development applications in the area), development on ridgelines and creeks and the Illawarra escarpment Heritage Assessment (2006).



4.3 Biodiversity

4.3.1 Principle • No clearing of native vegetation in Core and Biophysical Support for Core

areas as set out in the IESMP.

• Protect, maintain and enhance flora and fauna species and habitats of importance.

• Maintenance and enhancement of the biodiversity resources.

• Conservation of the natural character and biodiversity of the wider environment to complement the high level of protection afforded to area within National Parks and Reserves.

• Proximity to EEC and limitation of potential for direct impact on EEC.

• Restoration and expansion of depleted and vulnerable biodiversity resources, particularly where habitats are currently fragmented refer to Bioregional Assessment Study (National Parks and Wildlife Service 2002).

• Consideration of the web of wildlife habitat such as riparian corridors, green wedges.

• Ensuring the conservation of protected species in the location of development.

• Preserving the strategic landscape and wildlife links between the rural areas and urban spaces (ie Marshall Mount/Calderwood Valley).

4.3.2 Issues Issues addressed included: the potential to create new habitats/identification of areas for habitat restoration, maintenance of the diversity of habitats, Threatened Species, EEC, buffer areas to areas of high conservation significance (Core areas), interface areas, no clearing of native vegetation in Core and Biophysical Support for Core areas (as set out in the IESMP), creation of green wedges/corridors, implementation mechanisms to further the conservation and enhancement of native vegetation on Biophysical Support for Core land in the Areas of Special Interest.

4.4 Built Environment

4.4.1 Principles • Attention to good design and layout which respects the environmental

character of the site and its surroundings.

• Enhancement of the visual environment.

• Incorporation of ecological sites.

• Incorporation of sustainable drainage and effluent disposal systems whenever possible.

• Limiting exposure where possible to bushfire hazard.

• Limiting development in areas of instability or geotechnical risk.



• Identification of an environmental envelope on Biophysical Support for Core land in Areas of Special Interest.

• Location of development with full consideration of its visual context within a precinct.

4.4.2 Issues Issues addressed included the need to develop clear policies and guidance that establish the key principles and criteria for new development. Study Team review of DCP No. 49: Residential Development with a focus on encouraging good and innovative design and layout which embraces local character and distinctiveness and the significant local and wider ecological environment within which a development will sit (See Section 8). Review of landowner entitlements, existing use rights and Amendments to LEP 1990 (whether entitlements were taken up). Visual context of Escarpment lands (Visual Quality Analysis of Escarpment Values – dsb 2007). Appropriate built form principles - Built Form Principles Architectus 2007 (see Appendix C of the Explanatory Document). Review of geotechnical history of the Escarpment Area and documented slip sites. Staging of future development (West Dapto as it affects interface areas and the lower slope of the Study Area). Density of development from east to west. Bushfire and location of APZ. Accessibility and transport.

4.5 Landscape

4.5.1 Principles • Conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape acknowledging its

inherent contribution to the quality of life of residents of the area.

• Consideration of interface area with National Parks/Reserves or other environmentally significant land.

• Protection of existing open space and green wedges/corridors as a significant contribution to the visual landscape.

• Achieve net gain in the scenic and aesthetic values of the Escarpment.

• Promotion of a pattern of landuse sympathetic to the valuable Escarpment landscape.

4.5.2 Issues Issues addressed include: vegetation cover, green wedges/habitat corridors, fragmentation of agricultural land, vacant and derelict land, mine disturbance and rehabilitation of mine sites, diversity of agricultural practices and potential visual impact, foreground vegetation and screening value and mosaic of vegetation on valley floors.

4.6 Rural Landscape

4.6.1 Principles • Limiting dwellings to those essential for agricultural needs.

• Discourage agricultural pursuits in highly visible areas that include substantial structures (i.e. polytunnels) owing to visual impact.



• Built development should not adversely affect the appearance and character of the landscape and be designed and sited to incorporate landscaping to minimise visual impact.

4.6.2 Issues Issues addressed include: the need to maintain agricultural land immediately adjacent to suburban areas, changing agricultural practices, diversification to new crops such as vines, market gardens/orchards which use polytunnels and netting to protect crops but with significant visual impact.

4.7 Water Resource

4.7.1 Principles • Limited development within the riparian corridor and its buffers.

• Protection of the quality of water resources.

• Limitations on development which has the potential to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere to an unacceptable level.

• Establishment of buffers to protect the natural and cultural assets of riparian corridors.

4.7.2 Issues Issues considered included: the need to protect and enhance the quality and quantity of water resources, establishment of buffers to protect the natural and cultural assets of the riparian zone (width of riparian zone and buffer as defined by DIPNR 2004), consideration of the use of sustainable drainage schemes (see recommended amendments to DCP No. 49 in Section 8 and Appendix D Illawarra Escarpment Water, Traffic and Geotechnical issues (Cardno 2007) of the Explanatory Document, effluent management, impact of site runoff on downstream receiving environment and implications for flooding.



5 STATUTORY CONTEXT The statutory context which governs all development within the Escarpment area is discussed briefly below. Appendix E of the Explanatory Document provides background information on local and regional planning policies considered during preparation of the Strategy including the Illawarra Regional strategy 2006 – 31.

5.1 Review of Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007 The protection of the Illawarra Escarpment values requires the implementation of appropriate land use zones including objectives and permissible uses within an LEP. In addition, special provisions may need to be introduced into the LEP, to ensure there is a regulatory basis for decisions to be made. A comprehensive review of proposed zones for areas above 50 m contained in the Draft Wollongong and West Dapto LEPs was undertaken to assess whether the recommended zones fit well with the objectives of the IESMP for those areas and whether development rights, perceived or not, will be impacted by the new zone provisions. The review was based on plans currently available in the public arena and which have been submitted to DoP for review. The approach was to consider whether the proposed zones provide an adequate fit given the overall intent of enabling a conservation outcome for the Escarpment, while allowing some limited development opportunities. As a consequence, a number of recommendations were made which would require amendment of the proposed zoning maps following due consideration by Council. The analysis highlighted a number of matters to be considered in relation to the proposed zonings not least of which is further consideration of the sensitive environments to which a number of zones apply, and the significant constraints posed to development. These constraints would merit in some instances stricter zoning provisions to achieve an adequate conservation outcome for the most sensitive Escarpment lands. In other areas which do not have significant environmental attributes, a greater development outcome may be achieved. Although the IESMP identified the Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface Areas as offering some potential following consideration for development, HLA did not limit the review of Draft WLEP 2007to these areas. Rather the approach taken was to secure the most appropriate development in the most appropriate locations while taking account of the principles outlined in Section 4.

5.2 Land Use Zones

5.2.1 Wollongong DRAFT WLEP 2007 Draft WLEP 2007 provides a total of 7 zones of relevance to the Study Area. These are:

• E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

• E2 Environmental Conservation

• E3 Environmental Management

• E4 Environmental Living

• RU1 Primary Industry

• RU2 Rural Landscape



• SP2 Infrastructure

Table 2 below provides a summary of the proposed new zone and where possible its corresponding existing zone under LEP 1990. It is noted that there is no direct correlation in most instances between the zones as on close examination of the zoning provisions, there are often significant differences between permissibility of landuses under LEP 1990 and both the WLEP 2007 and Draft West Dapto LEP 2006 (see Appendix E of the Explanatory Document). Table 2: Comparison of Zoning

Wollongong LEP 1990 Draft DRAFT WDRAFT WLEP 2007 1 Non Urban RU2 Rural Landscape

4(c) Extractive Industrial Zone RU1 Primary Production

7(a) Special Environmental Protection E2 Environmental Conservation

7(b) Environmental Protection Conservation

E2 Environmental Conservation E3 Environmental Management

7(c) Environmental Protection Residential

E4 Environmental Living

7(c1) Environmental Protection Rural Residential

E4 Environmental Living

7(d) Environmental Protection Port Hacking River

E2 Environmental Conservation

8(a) National Park E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

Note: The same zones apply to both WLEP 2007 and Draft WD LEP 2006 with the exception of the E1 zone The statutory provisions contained in the Draft WLEP 2007are further considered in Section 6 of this report.

5.2.2 West Dapto LEP 2006 The western extent of the proposed West Dapto Release area is delineated on the Land Zoning Map attached to the Draft LEP. A significant proportion of land currently defined as Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface within the Study Area boundary has been included within the proposed release area. A variety of zonings has been applied to the lands as follows:

• E2 Environmental Conservation

• E3 Environmental Management

• E4 Environmental Living

• R2 Low Density Residential

• R5 Large Lot Residential

• IN2 Light Industrial

• RE4 Public Recreation Part 2 of the WDLEP 2006 sets out the uses permissible within each zone. HLA reviewed the draft WDLEP 2006 zoning maps particularly in the context of the interface with draft WLEP2007 and considering that the western extent of the West Dapto Release Area is within the Escarpment Study Area. Recommendations were made for various amendments to the draft zoning maps and following internal workshops, a final set of recommendations were



developed for consideration by Council. These matter will be discussed when the WDLEP maps are further considered at the final stage of the West Dapto planning process.

5.2.3 Commentary All land which was previously zoned 1 Non Urban, 4(c), 7(b), 7(c), 7(c1) and 7(d) under LEP 1990 was considered. At all times reference was made to the vegetation mapping in the IESMP to identify areas where significant vegetation communities and habitats are located. This enabled HLA to identify interface areas with National Parks/Reserves, EEC, green wedges/green corridors and riparian corridors, all critical to maintaining the complex biodiversity of the areas. Early discussion at internal workshops highlighted the need to provide a zone which recognised the high conservation significance of in particular, Core vegetation, and provided a further level of protection for escarpment vegetation not contained in National Parks and Reserves. The E2 Environmental Conservation zone was selected as the best fit, and to further highlight the importance of this zone in conserving the biodiversity of the Escarpment Area, dwellings were removed as a land use permissible with consent. This presented a number of issues not least of which was dwelling entitlement and as a consequence a split zoning approach was adopted which sought to place areas of Core vegetation particularly at higher altitudes within the E2 Environmental Conservation zone, while enabling limited development on E3 Environmental Management zoned land. The accompanying A0 maps show that land zoned 7(b) Environmental Protection has been included in both the E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management zones. This inclusion does not alter the original intent of the 7(b) zone but ensures a high level of protection is afforded to areas of the highest quality in terms of landscape, diversity of wildlife, special beauty and to land of cultural and heritage significance. Particular attention was paid to benched areas within the Escarpment associated with decommissioned mine sites and mines still in operation and bench areas in the Cliff Coast precinct from Coledale to Wombarra. The COI recommended that residential development should not extend up into the Escarpment in the Cliff Coast precinct and dwellings should not be located beyond the western boundary of existing development in the area. The visual quality analysis carried out by dsb supports this contention and the 140m contour was determined as an appropriate zone boundary, given the visual significance and other constraints, including bushfire, to development in the area. The western boundary of properties on Rixon Pass Road and Bulli Pass were also selected to provide a clear boundary between E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management zoned land, owing to the significant Core vegetation to the west and to ensure no further development extends up into the Escarpment in these visually significant areas. Previous amendments to LEP 1990 (Schedule 2) were considered and lands nominated in the schedules allocated an E3 Environmental Management zone whether dwelling entitlements had been taken up or not. Land referred to in the Schedules as 7(a) land which had been dedicated to Council was included within the E2 Environmental Conservation zone. In the southern areas of the LGA particular attention was paid to the interface areas and lands abutting the West Dapto Release area. In keeping with the principles of the IESMP, the focus was on increasing lot sizes and reduced density from the western and northern boundaries of West Dapto up into the Escarpment Area. Lands previously zoned 7(c) under LEP 1990 were for the most part included as the E4 Environmental Living zone. The vast majority of these lands have been fully developed. The



E4 Environmental Living zone now includes limitations on lot size as outlined in Clause 20A of the WLEP 2007 of 1000m2 in the northern part of the LGA and 2ha to the south. This represents a significant change as previously under LEP 1990, minimum subdivision standards were not set for lands within the 7(c) zone. All lands previously zoned 4(c) Extractive Industrial zone have been included in the RU1 Primary Production zone with the exception of land off Hobart St Bulli. Consideration of this land has been deferred pending the final decision on the location of the proposed Northern Distributor. It is recognised that several of the mine sites to the zoned RU1 Primary Production are no longer in operation and further redevelopment options are or will be sought for the land. HLA recommends that any redevelopment of former mine sites be accompanied by a site specific masterplan which addresses all of the environmental constraints posed for these lands, mine rehabilitation works (if any) and the impacts of the proposed development on neighbouring lands, the downstream receiving environment and the visual impact from a local and regional perspective. Other areas requiring special attention as discussed in Table A1 in Appendix A include Cordeaux Heights (west of Callistemon Rd, Staff Rd and Silvertop Parade – detailed studies required), the interface between Cordeaux Heights and Mount Kembla and Middle Heights Road Coledale. On close examination a significant proportion of land previously zoned 1 Non Urban contains Core and Biophysical Support for Core vegetation which is afforded little protection under the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. Following reassessment of the land it was considered that an E3 Environmental Management zone could more appropriately be applied to lands particularly in the Marshall Mount area and southern areas of the LGA. The E3 Environmental Management zone permits agricultural activities and associated ancillary structures with consent while providing for the ‘conservation and rehabilitation of native vegetation on highly environmentally significant lands’. This zone is considered more appropriate given the significant biodiversity of in particular, the Marshall Mount area. A significant number of other issues also arose during the review of WLEP 2007 prompting discussion with Council planners. These included the appropriateness of rural residential development in areas particularly to the south, the urban interface, development of land in Maddens Plains, isolated areas with poor access, development on visually prominent ridges, amendments to LEP 1990 where dwelling entitlements had not been taken up and rezoning proposals currently being assessed by Council, amongst other issues. This was an iterative process and resulted in further recommendations for amendments to WLEP 2007 mapping following due consideration of these matters. All of the proposed recommendations have been workshopped with the strategic and development assessment and compliance planners of Council. The AO maps which accompany this document illustrate the proposed amendments to WLEP 2007.

5.3 Landscape Support for Core/ Escarpment Interface A site by site analysis of lands within the Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface areas identified up to 62 sites across the ten precincts which may for physical or environmental reasons be unsuitable for development or conversely may accommodate limited development. Table A1 in Appendix A to this document provides details of recommendations made in full consultation with Council Planners. It is noted that this table should be used for reference only, as it does not guarantee that sites with potential development opportunity will necessarily realise full development potential. The majority of sites have significant environmental constraints and



would require a well considered proposal which fits within the proposed LEP framework, and in full accordance with proposed DCP standards, for this sensitive environment. Figure 5 in Appendix A shows the location of lands considered.

5.3.1 Biophysical Support for Core - Areas of Special Interest As discussed previously, Figure 4.1 of the IESMP identified a number of areas located within the Biophysical support for Core area which, with appropriate development controls may offer some development potential. These Areas of Special Interest are shown in Figure 4 and discussed in more detail in Table A2 in Appendix A to this document.

4

FIGURE

Areas of Special InterestWollongong City CouncilIllawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy


HLA

G:\J

obs\

S3\

S30

100_

S30

199\

S30

116\

S30

116

F4.

cdr

3105

2007

ww

w.h

la-e

nviro

.com

.au


0 1360m



6 REVIEW OF DRAFT WOLLONGONG DRAFT WLEP 2007 PLANNING INSTRUMENT

6.1 LEP Text The written document accompanying the LEP maps provides the statutory framework within which development is considered. This text was reviewed together with all Schedules to the text and recommendations workshopped with WCC staff. In addition mechanisms to enable development in Areas of Special Interest were developed and recommended for inclusion in the Draft WLEP 2007(see Section 7).

6.2 Part 1 - Preliminary For ease of reference Draft WLEP 2007has been subdivided into five Parts, six Schedules and a dictionary. Part 1 refers to the aims of the Plan, various instruments which have been repealed in the preparation of the Plan and the State and regional environmental policies which may/ may not apply.

6.3 Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

6.3.1 Land Use Zones Part 2 of the Draft WLEP 2007 refers to Permitted or Prohibited Development. It addresses matters such as zone objectives, permitted and prohibited uses, subdivision requirements and works permissible without consent. Table E2 in Appendix E of the Explanatory Document provides a summary of the landuses permissible with/without consent which were previously in LEP 1990 but have now been included or excluded as the case may be, in the current review of planning instruments. The range of permissible uses within the nominated land use zones is in the main consistent across all draft LEPs in the LGA, and as a consequence Draft WLEP 2007 is referenced for comparison with LEP 1990. As the WLEP 2007 has not been subject to the formal public consultation process, the information provided is indicative only and will be subject to review at a later date. HLA recommends that the Land Use Table be amended as follows:

• Zone RU2 Rural Landscapes

- Remove rural workers dwellings from permitted with consent.

- Insert in permitted with consent ‘ecotourism’.

• Zone E2 Environmental Conservation

- Delete “home occupations” and “home businesses” from being permissible without consent.

- Delete “dwelling-houses” from being permissible with consent to clearly articulate the high conservation value of this zone.

- Insert in prohibited ‘clearing native vegetation (except in conjunction with items 2 and 3).

• Zone E3 Environmental Management



- Delete “exempt development” from development without consent.

- Insert in permitted with consent ‘ecotourism’.

• Zone E4 Environmental Living

- Insert “bed and breakfast accommodation and ecotourism’ as permissible with development consent.

6.3.2 Zone Objectives Each of the zones within the WLEP 2007 contains a set of objectives specific to the desired outcomes for the zone. At the time of the preparation of this report, the objectives were still being considered internally by Council staff. However it is clear that the objectives for the key zones within the Escarpment Area namely E2, E3, E4 and RU2 do not reflect the desired outcomes of the IESMP. While the E3 Environmental Management Zone contains an objective relating to the location of development only on lands cleared of vegetation, this is not reflected in the other nominated zones. Nor is the overall conservation objective which underpins the IESMP given adequate recognition. To ensure there is a clear link between the IESMP and the statutory framework controlling development in the Escarpment Area, the objectives outlined in Section 4 of the IESMP must be embodied in the new objectives being considered as part of WLEP 2007. This will ensure that the findings of the considerable volume of work which has preceded the drafting of the LEP, will be recognised as providing a sound basis on which to develop the statutory framework necessary to ensure implementation of the IESMP in the Escarpment Area. In summary initial review of WLEP 2007 indicates:

• Objectives relating to clearing of vegetation in E3 should be in E2.

• An objective in E4 relates to providing ‘for low impact residential development in areas with limited ecological, scientific or aesthetic values’. However the second objective is ‘to ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values’. The use of the words adverse impact on ‘limited’ values, seems contradictory. (Note: These are template requirements for the Draft LEP derived by DoP).

• There needs to be a clear definition of ecological values. For instance in E2 and E3 – what is the difference between ‘high ecological’ and ‘special ecological’ values and in E4 – ‘limited ecological’ values. . (Note: These are template requirements to the Draft LEP derived by DoP).

• The objective in zone 7(b) of LEP 1990 relating to visual amenity, ‘to identify and protect escarpment areas that enhance visual amenity and possess special aesthetic or conservation value’ has not been included in the E2 or E3 zones.

• Clause 17 of LEP 1990 considers visual impact when viewed from a public place. It also requires consultation with various authorities should there be:

- 17(1)(b)… impact on the environment by way of vegetation clearance, drainage pollution or bushfire risk;

- 17(2)(a)… a detrimental impact on rainforest or rainforest species; and

- 17(5)… significant tree felling or vegetation clearance. These issues are not addressed in WLEP 2007 and are not reflected in the zoning objectives.



The above matters were workshopped internally with WCC planning staff and the following amendments recommended for inclusion in Draft WLEP 2007. Amendments to Zone Objectives – insert the following:

• Zone RU2 Rural Landscape

- To retain, manage or restore native vegetation.

• Zone E2 Environmental Conservation

- To retain and enhance the visual and scenic qualities of the Illawarra Escarpment.

- To prevent clearing of native vegetation.

• Zone E3 Environmental Management

- To retain and enhance the visual and scenic qualities of the Illawarra Escarpment.

- To ensure that the form and siting of structures, the colours and materials of the structures and its landscaping, are appropriate for and harmonise with the bushland character of the locality.

- To ensure development is designed sited and managed to avoid or mitigate any adverse environmental impact on any significant vegetation community and the ecological buffer required to protect that significant vegetation community.

• Zone E4 Environmental Living

- To ensure that the form and siting of structures, the colours and materials of the structure and its landscaping are appropriate for and harmonise with the bushland character of the locality.

- To ensure development is designed, sited and managed to avoid or mitigate any adverse environmental impact on any significant vegetation community and the ecological buffer required to protect that significant vegetation community.

6.3.3 Additional Permitted/ Prohibited Uses Clause 14 of the Draft WLEP 2007refers to development listed in Schedule 1 to the Draft WLEP 2007 which may be carried out with consent or if the schedule provides without consent, on nominated parcels of land. It is noted that this clause overrides the Land Use Table or other provisions in the Draft LEP 2007. Clause 14A refers to Schedule 1A. Development on land described or referred to in the Schedule is prohibited. Table F1 in Appendix F of the Explanatory Document considers Schedules 1 and 1A and the implications for land considered in the Land Use Review and provides recommended amendments to the Schedules. The schedules in the main refer to amendments to LEP 1990.

6.3.4 Subdivision – Consent Requirements Clause 15 provides subdivision standards for all land in within the City area. Clause 15(1) states that consent is required for all land to be subdivided except as set out in Clause 15(2).



It is recommended that the provision of this clause be expanded to include specific provisions which relate to the subdivision of land within the E3 Environmental Management zone. For example the provision may state:

(3) Council may when considering the subdivision of land within the E3 Environmental Management zone, require the amalgamation of a contiguous lot/s or certificates of title held by the owner/s of the land which is the subject of the application.

6.4 Part 3 Exempt and Complying Development

6.4.1 Exempt Development Part 3 of the WLEP 2007 relates to exempt and complying development. For the purposes of the Draft LEP, Clause 16 identifies exempt development as development which may be carried out without the need for development consent, provided it has a minimal environmental impact and is not carried out in critical habitat or in wilderness area. Clause 18 of the WLEP 2007 states that exempt or complying development must not be carried out on any environmentally sensitive areas for exempt or complying development. Of relevance are the following:

f) land identified in this or any other environmental planning instrument as being of high Aboriginal cultural significance or high biodiversity significance; or

g) land reserved as a state conservation area under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; or

h) land reserved or dedicated under the Crown Lands Act 1989 for the preservation of flora, fauna, geological formation on for other environmental protection purposes; or

i) land identified as being critical habitat under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

It is noted that exempt development is permitted without consent in the E3 Environmental Management zone. As discussed above, Clause 18(i) states that exempt development must not be carried out on any environmentally sensitive areas including land identified as critical habitat under the TSC Act 1995. Inclusion of exempt development as a use permissible without consent in this zone places the onus on the potential developer to ensure compliance with clause 18(i). It is recommended that the provisions of clause 18(i) be strengthened and the potential developer be directed to a map or document such as the Bioregional Assessment (NSW 2002) which highlights vulnerable ecosystems, species and their habitats. This is critical given the high percentage of Core and Landscape Support for Core areas in the E3 zone. Alternatively it is recommended that exempt development be removed from the ‘permitted without consent’ category.

6.4.2 Complying Development Clause 17 of the Draft WLEP states that development consent for the carrying out of complying development may be obtained by the issue of a complying development certificate once the development is in compliance with the development standards listed in Schedule 3 of the Draft LEP. Part 1 of the schedule sets out general matters to be considered when carrying out complying development. Group A refers to new detached single and two storey dwelling houses on land in zones RU1, E3 and E4. Given the significant scenic value of land within the Escarpment Area, it is recommended that the Scenic Qualities (non-urban areas only) section



be further expanded to include a number of the built form development standards recommended in the proposed amendment to DCP No. 49 (see Section 8).

6.5 Part 4 Principal Development Standards

6.5.1 Lot Size The minimum lot size for a dwelling is clearly set out in the Table attached to clause 20A(1). It provides that land in environmentally sensitive and rural areas in the Study area maintain the existing 40 ha minimum size. Land which was previously 7(c) did not have a minimum lot size under LEP 1990. The WLEP 2007 provides that this land, in the main, has an E4 Environmental Living zone which enables a minimum lot size of 1000m2 for land generally north of Cordeaux Heights (with the exception of Figtree), compared with 2 ha to the south. This is considered reasonable given the predominantly rural nature of land to the south and the expansive views, particularly from the West Dapto Bowl, afforded of proposed E4 areas.

6.6 Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions It is recommended that special provisions are included in the new zoning document which would give statutory effect to some of the initiatives designed to provide the mechanisms which deliver the vision in the IESMP. Adoption of these discretionary provisions in Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions will provide greater strength to their implementation than having these matters dealt with through a DCP or Policy. Special provisions may relate to land which has a particular hazard, environmental and design constraints such as flood, significant vegetation, riparian corridors, bushfire risk, geotechnical, water catchments and the like, and which are consistent with relevant State and Regional policies.

6.6.1 Relevant Provisions Part 5 of WLEP 2007details miscellaneous provisions which must be addressed where relevant for any development in the LGA. The Miscellaneous Provisions clauses of relevance to the Study Area include:

24. Exceptions to Development Standards.

24(6) consent must not be granted under this clause for subdivision of land in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, R5, E2, E3 and E4 if:

a) the subdivision will result in two or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by the development standard.

Recommendation: Refence to subdivision of land within Zone No. E2 should be removed.

28. Development near Zone Boundaries – The objective of this clause is to provide flexibility where the investigation of a site and its surroundings reveals that a use allowed on the other side of a zone boundary would enable a more logical and appropriate development of the site, and be compatible with the planning objectives and landuses for the adjoining zone.

The clause applies to land zoned RU1, RU2, and E4 where land lies within 20 m of a boundary.



Recommendation: None

31 Development within Proximity of a Rail Corridor – The objective of this clause is to ensure that development for the purpose of residential accommodation or other noise sensitive buildings within 60 m of an operating rail corridor are not adversely affected by rail noise or vibration. Consent will not be granted for a development unless all practical mitigation measures for rail noise or vibration recommended by the Rail Corporation of NSW are incorporated into the development proposal.


32. Development within the Coastal Zone – The objectives of this clause are to ‘provide for the protection of the coastal environment ‘…’ and to implement the principles of the NSW Coastal Policy’.


34. Preservation of Trees or Vegetation – This clause seeks to preserve the amenity of the area through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. It applies to species or kinds of trees or other vegetation that are prescribed by a DCP.

Recommendation: What is at issue here is how will this provision be applied as Council does not have a DCP outlining trees to be protected? This Clause needs to be tightened to underpin the objective of ‘no clearing of native vegetation’ in Escarpment Areas. If clearing is required for some reason: eg removal of noxious vegetation/declared weeds etc, there is a need to specify whether consent is required in these instances.

35. Heritage Conservation – The objectives of this clause are to conserve the environmental heritage of the City of Wollongong. It clearly sets out requirements (or not) for consent to be obtained, when a heritage impact assessment or heritage conservation management plan must be submitted, notification requirements and conservation incentives.


36. Bush Fire Hazard Reduction – Under Clause 36 bushfire hazard reduction work authorised by the Rural Fires Act 1997 may be carried out on any land without consent. It also notes that the Rural Fires Act 1997 makes provision relating to the carrying out of development on bush fire prone land.


37. Development for Group Homes – This clause enables the establishment of group homes on land which permits dwelling houses. Consent is required for a transitional group home, but for a permanent group home only if it has more than five bedrooms or the occupancy rate has a multiplier greater than two per room. The Department of Housing is not required to obtain consent under this clause for a transitional group home.


38 Crown Development and Public Utilities – This clause lists public utility undertakings and other Crown development which cannot be restricted or prohibited by Council.


39 Telecommunication Facilities – The objective of this clause is to minimise the impacts of telecommunication facilities and retain streetscape amenity. It



lists development which requires consent and matters to be considered, together with development which does not require consent.


40 Temporary Use of Land – This clause enables development on land within any zone for a temporary purpose for a maximum period of 12 days.


41 Services - This clause states that consent will not be granted unless adequate water supply and facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage and facilities for drainage are available to that land, or adequate local and regional infrastructure is available to service the development and future residents. It is noted that subclause (2) states that the clause does not apply where adequate arrangements satisfactory to the consent authority have been made for the supply of the service and facilities and infrastructure above.


42 Development on Flood Prone Lands – This clause applies to land shown as flood prone land on the Draft WLEP 2007– Flood Prone Land map.


44 Excavation and Filling of Land – Development consent is required for earthworks or to excavate or fill land, except if the proposed works are considered by the consent authority to be of a minor nature.

Recommendation: Define ‘of a minor nature’.

46 Riparian Corridor – This clause applies to riparian land identified in the Riparian Corridor Management Study (DIPNR 2004). It lists a number of matters to be considered by the consent authority, prior to granting consent to development on riparian land.

Recommendation: The Land Use Review Strategy recommends that there should be no development for residential purposes within a riparian corridor or it’s buffer zone. Clause 46 should be amended to include this provision for all land within the Escarpment Area and reference made to the Riparian Corridor DCP currently being prepared by Council which addresses matters such as buffer widths and development/activities permissible in riparian corridors. The provisions above must be supported by an accurate GIS generated map of the waterways in the Escarpment area and illustrate the recommended buffers.

6.7 Recommended Miscellaneous Provisions It is recommended that a number of extra provisions be included in the LEP document to enable development of land within the Areas of Special Interest and other environmentally sensitive sites. A clear implementation strategy for these areas is discussed in Section 7. Inclusion of these implementation mechanisms in the Miscellaneous Provisions will provide the statutory weight necessary to ensure consideration of these mechanisms in any future development proposals for the lands.



6.7.1 Land Management Agreement (LMA) Land Management Agreement – Areas of Special Interest This clause would require Council to grant consent to certain nominated types of development only if there was a LMA in place for the subject land. This could be done by way of a deferred commencement consent. It would be supported by a Schedule to the amending LEP containing a pro-forma LMA and would identify the purpose, objective and general principles of the LMA . This clause would be particularly relevant for development in the Areas of Special Interest. For other lands within the Escarpment Area the following could apply:

Land Management Agreement - Development of Other Land within the Escarpment Lands

1 In deciding whether to grant consent to any application to carry out development of land within the escarpment lands, the Council shall take into account the provisions of any Land Management Agreement.

2 Where no Land Management Agreement is in place for land which is the subject of any application to carry out development of land within the escarpment lands, the Council must consider whether it is desirable, having regard to the identified outcomes for the escarpment lands as nominated in the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan, for there to be a Land Management Agreement for the land which is the subject of the application for development.

3 If the Council is of the opinion that it is desirable for there to be a Land Management Agreement in respect of the land that is the subject of any application to carry out development, it may impose a condition on any consent it grants which requires that a Land Management Agreement be established and executed before development of the land may occur.

6.7.2 Restrictions on Granting Certain Consents This clause would identify a number of specific matters requiring consideration by Council when determining an application for development within the Illawarra Escarpment as defined in the IESMP. These matters might include access, provision of water and sewer services, water cycle management, water quality, land stability, visual effects and bushfire hazard, as well as additional matters such as the advertising of the proposal, the delivery of conservation outcomes, the need for clearing, concurrence from (or referral to) regulatory authorities, justification of the proposal, built form appearance, siting, scale, and bulk of buildings. The following restrictions on granting consents for lands zoned E3 within the Escarpment Area should also be included: Development in Zone No. E3 Environmental Management within the Escarpment Area The Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development within Zone No. E3 Environmental Management within the Illawarra Escarpment unless it is satisfied:

a) that the development is not inconsistent with the conservation principles and desired outcomes that have been identified for the escarpment lands in the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan; and

b) the rights for the proposed development on the allotment have not been transferred to another allotment; and

c) it has considered the provision of any Land Management Agreement; and



d) the development will have a neutral or beneficial effect on bushland and the environment; and

e) the development will not be adversely affected by bushfire, landslip or other natural hazards; and

f) the allotment on which the development is proposed has adequate services (water, sewer, access and the like) available to meet the need generated for these services by the proposed development; and

g) the development is ecologically sustainable; and

h) the development is not visually intrusive; and

i) the development and the environment of the allotment on which it is located will be so managed as not to have any long term detrimental impact on biodiversity; and

j) it has taken into consideration any submissions made by the DoP and the DCC concerning the application.

Dwelling-houses in Zone No. E3 Environmental Management

14A The Council may consent to the erection of a dwelling-house on an allotment of land within the Zone No. E3 Environmental Management provided that:

(a) there is no dwelling-house on the allotment; and

(b) the allotment existed on commencement of this Plan or was created by this Plan; and

(c) the rights for a dwelling-house on the allotment have not been transferred to another allotment; and

(d) the erection of the proposed dwelling-house and associated activities on the allotment will not detract from the environment by way of visual intrusion, vegetation clearance or drainage pollution; and

(e) the erection of the proposed dwelling house, ancillary structures and access does not involve clearing of native vegetation; and

(f) the allotment on which the dwelling-house is proposed is adequately serviced with water and sewer facilities for the purposes of a dwelling-house; and

(g) the proposed dwelling-house will not be located on bushfire prone land; and

(h) adequate vehicular access will be provided to the site of the proposed dwelling-house.

6.7.3 Agriculture in Zone RU2 Rural Landscape The following recommended Special Provision relates to intensive horticulture and viticulture which have a high visual impact.

Viticulture and intensive horticulture involving the use of poly tunnels or like structures is not permissible, in the E3 and RU2 zones of the Illawarra Escarpment.



6.7.4 Objectives of Land Use Zones The requirement that a development meets one or more of the objectives of each of the zones in WLEP 2007 should be clearly stated as a Special Provision. Currently the onus is not placed on any potential developer to address the objectives and as a consequence it is HLA’s opinion that the objectives will be rendered meaningless. Recommendation: An additional clause be placed in the Special Provisions requiring any potential development of land within the Escarpment Area to consider and satisfy all relevant objectives of the zone.

6.8 Schedule to LEP – Schedule 1B As discussed previously, Clause 14(1) to the LEP enables development on particular land that is described or referred to in Schedule 1 with consent, or if the Schedule provides without consent, in accordance with conditions specified (if any). Recommendation: Schedule 1 should be extended to include the Areas of Special Interest and the relevant standards to apply to the areas should be specified. These standards should refer to constraints mapping undertaken as part of this Land Use Review Strategy and clearly specify the environmental envelope specific to the land utilising Council GIS information. Council should prepare a lot map indicating the required density and the maximum number of dwellings to be accommodated on each of these sites. In this manner Council would have greater control of development outcomes. The Schedule should also state that no development shall occur until a LMA is in place for the land.

6.9 Dictionary Based on the information provided in the IESMP and the recommended land use zones and associated permissible land uses, additional definitions would need to be included within the Draft WLEP 2007 including:

• Bushfire Hazard Reduction.

May be carried out under Section 100c of the Rural Fires Act 1997 without development consent.

• Conserve;

Refer to Heritage Commission Conservation Charter for definition.

• Ecotourism;

means any nature-based tourism (visited by tourists), educational or interpretive activity or facility that is in a natural setting and is situated on cleared land on which a house may be lawfully constructed. It must be constructed and managed so as to be ecologically sustainable and without undue detrimental impact on the environmental values of the area, and may include some form of guest accommodation (but not caravan parks) and a manager’s residence constructed wholly on cleared land.

• Environmental Protection Works (non mechanical);

means any works associated with the rehabilitation of land to its natural state or any works to protect land from environmental degradation using non mechanical methods.

• Roads;



Definition to include reference to no clearing of native vegetation to provide access.

• Land Management Agreement;

means a formally executed deed of agreement between the Council and a land owner or owners for the cooperative conservation and management of the biodiversity values of the escarpment lands.



7 IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS 7.1 Introduction The IESMP recommended a number of methods to conserve and manage the Illawarra Escarpment as part of its implementation strategy. These included traditional land use planning mechanisms (i.e. land use zoning) and a range of mechanisms for converting land into public ownership and encouraging conservation of privately owned land. Whilst not all of the mechanisms identified in the IESMP would fall under the umbrella of ‘strategic planning’, the interrelationship and integration of these measures is important to achieving a successful outcome in terms of preservation of the Escarpment values. What must also be considered is the mechanism by which the objective of ‘net gain’ in the scenic and aesthetic values can be achieved especially on areas within the Biophysical and Landscape Support for Core areas which could be in multiple ownership. This may be through site amalgamation and various incentives or creation of a Community title over the land. Draft WLEP 2007 and the revised DCP No. 49 must include a well resolved implementation strategy to be applied to land especially in the more environmentally sensitive areas of the Escarpment. Various implementation mechanisms which have been considered as part of this study including:

• Incentives;

• Existing Use;

• Tradeable Development Rights;

• Transferable Development Rights;

• Entitlement Transfer Scheme;

• Green Offsets;

• Rate Rebates; and

• Land Management Agreements. These strategies are discussed in detail in Appendix G of the Explanatory Document and the recommended implementation strategy is set out below.

7.2 Recommended Implementation Strategy Close scrutiny of the land within the Biophysical Support for Core, Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface areas indicated that there is limited potential for development on land within the Study Area for a variety of reasons including:

• Environmental constraints including bushfire, landslip/geotechnical matters, location of watercourses, visual, threatened species and so on;

• Draft WD LEP 2006 zoning provisions;

• Draft WLEP 2007 zoning provisions; and

• Extent of riparian corridors as defined in Riparian Policy Issues Report (HLA 2006) and Draft Riparian Policy DCP.

As a consequence, it is considered that with the correct implementation strategy in place, which is enshrined in the Part 5 of the Draft WLEP 2007 (Miscellaneous Provisions) and the Schedule



to the LEP, the level of protection required for the Escarpment, while allowing limited development, will be achievable. In the Areas of Special Interest and in a limited number of areas with Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface classification, landowners could get together and make a single application to Council to develop land within a predetermined environment envelope which takes account of the environmental constraints to developing the land. The environmental envelope would sit on land previously cleared and outside of riparian zones (see Section 8.3.1). Prior to consent being issued, a LMA would need to be prepared for adjoining Core land which would remain in private ownership but with clear management outcomes. The LMA would cover matters such as weed management, feral animal control, riparian corridor management and so on. The introduction of a LMA then affords protection to remnant vegetation, vulnerable ecosystems, core habitat, wildlife corridors and riparian zones. This process would involve a number of clear steps as follows:

1 Property owners discuss potential to amalgamate holdings into one single lot under a single title – Community Title or the like.

2 In the Areas of Special Interest it would be possible following a series of studies to determine an environmental envelope for the land. The advantage of this process is that it enables landowners whose land offers some development potential, to negotiate with adjoining landowners for access across properties, inclusion of additional cleared land and so on.

3 The remainder of the land is set aside and managed for conservation. It is then the subject of a mutually agreed LMA which is the subject of a statutory covenant attached to the title to the land (and referred to in the corresponding LEP for the land). The statutory covenant is applied under the Conveyancing Act 1919.

4 It is essential that the conditions on the title relating to the covenant are designed to protect conservation values in perpetuity and are binding on successive owners and Councils. Other conditions attached to the land may change with time.

This process will benefit the Escarpment Areas containing the Areas of Special Interest, the Marshall Mount area (Yallah Calderwood Corridor) and high priority areas (Core Escarpment Lands) identified in the IESMP, by providing for long term maintenance of natural areas, visual amenity, biodiversity protection and having minimal impact on the water quality of significant creeks in the catchment. Many of these areas adjoin National Park or public owned land and conservation of vegetation will provide linkages to these areas.

5 When setting up the LMA, it is important to assess the condition and amount of remnant vegetation to be conserved. In addition, threatening processes should be addressed where there is an option to restore or expand existing remnants so that ecosystems or specific species do not become rare or threatened. This will involve site visits by staff involved in natural resource management at Council and discussion on management objectives and a range of options for weed management, feral animal control, removal of non-indigenous pest species and revegetation with indigenous species, amongst others.

A clear set of objectives need to be determined and desired outcomes set which are measurable for monitoring purposes. This could include the area of land to be protected, weed eradication in specific areas, restoration of riparian corridor vegetation and so on.



Monitoring for the life of the Agreement is critical to ensuring the desired outcomes are achievable. It may be necessary to tie the achievement of specific targets in with a staged consent, to ensure that the intent of the LMA is not abandoned, once development potential has been achieved by the property owners.

6 Following negotiation between Council and the property owners, a letter of acceptance of the approach and associated LMA would be developed and signed by all parties.

7 The property owners could then apply to Council for limited development of land within the specified environmental envelopes.

Should the proposed development fit with the desired outcomes for the land, Council could issue a staged development consent, conditional on the continued implementation of the LMA.

The cost of management of Core and Biophysical Support for Core land was raised at public consultation forums during preparation of the IESMP. Many landowners did not have ready finance to finance a range of environmental management measures such as the purchase of materials, erection of fencing, removal of weeds, eradication of feral animals and so on. A staged approach to development consent would enable property owners to access capital which could become part of a holding fund to ensure continued implementation of management measures in the LMA.



8 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FRAMEWORK

8.1 Introduction The IESMP objectives require that controls on development within the escarpment be focussed on the desired environmental, scenic and aesthetic outcomes as the highest priority. Individual proposals for development within the Escarpment must also recognise community expectations for the Escarpment landscape. The suite of planning instruments which provide controls on matters such as vegetation retention, bushfire, ESD principles and so on, together with the Building Code of Australia, all influence the nature and style of the urban form. It is the manner in which the community chooses to interact with these instruments which determines the urban form. Unimaginative design responses to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2001, has produced standard residential development surrounded by extensive cleared areas. Imaginative design responses to the Planning for Bushfire instrument can produce high quality building styles and use of materials that comply with the instrument and retain up to a quarter of treed canopy (existing or planted) across a development. By utilising the full range of planning and environmental planning instruments including development control plans, it is possible to direct the desired urban form within identified landscapes and environments and within the visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Identification of the potential threats to the Escarpment by development activity and measures to mitigate such threats, creates the genesis for the desired urban form and the planning instruments that will enable the realisation of same.

8.2 Escarpment Modification Threats As discussed earlier the scenic and aesthetic values of the escarpment are of fundamental importance to those who live and work in Wollongong. Modification to the landscape within the Escarpment is often visually obtrusive and not sympathetic to the receiving environment. HLA and its team found that modification of the environmental, scenic and aesthetic values of the escarpment may occur by:

• Disturbance associated with infrastructure, services and access to enable development;

• Inappropriately located roads and carparking;

• Driveways, retaining walls and ancillary buildings such as garages;

• Reflective surfaces and building materials;

• Contrasting colours and textures;

• Building placement in clearly visible locations;

• Building development so close as to deny landscape opportunity between building forms;

• Visible construction activities;

• Extensive earthworks – cut and fill;

• Stockpiling of construction materials;

• Security lighting;

• Accidental and intentional clearing;



• Landslip and sandstone cliff failure;

• Erosion;

• Management measures in compliance with Planning for Bushfire 2001; and

• Bushfire. Controls have been built into DCP No 49 to where possible minimise any adverse visual impacts arising from development activity within the escarpment. While sections of the DCP specifically relate to subdivisions and residential development in non urban and environmental protection zones, these controls are considered in a number of instances to be inadequate and sometimes vague. Taking into consideration the potential threats to the environment and the importance the landscape plays within the tourism and economic framework of Wollongong, it is considered that stricter controls must be put in place to manage development within the Study Area. The IESMP objectives require the protection and conservation of the scenic and aesthetic values of the escarpment. This should be implemented with a “Net gain of scenic and aesthetic values” assessment of development proposals. In its Visual Quality Analysis report, dsb (2006) recommended that additional development within the escarpment should not add to the existing level of disturbance and should contribute to the rectification of disturbance within the escarpment, such that the principles and objectives of the IESMP are implemented. Mitigating measures that may be implemented to minimise the potential for modification by development activity within the escarpment include,

• No removal of native vegetation;

• Implement additional tree planting;

• Avoid dust generation;

• Minimise stockpile locations and size and protect from erosion;

• Minimise bare work faces and revegetate immediately afterwards;

• Ensure that all development activity is sited such that it is not visible from nominated view locations;

• Determine nominated view locations for each development activity;

• Locate development activity behind foreground screening vegetation;

• Locate development activity to the rear of landform benches;

• Avoid inappropriately located roads, buildings and carparking;

• Integrate buildings, roads and carparking into the landform and behind screening vegetation;

• Avoid long roads and alignments that correspond with views;

• Change road alignments frequently to terminate views;

• Avoid roads aligning with ridgelines;

• Locate roads across the landscape and behind screening vegetation when traversing changes in landform such as ends of ridgelines;

• Avoid high intensity or inappropriately directed external lighting;

• Use low lux lighting with shielding or directional lenses;

• Avoid lighting structures, buildings or landscaping that results in increased visibility;



• Use colours for all construction materials, including surfaces such as driveways, that are compatible with the surrounding landscape;

• Use non-reflective building materials;

• Use building materials and construction techniques that enable retention or installation of a quarter of the forest canopy and compliance with Planning for Bushfire 2001 requirements;

• Minimise the extent of cut and fill;

• Decrease the bulk of building forms by use of multiple smaller forms;

• Provide spatial separation of building forms that enables sufficient space for escarpment forest scale landscaping;

• Use endemic landscaping;

• Use landscape elements found within the escarpment adjacent to the development activity;

• Undertake landscaping to screen undesirable views of development sites; and

• Implement and enforce continuing maintenance and management of landscape requirements.

These potential mitigation measures have been considered further in the development of standards to be incorporated into an amended DCP No. 49 as discussed in Section 8.4 below.

8.3 Characterisation of Land The majority of lands within the Escarpment Area fall into three broad categories, namely:

• Rural Pockets;

• Mine Sites; and

• Urban Interface Areas which fall within these categories display a distinctive character which can be defined as:

Rural Pockets – isolated rural areas which have adequate access, large cleared areas, no EEC, lie outside riparian corridors, and with the definition of clear environmental footprints, may have potential to support cluster and similar development. Mine Sites – land which has previously been disturbed by mine activities which may still be operational or have/have not been rehabilitated. These lands are predominantly at high elevations in the Escarpment, have large cleared areas on benches within the Escarpment, have adequate access and may or may not be highly visible. Urban Interface – land which adjoins existing urban, predominantly residential development and which provides a transition between built form and the natural landscape of the Escarpment. These lands are generally classified as Landscape Support for Core with some Escarpment Interface areas, are located in the main from Farmborough Heights north, but also include transition areas within the West Dapto Release Area.



All of the Areas of Special Interest with the exception of the Avondale Mine site fall within the rural pocket category. Generally land north of Farmborough Heights falls within the Urban Interface category. Site specific controls which are quite distinctive are necessary for each category. While a number of controls may be similar to all three categories, there will be variation particularly in relation to matters such as lot size, density, siting of buildings and design, bushfire protection and servicing.

8.3.1 Environmental Envelope Site specific controls which are quite distinctive are necessary for each category. While a number of controls may be similar for all three categories, there will be variation particularly in relation to matters such as lot size, density, siting of buildings and design, bushfire protection, servicing and so on. It is considered that the Areas of Special Interest require a suite of development controls specific to each of the nominated lands. These controls would need to be included in the current review of DCP 49 to guide any future residential development of the lands (as discussed below). In particular development within the rural pocket areas should involve placement of an ‘environmental envelop’ or environmental footprint over the lands. In order to determine the environmental characteristics of significance to land classified rural pocket, a site was selected to be representative of the character of these lands. This site was given more detailed consideration by the Study Team, addressing all issues likely to impact on the development potential of the land and specific standards which would need to be embraced to realise the development potential of the land. The approach was to create an environmental envelope (environmental footprint) over the land, which is determined by reference to environmental constraints such as size (and length) of area currently cleared relative to slope, angle of viewline, ridgelines, cultural heritage matters, visual analysis, supplementary planting, access (transport corridors), width of pavement (interruption to canopy)), bushfire risk, riparian corridors, services (on site detention etc.), water cycle management and stability matters, to name but a few. Once the environmental envelope is set, an indicative development form can be determined by the potential developer with reference to density, siting and design principles and a subdivision can be laid out. Use of the environmental envelope approach enabled the Study Team to systematically evaluate site suitability in relation to a defined set of potential development types and recommend standards for inclusion in the review of DCP No.49 which would enable potential development to be of minimal visual impact, while reflecting the natural attributes, and to be in harmony with its surroundings. As part of this process a set of built form principles was developed which can be applied to residential development in the rural pockets and urban interface areas of the Study Area to ensure built form and associated development is sympathetic and in minimal contrast to the surrounding landscape. Recommendations were made on how development standards contained in DCP No 49 may be amended or supplemented (where controls are not currently in place), to provide a more rigorous development control framework, applying to all residential development within the Escarpment areas. Currently there are no development principles and standards applying to a wide range of landuses which may be permissible on mine sites should the land be rezoned including ecotourism, tourism/ recreational developments or other commercial undertakings. As a



consequence HLA has only considered a potential residential development of the mine sites. It is recommended that Council consider preparation of a DCP providing built form principles for ecotourism and tourism/ recreational developments as a matter of priority.

8.4 Proposed Amendments to DCP No 49 The review of DCP No. 49 and the effectiveness of controls embodied in the DCP to control future residential development within the Study Area are contained in Table H1 in Appendix H of the Explanatory Document. The review found that while the vast majority of standards would be effective in controlling development in the Study Area, a number of standards require rewording and requirements tightened to more adequately reflect the sensitive environment within which development may be placed. In addition the DCP lacks a focus on natural resource management and does not provide any guidance on the environmental management of development in the Escarpment area. As a consequence it is recommended that Section 9 of the DCP be revised to include provisions which will more adequately control development on land within the Study Area. A number of new sub sections are proposed to address matters such as riparian corridors, bushfire access, servicing and threatened species. These new sub sections of the DCP will need to contain objectives based on sustainability criteria for matters to be considered, performance criteria to be met, and the controls and assessment principles which will be the minimum standard that Council will require for any proposed development in the Study Area. The assessment principles should be set out in a manner which allows planners to clearly measure/audit whether a prospective developer has met the stated requirements. It will be incumbent on any potential developer of land within the Study Area, to embrace in the first instance, the City-wide general provisions for residential development and then those provisions specific to the nature of development in the area. Development within the Study Area will be required to:

• adopt the requirements for all residential development set out in Section 6: Residential Development, Section 8: Subdivision of Non Urban and Environment Protection Zoned Lands, Section 9: Dwelling Houses and Ancillary Residential structures in Non Urban and Environment Protection Zones, Section 11: Granny Flats; and

• the Site Specific Controls if applicable to a nominated site set out in Part C. The recommended standards for inclusion in the DCP have also been tailored to provide a good fit with the proposed zonings in Draft WLEP 2007 and Draft WD LEP 2006. It is fundamental that for any proposed new development in the Escarpment area, the nominated standards address the objectives of the zone and so enable the achievement of these objectives. At all times the recommendation for amendments to DCP No. 49 have made reference to the principles underlying the Land Use Review set out in Sections 1.4 and 4 of this report where appropriate.



9 CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is clear that the control of development within the Study Area necessitates a change to the regulatory framework which determines whether development is appropriate for a nominated area, and an implementation strategy which contains a number of methods to conserve and manage Escarpment lands. These mechanisms must be built into the statutory environment which is currently under review, to provide a clear process to manage any future development in this environmentally significant area.



Appendix A: Review of Land Use Zones Draft WLEP 2007

5

FIGURE

Site LocationWollongong City CouncilIllawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy


HLA

G:\J

obs\

S3\

S30

100_

S30

199\

S30

116\

S30

116

F5.

cdr

3105

2007

ww

w.h

la-e

nviro

.com

.au


0 4km



Table A1: Review Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface areas in Draft WLEP 2007 by Precinct

Site Location LEP 1990 WLEP 2007

HLA HLA Comment Comment WCC Recommendation

MARSHALL MOUNT PRECINCT

1 Marshall Mount 1 RU2 X Should be E3 given sensitive nature of landscape – riparian corridor, significant Core and Biophysical Support for Core vegetation. Appropriate to maintain agricultural landscape – no clearing of Core / Biophysical Support for Core land.

Agree E3

7(b) E2 E2 contains Core, Biophysical Support for Core and Landscape Support for Core. Area of Landscape Support for Core to east and Biophysical Support for Core should be E3.

Area of Core vegetation should be E2. Area of Biophysical Support for Core and Landscape Support for Core should be E3 surrounded by RU2. However given significance of Calderwood Valley landscape and other environmental matters agree land previously zoned Non Urban should be E3

E2 E3





2 Marshall Mount 1 RU2 X Appropriate to maintain agricultural landscape. Should be E3 given sensitive nature of landscape – riparian corridors, significant Core and Biophysical Support for Core vegetation.

Agree E3

7(b) E3 X Should be E2 on Core areas. E3 contains Landscape Support for Core and some Biophysical Support for Core.

Agree E2 E3

3 South West of the Cedars

1 RU2 (to north west)

Mainly Landscape for Support for Core

1 RU2 to west

7(b) E2 E2 on Core and Biophysical Support for core appropriate .

4 The Cedars Outside WLEP 2007 area

5 South Avondale

1 RU2 Area of Core vegetation to south west and west previously zoned 1 Non Urban should be E2.

Agree E2 on areas of Core vegetation

7(b) E2 E2 on Landscape Support for Core immediately adjoining Core – appropriate.

Agree

6 Avondale 1 RU1





7(b) to west E2 E2 to west immediately adjoining Core – appropriate. Rezoning proposal – locate residential on Landscape Support for Core and some Core – not appropriate. Recreation on Landscape Support for Core.

Agree Need

comprehensive study of area

WEST DAPTO BOWL PRECINCT

7 Off Cleveland Road

7(b) E2 Landscape Support for Core and Core at high elevation. Higher conservation rating appropriate.

8 Huntley (off Bong Bong

Road)

7(b) E2 Amendment 164 to LEP 1990 affects land to the west. Enables subdivision of land into 2 lots within 7(b) zone and erection of dwelling on each lot following transfer of 7(a) land on Paynes Road to Council. Land has been transferred to Council – has been subdivided and one house built.

Landscape Support for Core on bench areas with high visibility up into the Escarpment surrounded by Core vegetation – recommend high conservation – E2.

Agree

Loss of entitlement as lack of opportunity to build on 10 ha block not yet built on. Not favour E3 on isolated area of Escarpment. Recommend E2.

Agree E2





9 South of Wongawilli

7(b) E2 Land is predominantly Core or Biophysical Support for Core 7(b) to E2.

Agree E2

10 Smiths Lane, Wongawilli

1 RU2 X Recommend RU2 be part E3 and E4 to be consistent with WDLEP 2006.

Agree E3/E4

7(b) E2

7(b) E2 X In areas to the north and north west of Smith’s Lane on Landscape Support for Core area – and to the north west of the water tower should be E3.

Agree E3

7(c) E4

11 Paynes Road, Dombarton

7(b) to north west

E2 X Should be E3 given rural residential development and fully developed (Amendment 34 to LEP 1990).

Agree E3

1 RU2 X Recommend E3 on land zoned 1 Non Urban as majority of land contains Core and Biophysical Support for Core and adjoins E3 in West Dapto Area.

Agree E3

12 Reddalls Road 7(a) E2

7(b) to the north west

E3 Land highly visible. Bordered by National Park land (Amendment 41 LEP 1990 – subdivision into 8 lots and erection of a dwelling on 7 lots – entitlement taken up).

7(b) to north and east

E2 On Core land.





7(c) E4 Appropriate.

1 RU2 On all land to east.

1 RU2 X Core vegetation to south west – should be E2.

Agree E2

Also area to east of E4 in Escarpment area should be E3 as Riparian corridor and immediately adjoining E3 to the south in the WD LEP area.

Agree E3

13 Kembla Grange 1 RU2 Appropriate on Landscape Support for Core and Escarpment Interface.

6(a) RE1

5(a) SP2

THE HEIGHTS PRECINCT

14 Farmborough Heights

7(b)

E2 E3

Amendment 32 LEP 1990 – relates to subdivision of 7(b) land into 5 lots – has not been developed as land zoned 7(a) to north east has not been transferred to Council. Substantial area to be subdivided on Landscape Support for Core.

1 RU2

7(b) E2





15 Cordeaux Heights, West of Callistemon Road, Staff Road and Silvertop Parade

1

RU2

X

Significant area cleared but adjacent to E2 & E1 Core vegetation to west. COI recommended 7(b) to ensure ‘no further urban development encroaches on land which is abutting Core Escarpment Areas’ (p132). Category 1 and 2 Riparian Corridors encumber the site. Recommend E4 (minimum lot size – 1000m2 immediately west of Staff Road and Callistemon Road and Silvertop Pde. Minimum subdivision standard of 10 acres on E3.

Should be E4 for designated areas off Callistemon Road, Staff road and Silvertop Pde to be shown on LEP maps and controlled by Site Specific DCP. E2 to west and on Core vegetation to the south of Callistemon Road. Remainder E3.

Council to define extent of E4 area – need detailed studies.

7(a) E2 E2 to west on areas of Core vegetation immediately adjoining land presently zoned 7(a). Remainder E3.

16 Cordeaux Heights, north off Staff Road

7(c) E4

7(c) land predominantly developed. Area of remaining 7(c) substantially vegetated. FSR 0.3:1. E4 minimum lot size 1000m2. Endangered Ecological Community Lowland Dry Subtropical Rainforest (Illawarra Subtropical Rainforest) north of Staff Road. No clearing to be strictly enforced.

17 Cordeaux Heights, west of Northspur

7(c1) E4 7(c1) largely developed.





18 Cordeaux Heights

7(c) E4

Ridgecrest 7(c1) E4

19 West of Ridgecrest, Cordeaux Heights

1 7(b)

RU2 E2

X

Considered E3 on majority of land and E2 on land west of Biophysical Support for Core area.

E2 as significant Core vegetation and Biophysical Support for Core. Dwelling entitlement taken up – existing use rights.

E2

20 William James Drive, Cordeaux Heights

1 RU2 X Should be E4. Agree. E4


7(c) E4 Site Specific Controls in DCP No. 49 (16.9.3) provide framework for rural residential development. No clearing will maintain landscape character.


7(c) E4 Site Specific Controls in DCP No. 49 (16.9.2) to create lots of 3500m2 which is greater than the 1000m2 minimum lot size in Clause 20A of LEP 2007. Maintain in this area.

23 Figtree 1 RU2

1 RU2 X Area surrounding Dundrobian Mine to be zoned RU1.

Agree RU1





7(b) (amendment 126)

E3

Maintains interface between Mount Kembla/ Cordeaux Heights and Figtree. Amendment 126 to LEP 1990 applies to Stones Road Mt Kemble and enables the subdivision of land into 3 lots with erection of one dwelling on up to 2 lots in 7(b), following transfer of land within Zone 7(a) to Council. Entitlement taken up.

Agree E3 to north east(Am 33) E2 existing 7(a) land

7(b) to north E3 Amendment 33 LEP 1990 applies to the north eastern extent of area and allows subdivision into 8 lots and erection of 5 dwellings in section south of 7(a), once 7(a) land is dedicated to Council. Not developed. Should be E3. Land at greater elevation than water tank and mapped as Core vegetation should be E2.

5(b) SPR2 - - -

MOUNT KEMBLA PRECINCT

24 Mount Kembla 1 RU2 X E3 will provide interface between Mount Kembla Village and Cordeaux. Potential rezoning currently before Council removes agricultural connectivity.

Agree E3. E3

24a South of Cordeaux Road, Mount Kembla

7(b) E3 Site Specific Controls DCP No. 49 (16.9.1) Precinct 2. Interface between Mount Kembla and Cordeaux Heights.

Agree E3. E3





Mt KEIRA PRECINCT

25 Figtree North and Valley Drive Mount Keira

7(b) 7(c)

E3 E4

Site Specific Controls in DCP No. 49 (16.8.1). Amendment 191 LEP 1990.

25a Aviemore Place Mount Keira and off Kaloona Avenue

7(c) E4 Amendment No. 201 LEP 1990.

26 Mt Keira Road 7(c) E4 Site Specific Controls in DCP No. 49 (16.8.2) – subdivision to allow 3 lots – Strict enforcement-no change in subdivision.

27 Gooyong St / Cato Place

7(c) E4 Subdivided – Cato Place (Amendment 201). Unsympathetic form of subdivision on land immediately adjoining 8(a) to north west and with two areas of EEC to west. How is this form of development compatible with the objectives of the zone?

BALGOWNIE VALLEY PRECINCT

28 Parish Avenue, Mount Pleasant South

7(c) 7(a)

E4 E2

Land developed. Amendment 201 of LEP 1990.

29 Mount Ousley Road

7(b) E2 X Land immediately adjoining Mt Ousely Road to east should be E3. Landscape Support for Core.

Agree E3 E3 on land to east





30 Wellington Drive and Paradise Avenue, Mount Pleasant

7(b) E2 X Site Specific Controls in DCP No. 49 (16.7.1) for 2 lots on Paradise Avenue. Amendment 112 LEP 1990 (4.08.95) to allow second dwelling on the land. Also Amendment 161 off Wellington Drive to rezone land 2(a), 7(a) and 7(b). Land subdivided should be E3.

Agree E3

COASTAL RIDGES PRECINCT

31 West of Pendleton Close, Corrimal

7(a) E1/E2 Land in public ownership.

32 Rear of blocks Cresting Ave, Corrimal

7(a) E2 Amendment 53 to LEP 1990 allows the erection of two dwellings on eastern extent of 7(b) land when land zoned 7(a) to west is transferred to Council. Houses erected on land zoned 7(a).

7(b) E2 X Two houses -existing use. 7(b) to E3.

Agree E3

33 Cox’s Avenue to Robson Street, Corrimal

7(c) E4 Site Specific Controls for 8 lot subdivisions in Daniel Street, DCP No. 49 (16.6.1) on land to south. Land fully developed. Example of how controls in DCP (i.e. control on building materials, colours, etc. to blend with background environment) not complied with.

34 Lyndon St, Corrimal

7(b) E2 Immediately adjoins E2 to the west and south.

35 Belambi Mine / Russell Vale

4(c) RU1





7(b) E2 X The western extent of 7(b) land should be E2. Remaining land should be E3 and considered as an Area of Special Interest and be subject to Site Specific Controls as part of a DCP or Masterplan.

Agree E3 E3 and prepare Site Specific Masterplan

6(a) RE1

36 Rixons Pass Road

7(b) E2 X Rezoning proposal currently with Council on a limited area of Landscape Support for Core but mainly Core and Biophysical Support for Core. Should be E3.

Agree E3 E3

37 West of Joanne Street, Woonona Heights

7(b) E2 X Land has been developed. Should be E3.

Agree E3 E3

38 Sturt Place, Bulli 7(c) R2 X Why is this land R2 when all 7(c) land to south is E4? Minimum subdivision for R2 is 300m2, E4 in this location 2ha. Also landslip 125. Land fully developed. If zoned R2 could get infill development if larger lots subdivided. Not appropriate on land bordering E2 and Core vegetation within residential area to the east/north east.

Subdivision pattern not much different to 2(a). R2 provides good fit. However agree E4 more appropriate in area.

E4

39 Organs Road, Bulli

7(c) E4 Land to rear of existing properties. Most likely APZ. Recommend E4.

Agree E4





40 Bulli Brickworks Portion to west 7(c)

R2

X Largely Core area with only a small area of Landscape Support for Core – to be zoned R2. Minimum subdivision standard 300m2 – issues such as landslip, clearing of Core/ Landscape Support for Core habitat. Area of 7(c) should be E4 and Site Specific Development Control Plan be prepared for land otherwise loss of entitlements if zoned E3.

Agree E4

Land to east 4(c)

RU1

41 South of Hobart Street, Bulli

4(c) RU1

X

Extractive industry ceased to exist. No existing use right provisions apply. No loss of entitlements. Land should be zoned E3 as adjoins E2 to south and contains Core and Landscape Support for Core vegetation.

Deferred – Awaiting decision on proposed alignment for Northern Distributor.

part 6(a) E2 Part of land currently 6a- Public Recreation areas permissible with consent under E2 but some landuses will not be permissible ie recreation facility, education establishments, community facilities, child care centres and registered clubs.

42 Hobart Street, Bulli (south west)

4(c) RU1 X Adjacent to proposed alignment to Northern Distributor. Fill area for mine to be rehabilitated. Recommend E4/R2 in northern area.

Deferred comment until alignment for Northern distributor finalised.

Defer





9(b) SP2R

43 National Avenue, Bulli

7(b) E2

X Fully developed. Should be E3. E3 E3

44 George Avenue, Bulli

7(b) E2

X Should be E3 – significant riparian corridor – Hewitts Creek. Flood issues.

E3 E3

45 South of Bulli Pass

7(c) E4 Fully developed.

46 South of Bulli Pass

7(b) E2

X Entitlements taken up. Consistent with recommendations of COI which recommended that western portion of land be zoned 7(a) and remainder 7(b). Should be E3 on Landscape Support for Core. E2 elsewhere on Core and Biophysical Support for Core. E2 more appropriate on Core vegetation to west.

Agree E2 E3

47 North of Bulli Pass

7(b) E2 X Rezoning proposal at preliminary discussion stage. Land to remain with conservation zoning – E3. Consistent with recommendations of COI which stated western part of land to be zoned 7(a) and remainder to stay 7(b).

Agree E3

48 West of Bangalow Road, Bulli Pass

7(b) 7(c)

E2 E4

X

Land fully developed. Should be E3.

Agree E3 E4





49 West of Lachlan Street, Thirroul

7(c) E4 Agree. Visibility issues from village. Minimum lot size 1000m2. Amendment No. 212 (Schedule 3A) prohibits subdivision of land into more than 3 lots.

50 Northwest of Nardoo Crescent, Thirroul. Access off Armagh Parade

7(c) E4 May support limited development on cleared land. E4 permits 1000m2 lots in this location. Vegetation provides buffer and reduced visibility. No clearing could pose problems for bushfire access.

51 Sylvan Way, Thirroul

7(c) E4 Fully developed.

52 West of Illawarra Railway off Mountain Road North, Austinmer. Excelsior No. 2 Colliery.

7(b) E2 X May have potential for some development adjacent to the Railway with access off Mountain Road. Consideration to be given to R2 and E2 on balance. COI concluded may be potential for some development on eastern part of site provided does not adversely impact on the environment and the integrity of the railway embankment, nor accentuate any environmental problems in the area.

Potential for residential development close to Railway but to a lesser extent then current rezoning proposal for site. R3 appropriate as would enable medium density development. Remainder of land E2. Need for rigorous technical studies addressing land stability/subsidence, riparian corridors etc as part of LES process.

R3 E2 SP2R





CLIFF COAST PRECINCT

53 Excelsior No. 2 Colliery North Mountain Road, Austinmer

7(b) E2 X Has been developed. Amendment No. 52 Schedule 2. Amendment No. 60 (11.06.93). Should be E3.

Agree E3

54 Opposite Headlands Avenue, Austinmer

7(b) E2 X Landslip suspected. Developed. Should be E3.

Agree E3

55 Middle Heights Road Coledale

7(b) E2 X Amendment No. 111 (28.02.97) (Stage One of Construction has commenced). (30 lots/ 29 dwellings). Predominantly Core. Visually prominent from coast. No clearing. Requires strategy to manage development on this site – Masterplan or Site Specific Controls in DCP. COI recommended geotechnical and drainage assessment be completed prior to consideration of area. Should be E3.

Agree – need to formalise this area – Site specific Controls in DCP.

E3 and Site specific controls in DCP.

56 Wombarra – Scarborough

7(b) 5(b)

E2 SP2R

X

Should be E3. Agree E3

57 School Parade, Clifton

2(a1)

R2

X Some of the permissible uses in R2 could not be developed in a landslip hazard area. Should be E4 given landslip hazard. Amendment No. 97 specifies minimum lot sizes (1000m2). R2 minimum lot size 300m2.

E4 appropriate in this location given land surrounded by E1 and E2 Core.

E4

5(b) SP2R





7(a) E1

58 School Parade Clifton

7(a) E1

STANWELL PRECINCT

59 Coalcliff Mine Site

4(c) RU1

5(b) SP2R

7(b) to north and west of railway

E2

7(a) on higher slopes to west

E2 Given Landscape Support for Core area immediately adjoins Core vegetation and land is in single ownership, it is appropriate to designate 7(a) and 7(b) land on higher slopes to north and west E2 owing to higher conservation rating.

Agree

MADDENS PLAINS PRECINCT

60 Maddens Plains 7(b) E2 Land in this area encumbered by various service utility undertakings and with poor access away from the Princes Hwy. Bushfire potential high. Development application for 6 dwellings on wider holding in single ownership. Majority of site is Core vegetation. Refer to COI – states should be 7(a). Recommend E2.

Agree E2

61 Stanwell Tops 7(b) E2 X Developed. Should be E3. Agree E3





62 Stanwell Tops 7(d) E3 Developed. Area of land to the south east should be E2 as hanging swamp.

E3



Areas of Special Interest Figure 4.1 of the IESMP identified a number of areas located within the Biophysical support for Core area which, with appropriate development controls may offer some development potential. These areas are discussed in more detail below in Table A2. Table A2: Biophysical Support for Core – Area of Special Interest

LOCATION ZONE LEP 1990

Development Potential

COI RECOMMENDATION (if appropriate)

COMMENT

1 Marshall Mount 7b Yes Effluent management (disposal area) resolved to satisfaction of EPA. Council must be satisfied proposal meets objectives of ‘Environment and Health Protection Guidelines – On-site Sewage Management for Single Households’ and aims and objectives of RRP (TP 94/27)p137. Area of Interest to the south of access road not impacted by COI (see Figure A COI report).

Land at 80-200m Landslip (SUS0013) Existing access Calderwood Road Category 1 Riparian Corridors to NE and SW No Heritage APZ Priority 5 Servicing – no NP listed vegetation Slope 8-18 7(b)(ii) under DCP 46 RRP (TP 94/27) High VAC and DOE potential (See Section 5 of Land Use Review Strategy) Amendment 137 to LEP 1990 in north eastern corner






COMMENT

2. Access off Calderwood Road

7b (1) Non Urban

Yes Eastern part of land affected by COI. Recommends joint planning study for the Calderwood Valley be prepared by Shellharbour and WCC.

7(b)(i) and 7(b)(ii) classification pursuant to DCP 46 NP Vegetation Land at 40-120m Slope 4-8 Class 2 Riparian Corridor to NE Class 1 Riparian Corridor to SW APZ Priority 5 to SW High VAC and DOE potential (See Section 3 of Land Use Review Strategy).

3 Access off North Marshall Mount Road

1 (Non Urban) and 7b to the western extent and in central portion of site.

Yes Access off North Marshall Mt. Road NP Vegetation in isolated stands Land 50-150/160m Landslip suspected (none recorded) Slope predominantly 8-18 Riparian Corridor Class 1 to west Riparian Corridor Class 2 to east (Land outside buffer zones to creeks) APZ Priority 5 in NE area Public Road unformed through land No heritage






COMMENT

Issues Visual impact of housing in rural landscape Implications effluent management on water quality of creeks Stormwater runoff into creeks High VAC and DOE potential (See Section 3 of Land Use Review Strategy) Potential to create one single lot from multiple landowners. Amendment No 98 LEP 1990 Land has been subdivided but dwelling entitlements not taken up






COMMENT

4 North Marshall Mount Road

1 (Non Urban) and 7(b) to north west

Yes NP Vegetation Landslip suspected – not recorded Riparian Corridors Category 1 to north and south Riparian Corridor Category 3 through site (10m buffer to creek and 10m vegetation buffer) Access via existing access off North Marshall Mt Road Land at 80-110m Slope predominantly 8-18, 18-25 in 7(b) area to north west APZ Priority 5 in south/ southeastern area Issues Visual impact of housing in a rural landscape Implications effluent management on water quality of creeks Stormwater management – water quality Access to eastern portion of site High VAC and DOE potential See Section 3 of Land Use Review Strategy) Potential to create one single lot Amendment No 98 LEP 1990






COMMENT

5 Avondale Mine Site off Avondale Colliery Road

7b Yes on lower slopes

Area south of Off Avondale Road on upper slopes is in area considered in COI The COI did ‘not consider that intense residential development is appropriate for land zoned 7(b) notwithstanding that some of such lands may be cleared and hidden behind dense vegetation and cannot be viewed from the floodplain’

Not in Illawarra Regional Strategy Access off Avondale Colliery Road 4 landowners - Potential to create one single lot Isolated stands of NP vegetation. Visually prominent on higher ground Portion of 7(b) land was classified as 7(b)(ii) under DCP46 Riparian Corridors Category 1 – extensive network on and adjacent to site Isolated stands NP Vegetation Land at 60-140m on lower area,170m – 240m on upper APZ Priority 5 Slope – south of Avondale Colliery Road 8-18 North of Avondale Road – slope 4 – 8 and 8 – 18 Landslip suspected area






COMMENT

Issues Included as E2 Environmental Conservation Zone in WLEP 2007. Western extent of land excluded. Visual prominence in upper area Extensive network of Category 1 Riparian Corridors Implications for water quality – development downstream Implications for flooding Mullet Creek downstream Development on ridgeline – visual/Aboriginal significance Effluent management Single access (Bushfire implications) Servicing (Adjoins Stage 4 of the West Dapto Release area to be developed in the longer term) Heritage – local significance






COMMENT

6 Jersey Farm Road 7(b) (1) non Urban

Yes – on lower portion of land (area inside Illawarra Regional Strategy line)

- Access via Jersey Farm Road off Bong Bong road Access across privately owned land on land zoned (1) Non Urban All except north western corner included in Illawarra Regional Strategy and West Dapto release Area Potential to create one lot EEC MU 23 on site and in surrounding area – Coastal Grassy Redgum Forest Land at 50 – 110m Landslip suspected area No recorded landslip Slope 4 – 8, 8 – 18 to north west Issues Riparian corridors on Category 1 creeks to the north and south Water quality management Effluent management Stormwater management Access across privately owned land( but to be developed as part of West Dapto) Land proposed to be zoned E2 and E3 under WDLEP 2006.






COMMENT

7 Donbarton – Paynes road

7(b) Potential for large lot rural residential

Access off Paynes road No EEC Landslip suspected area No record of landslip Land at 110 – 170m Category 1 Riparian Corridors to west and east (tributaries to Robins creek) NP Vegetation Slope 4 – 8 off Paynes Road and 8 – 18 to the south APZ Priority 5 Clearings highly visible from a distance. Where there is foreground screening there is potential to screen development works from a high VAC and DOE potential (See Section 3 of Land Use Review Strategy). Issues Water management on site Stormwater impact on creeks and the floodplain below

Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategycouncil.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/development... · the...

Documents

Transcript of Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategycouncil.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/development... · the...