KINGSTON MIXED USE

DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION FOR EIS EXEMPTION

CONSIDERATION REPORT

January 2018

This report evaluates the application for an exemption under section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2007, from requiring a completed Environmental Impact Statement in the development application for the Kingston Mixed Use Development.

Ref no: DA201700031

Document no.: 1-2017/20436

Project: Kingston Mixed Use Development

Date lodged: 28 September 2017

Proponent: Canberra Town Planning

Location: Block 2 and 3 Section 67 Kingston

Street address: 45 Honeysett View Kingston

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................2

1.1. Project .................................................................................................................................2

1.2. Background .........................................................................................................................3

2. Environmental impact assessment process................................................................................4

2.1. Impact track triggers ...........................................................................................................4

2.2. EIS exemption process ........................................................................................................5

2.3. EIS exemption application...................................................................................................6

2.4. EIS exemption decision .......................................................................................................6

2.5. Consultation........................................................................................................................7

3. Impacts on Schedule 4 items ....................................................................................................10

3.1. Schedule 4 Part 4.3 Item 7– proposal involving land included on the register of contaminated sites........................................................................................................................10

4. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................13

4.1. Visual impacts ...................................................................................................................13

4.2. Impacts on Latham’s Snipe ...............................................................................................13

4.3. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................13

5. EIS exemption conditions..........................................................................................................14

6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................15

Appendix 1 – Referral Entity Comments...........................................................................................16

Figures Figure 1 - Aerial photo of the Kingston Mixed-Use Development location............................................2

Tables Table 1 - Legal land description and tenancy .........................................................................................3 Table 2 – Impact Track trigger per Schedule 4 of the PD Act .................................................................4 Table 3 - Summary of entity comments..................................................................................................8 Table 4 - Previous studies and investigations .......................................................................................11 Table 5 - Mitigation measures – works on contaminated land ............................................................12 Table 6 – Conditions for development approval ..................................................................................14

ii

Glossary and definitions

Term Definition ACT Australian Capital Territory The Authority The planning and land authority CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan DA Development Application DEMP Development Environmental Management Plan EIA Environmental impact assessment: the process of identifying, predicting,

evaluating and mitigation the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals before major decisions and commitments are made.

EIS Environmental impact statement: a document prepared to detail the expected environmental, social and economic effects of a development, and state commitments to avoid, mitigate or satisfactorily control and manage any potential adverse impacts of the development on the environment. In the ACT, an EIS is required for proposals in the impact track as per Section 127 of the Planning and Development Act 2007.

EMP Environmental Management Plan EPA Environment Protection Authority EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) EPSDD Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate MNES Matter of National Environmental Significance (as per the EPBC Act) NCA National Capital Authority OEMP Occupancy Environmental Management Plan PD Act Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) PD Regulation Planning and Development Regulation 2008 (ACT) TCCS Transport Canberra and City Services

i

1. Introduction This report is to the ACT Minister for Planning and Land Management on the assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) exemption application in relation to a mixed use development at Blocks 2 and 3 Section 67 Kingston. The application was made by Canberra Town Planning under section 211B of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (the PD Act).

This EIS exemption application was submitted concurrently with an impact track development application (DA) for design and siting works on Block 2 Section 67. If an EIS exemption (the concurrent process) is granted, the DA must be decided no later than 10 working days after. According to section 147AB (3) of the PD Act, if the EIS exemption as a concurrent process is refused, rejected or withdrawn, the DA is taken to be refused.

1.1. Project The project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a four storey mixed use building with height elements adding an additional two storeys. The building will consist of 79 dwellings and a commercial open plaza. Landscaping and associated works are included in the proposal.

1.1.1. Project location The EIS exemption application relates to land in Kingston, Australian Capital Territory. The land is located at Blocks 2 and 3 Section 67. The subject site fronts Jerrabomberra Creek and Kingston Harbour. This is located within the Kingston Foreshore precinct to the north-east of the Kingston Group Centre. The project location is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Aerial photo of the Kingston Mixed Use Development location

2

1.1.2. Legal land description and tenancy The Kingston Mixed Use Development will directly affect 2 blocks.

Table 1 shows the legal land description for each block affected by the proposal and the details of tenancy type and tenant.

Table 1 - Legal land description and tenancy

Block District Tenancy Tenant 2 67 Leased Territory Land Private Lessee 3 67 ACT Government – Not Public Land Unleased

1.2. Background The proposal site is a developable parcel of land facing the Kingston Harbour and Jerrabomberra Creek. The blocks are subject to an estate development that was approved in 2014. The subject site is currently vacant. Portions of the site have contained previous uses including a boat harbour, a rowing club building and stockpiling of materials during nearby redevelopment works.

The zoning of the proposed building on Block 2 Section 67 allows for multiple storeys, with a range of uses including residential and commercial developments. Minor works such as landscaping are proposed on Block 3 Section 67.

3

2. Environmental impact assessment process Environmental impact assessment processes are used to identify, predict, plan for and manage the impacts of development proposals before a decision is made about the project going ahead. An environmental impact assessment process is required to be undertaken for projects in the impact track.

Section 123 of the PD Act states that the impact track applies to a development if:

• the relevant development table states that the impact track applies • the proposal is of a kind mentioned in Schedule 4 of the PD Act • the Minister makes a declaration under section 124 • section 125 or section 132 applies to the proposal, or • the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) advises the Minister in writing that the development is a controlled action under the EPBC Act, section 76.

2.1. Impact track triggers The Kingston Mixed Use Development is in the impact track as it is a development of a kind mentioned in Schedule 4 of the PD Act. This proposal triggers the Schedule 4 item listed in Table 2.

Table 2 – Impact Track trigger per Schedule 4 of the PD Act

Item Number Description Project Component Part 4.3, item 7 Proposal involving land included on the

register of contaminated sites under the Environment Protection Act 1997 unless the authority produces an environmental significance opinion indicating that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact

The works are being undertaken on two blocks, both of which are on the register of contaminated sites.

4

-application meeting between proponent, assessment officers and relevant entities (optional) ........................................................................

............ ....................... ...,. ................................. . j Applicant submits EIS exemption application to j : Customer Services electronically • ••••••••• • ••••• • •••• •• •••• . . ........ t ...... ... . ........... . .......... . .. .

. .. • • • 4 .. .. . ... . .... .. ............. ...,. ....... . ..... . . . ... ... . .. . ........ .

: Application undergoes administrative and technical :

........... .., ... l. ~~!~.<?~i.tY, . l

completeness checks. Fee advice provided to : j. ·N~t~:·o·~~~· i~ ·~d~.i~~. proponent once documents are deemed sufficient : • · • • • •�: · ·d h 1· · .. _ ..... . .. ... .. -... ... ............. ,.. ..................... .. ...... ... .. • Is pa1 , t e app IcatIon

• .4 ..•. •..•... 4 ...... • .... 4 ....... . Y. .............. ·~···4 .. ... 4 ~··· ... . . Public consultation period commences-the application is

publicly available on the Authority website and is referred to entit ies for comments

...... .... ........ .. .......... .. ...... .,., ...... .. .. .. .......... .... ....... ,.. .......... .... ........ .. ............ .. .. .. ................ .. ... .

··· ·· ················ ·~············~ ······· ·······~····· ··· ············ : Public consultation period ends-proponent provided with entity : : comments and public submissions : .................................................................... .,., .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :i': .................................. . : Proponent lodges revised application, considering : : Authority and entity comments and any public : : submissions made within the consultation period : .................................... : ................................... . .. 4 • • • • • • • . . .. . • • •••• • .. 4 .. • · ·· ~· · • ...,. • • ..... • • .... ... . .. • • .. .. • . .. ... • ..

L ....... ~~y~~~?. ~P.~~~.~~?.~ }-!~?.~~~~~ ~!'.!T.P.l~~~~.~~~ .~~~:!. ........ l ~ •4 • 4 •• .. • • •• .. • • •••• • , .. • ••••••• • • ...,. • • ••••• • • •••• •u• .. 4 • •• .. • • ••• OA • ••

Revised application is assessed, considering written public

• ·- .. ·- ·- .. ... .. .. submissions and .entity comments .. .. .. ........ .. . .

... ... .................... . . ..... . - .... .. .... ...... ....... 4 .... ... ... ... ..

: EIS exemption assessment report is prepared for the : : Minister's consideration : ... ..... ... ... .. .... .. ........... .... ... ... ...... ..... ....... . .... . ... ....... ....

·· ····· •·4··· ··· ···· ·4···· ········ .... ······ ····· ······ ····· ······· ··4··· : The Minister makes a decision on the application : ..................... , ........... ......... .., ..... "••·--- ... ······· .... ················· ............. ~ .......... " .... ..

The Minister grants an exemption from requiring an : EIS if satisfied that a recent • study sufficiently addresses the expected environmental

• ·- . impact of t~e proposal ... ~·

............... :i': .............. . Proponent prepares

impact track development

. ~eP.1!~?~!?~. ~~~P.~~~~~ P.~?~~~~)_

. ............ ...... . .. . .. . 4 ......

The Minister does not grant an exemption if

unsatisfied that the expected environmental impact has been sufficiently addressed

.. ...... by a rec:nt study ...... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :i': .............. . Proponent submits a request for an EIS scoping document

•• .••• • (seearate process) ••• ••.•

2.2. EIS exemption process The flowchart below outlines the EIS exemption application process.

Figure 2 - The EIS exemption process

5

2.3. EIS exemption application In accordance with section 211B of the PD Act, the application for an EIS exemption was lodged by Canberra Town Planning to the planning and land authority (the Authority), within the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSDD) on 28 September 2017. As required by EIS exemption application - Form 1M, the application contained the following information to inform the assessment of the application:

• ‘Block 2 Section 67 Kingston – Application for S211 Exemption’ prepared by Canberra Town Planning

• Development Environment Management Plan Foreshore Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston ACT

• Development Environmental Management Plan Site 14 Developable Land Portion, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston ACT

• Site Audit Statements for Blocks 2 and 3 of Section 67, Kingston • Site Occupancy Environmental Management Plan Site 14, Developable Land Portion,

Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT • Ongoing Environmental Management Plan Foreshore Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore

Development Precinct Kingston

2.4. EIS exemption decision Section 211H of the PD Act states that the Minister may grant an EIS exemption for the proposal if satisfied that the expected environmental impact of the development proposal has already been sufficiently addressed by a recent study, whether or not the recent study relates to the particular development proposal.

In deciding whether the environmental impact of the development proposal has been sufficiently addressed by the recent study, the Minister must consider:

(a) whether the recent study was conducted by an appropriately qualified person with relevant expertise and experience in relation to the environmental values of the land in the proposal;

(b) if the recent study does not relate directly to the proposal—whether there is sufficient detail to allow assessment of the environmental impacts likely to occur if the proposal proceeds;

(c) whether the part of the recent study relevant to the proposal required public consultation through a statutory process or as part of a government policy development;

(d) if the recent study is more than 18 months old—whether the Minister is satisfied that the information in the study is current; and

(e) any submissions received during the consultation period for the EIS exemption application.

This report documents the information presented by the proponent, information received during entity consultation and public notification to inform the Minister in making a decision.

For each impact track trigger an assessment of the supporting information will be made against the criteria above in the corresponding sub-sections under Section 3 of this report.

6

2.5. Consultation Entity consultation and public notification were both undertaken for this application, as required by the PD Act. As the application was a concurrent application, the EIS exemption application and DA were notified concurrently from 9 October 2017 to 24 November 2017.

2.5.1. Entity referral Section 211E of the PD Act requires the Minister to consult with entities prescribed in the Planning and Development Regulation 2008 (PD Regulation) about the EIS exemption application. The Minister may also seek advice from other entities.

As this was a concurrent application, DA and EIS exemption application entity referrals were sent out concurrently. Some entity comments related only to the DA, others to both assessment processes.

For the Kingston Mixed Use Development, the Authority referred the application to the following mandatory and relevant entities. Comments were received from entities during the consultation period, as noted below in Table 3.

.

7

Table 3 - Summary of entity comments

Referred entity Entity response Entity response date

ACT Health Comments received related to the design and siting of the proposal.

27 November 2017

ACTEW AGL Conditionally approved by electricity and gas, comments relate to the DA only.

4 October 2017 (gas) 10 October 2017 (electricity)

Conservator of Flora and Fauna

Comments related to both the DA and the EIS exemption application. The conservator stated that there are no ecological values or trees on the site that will be impacted by the proposed works.

Further comments provided on 22 November 2017 stated that the proponent should consider any potential impacts of the proposal on the Latham’s Snipe at the Jerrabomberra Wetlands under the EPBC Act, and demonstrate in the DA that this has been considered.

8 November 2017 22 November 2017

Emergency Services Agency

Comments relate to the DA. 18 October 2017

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Comments relate to the DA. 9 January 2018

ACT Heritage Council

The Heritage Council advised that the proposal is unlikely to diminish the heritage significance of the Jerrabomberra Wetlands and no heritage assessment or management requirements are identified.

21 November 2017

ICON Water ICON Water conditionally accepted the proposal. 16 October 2017 Transport Canberra and City Services

Comments relate to the DA. 25 October 2017

National Capital Authority (NCA)

Comments relate to the DA. 9 January 2018

Strategic Planning (EPSDD)

Two sets of comments were received. Comments relate to the DA.

24 October 2017 26 October 2017

Comments were received from ten entities during the consultation period. Two of these entities provided comments outside of the consultation period (EPA and NCA). Entity comments are included in this report as they relate to each trigger or potential impact and where comments relate to the EIS exemption they are included at Appendix 1. Any matters to be considered or conditions that have been recommended by a referral entity will be included in Section 5 of this report.

2.5.2. Public consultation The PD Act requires the Minister to consult with the public on concurrent development applications including EIS exemption applications for 35 working days under section 147AA(1) of the PD Act. The EIS exemption application and DA were publically notified from 9 October 2017 to 24 November 2017 in accordance with section 147AB of the PD Act.

8

Ten submissions were received during the public consultation period with most relating to the DA only. Two additional submissions were received outside the consultation period. Comments relating to the design and siting of the project will be considered during assessment of the DA.

The proponent was provided with a copy of all public representations. Although these primarily related to the DA, they were provided for completeness. The proponent revised their EIS exemption application and submitted an updated report (including a response to the public representations in Appendix G).

2.5.3. Issues raised in submissions Issues raised during the public consultation process related mainly to the design and siting of the DA and are not considered under the EIS exemption process. A number of submissions made reference to the proximity of the site to the Jerrabomberra Wetlands and the presence of the Latham’s Snipe, a migratory species protected by international agreements and under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. It is the proponent’s responsibility to seek any required Commonwealth approvals for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

2.5.4. Additional public consultation Canberra Town Planning undertook public consultation prior to lodging the application. Consultation commenced in October 2016 and included:

• newspaper advertisements detailing the proposal and inviting members of the public to attend the community information (drop-in) sessions;

• delivery of information packages and separate meetings with key neighbouring stakeholders;

• delivery of information flyers to surrounding neighbours; • a community information (drop-in) session held on Wednesday 1 March 2017; • a community information (drop-in) session held on Tuesday 9 May 2017; and • an information package provided to the Kingston and Barton Residents’ Association and a

presentation to the Executive Committee.

Evidence of the pre-lodgement consultation is included in the application.

9

3. Impacts on Schedule 4 items This section summarises the impacts of the development on the relevant item from Schedule 4 of the PD Act. The supporting studies submitted with the application, comments from referral entities and public representations are listed along with any recommended mitigation measures. A conclusion is made on whether the information provided by the proponent satisfies the requirements of section 211 of the PD Act.

3.1. Schedule 4 Part 4.3 Item 7 The Kingston Mixed Use Development proposal is proposed on a site listed on the contaminated sites register under the Environment Protection Act 1997.

3.1.1. Impacts The site is not considered to maintain any natural conservation values. Impacts would most likely occur from potentially contaminated material dispersion during development. The following key potential impacts were identified:

• dust generation during construction; • run-off of stormwater containing contaminated material; • health and safety risks from exposure to contaminated material; and • compliance issues from failure to adhere to guidance documentation.

3.1.2. Previous studies and investigation The proponent has submitted an audit report and site audit statements which address the impacts of developing contaminated land in support of the EIS exemption application. The information submitted by the proponent to support the application is listed and assessed for relevance against the requirements of section 211H of the PD Act in Table 4.

These studies provide sufficient detail to allow an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the proposal. The site auditor report found that the site is suitable for high density residential and commercial development with or without basement parking.

10

Table 4 - Previous studies and investigations

TITLE & AUTHOR OF STUDY QUALIFIED PERSON

RECENT STUDY

If recent study >18 months, is

information current?

INFORMATION DIRECTLY RELATED

TO PROPOSAL?

If no, has sufficient information been

provided?

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIRED

EXPERT/ PEER

REVIEWED Site Audit Statement, Block 3 Section 67, Golder Associates

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Site Audit Statement, Block 2 Section 67, Golder Associates

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Site Audit Report – Site 14 Developable Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT Golder Associates

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Development Environment Management Plan Foreshore Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston ACT, Golder Associates

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Development Environmental Management Plan Site 14 Developable land Portion, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston ACT, Golder Associates

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Ongoing Environmental Management Plan Foreshore Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct Kingston, ERM Australia

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Site Occupancy Environmental management Plan Site 14, Developable Land Portion, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT, ERM Australia

Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No No

Endorsement of Site Audit Statement and Report – Block 2 Section 67 Kingston.

Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A

Endorsement of Site Audit Statement and Report – Block 3 Section 67 Kingston.

Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A

11

3.1.3. Entity referral and public comments One entity (the EPA) provided comments on the proposal which related to impacts of works on a contaminated site. However, these comments included advice and conditions of approval that will be considered at DA stage. These comments are included in Appendix A.

No public comments received were relevant to impacts of works on a contaminated site.

3.1.4. Recommended mitigation measures The recommended mitigation measures from the Authority’s assessment, entity comments and the reports submitted by the proponent against the impacts of the development on a contaminated site are included in Table 5.

Table 5 - Mitigation measures – works on contaminated land

Number Impact of development Mitigation Measure 1 Dust generation during

construction • Compliance with DEMP • Engage an environmental consultant and

hygienist to manage works • Environment monitoring implemented in

accordance with EMPs 2 Health risks from

contaminated material • Compliance with DEMP • Dust monitoring in accordance with EMP

3 Compliance issues • Site personnel to be trained and informed of requirements on site

• Review and updating (as required) of DEMP and OEMP, which include measures to protect human health and reduce environmental harm.

• Updated documentation reviewed by an accredited site auditor and approved by EPA.

3.1.5. Conclusion The supporting studies and the comments of relevant entities provide sufficient information on the impacts of works proposed on a contaminated site.

Further investigation and environmental assessment of the impacts of the proposal on a contaminated site is not required for this project. The conditions attached to this EIS exemption will be applied through conditions of approval on the DA.

12

4. Other Potential Environmental Impacts This section summarises the potential impacts of the development on the environment other than those impacts which are impact track triggers discussed in Section 3 of this report.

4.1. Visual impacts The proposed development on Block 2 Section 67 includes a multiple storey building, with documents submitted with the DA indicating that the building will be around 20m above finished ground level. Concerns were raised in a number of public representations about the potential visual impacts of the development. This development is identified in the Kingston Foreshore Masterplan and the Kingston Precinct Map and Code within the Territory Plan.

There may be a loss of views to the Jerrabomberra Wetlands from other areas in the Kingston Foreshore precinct as a result of the new building. Articulation elements and future plantings may mitigate some of the visual impacts. Assessment of the DA will include consideration of potential overshadowing impacts of the development as required by the relevant codes of the Territory Plan.

Landscaping works are required under the Deed of Management for Block 3 Section 67 which separates the building site from Jerrabomberra Creek and Kingston Harbour. This block was not included in the concurrent DA, with landscaping details, including plantings, paving and earthworks to be determined.

4.2. Impacts on Latham’s Snipe The proposed development is within proximity of the Jerrabomberra Wetlands, a habitat for Latham’s Snipe. This species is a migratory species listed as a MNES under the EPBC Act. This issue was raised by an entity and in public submissions with the entity stating that the proponent should consider any potential impacts to Latham’s Snipe and demonstrate in the DA that this has been considered. The proponent will be required to demonstrate that they have considered this Commonwealth matter as part of the DA process. Any EPBC Act requirements should also be considered. The proponent should contact the Commonwealth to confirm that there are no further requirements regarding the Latham’s Snipe or the Jerrabomberra Wetlands.

4.3. Conclusion Impacts not listed under Schedule 4 of the PD Act were considered in the assessment of this EIS exemption application. The two potential environmental impacts identified, visual impacts and impacts on Latham’s Snipe, were not considered major or relevant to the EIS exemption. Visual impacts will be assessed at DA stage.

13

5. EIS exemption conditions The following conditions are recommended to be imposed to ensure impacts on air, surrounding lands, health and compliance are acceptable. If a conditional EIS exemption is in force for a DA, section 128 (1)(b)(iv) of the PD Act requires the approval of the development proposal to be consistent with the EIS exemption conditions.

Table 6 details the conditions that are proposed to be set if an EIS exemption is granted. These conditions should be taken into account by the planning and land authority when assessing a DA for the proposal.

Table 6 – Conditions for development approval

No Condition Entity for endorsement or approval

Development stage Condition of approval

1 Health and Safety Plan

Environment Protection Authority

(A) Administrative (B) Prior to construction (C) During Construction

Implement environmental monitoring in accordance with DEMP Air monitoring for asbestos during excavation work in accordance with ACT Work Safety Code of Practice 2010 as per DEMP On completion of final excavation, install a separation layer to minimise potential for exposure to any contamination at depth

2 Compliance Environment Protection Authority

(B) Prior to Construction (C) During Construction

Regularly review and update DEMP and OEMP as required Updated documentation should be reviewed by an accredited site auditor.

3 Erosion and Sediment Control

Environment Protection Authority

(B) Prior to construction An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted to, and be endorsed by the EPA prior to works commencing.

4 Asbestos Emergency Services Agency (C) During Construction If significant amounts of asbestos is located during construction, ACT Fire and Rescue should be notified.

5 Light Spill Planning and land authority (C) During Construction Development to comply with AS4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. No external lighting to be mounted to the building façade facing the Jerrabomberra Wetlands.

6 Reflective Materials Planning and land authority (C) During Construction Building materials and glazing to have low reflectivity.

14

6. Conclusion Having regard to the supporting information provided by the applicant and comments received from referral entities and during the public consultation period, the planning and land authority has assessed the Kingston Mixed Use Development as meeting the requirements for an EIS exemption under the PD Act.

It is the planning and land authority’s assessment that the proponent has provided sufficient information to the ACT Government and the community to allow an informed evaluation of potential environmental impacts which could be attributed to the proposal. The supporting information and referral entities have proposed mitigation measures and conditions to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts arising from construction and operational activities associated with the project. It is considered that any potential adverse impacts can be adequately addressed by implementing the conditions outlined in this report.

The planning and land authority’s recommendation is that the supporting information submitted with the application has adequately identified and considered those matters of potentially significant impact and that further environmental assessment is not required. The expected environmental impact of the development proposal has already been sufficiently addressed by recent studies.

The planning and land authority’s recommendation is for the Minister to grant the Kingston Mixed Use Development an EIS exemption under section 211H of the PD Act.

15

Appendix 1 – Referral Entity Comments Note: as some entity comments related to the DA only, they have not been included in the summary below.

Emergency Services Agency Comments dated 16 October 2017:

ACTF&R has reviewed the EIS exemption for Kingston B2 Section 67 noting the soil contamination. If significant amounts of asbestos is located during the development works, ACTF&R Comcen should be notified on 02 6200 4111. This is so ACTF&R can be aware of the asbestos in the event of a worksite accident or transport accident involving asbestos.

ACTF&R has no other special considerations or objections to the EIS exemption.

Conservator of Flora and Fauna Comments dated 8 November 2017:

EIS exemption

The application can be examined and the trigger for the EIS is ‘a proposal involving land included in the register of contaminated sites under the Environment Protection Act 1997’. This block has been constructed as part of the Kingston Foreshore works and part of the site has been reclaimed from the old harbour. As such, there are no ecological values or trees on the site that will be impacted by the proposed works. Therefore the exemption from an EIS can be supported.

Development Application

However, the site is adjacent to Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve. Jerrabomberra Wetlands is one of the most valuable wetland habitat areas in the ACT, and is of national and international importance. More importantly, the development site is close to the refuge area for the Latham’s Snipe, a migratory species protected by international agreements under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Previous comments on this proposal raised the issue that light spill from the complex must be kept to a minimum and not encroach onto the refuge area. It was noted that there appears to be a large use of reflective neutral glazing and there was concern that this may cause light spill at night and glare spots during the day that could impact the refuge area. The developer has responded by stating:

“This development will not have any external lighting mounted to the façade of the building facing the Jerrabomberra wetland/reach area. This development will comply with AS4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting and TCCS requirements.”

However the potential for glare spots during the day due to use of reflective glazing has not been addressed. It is recommended that no reflective materials are used on the exterior of the building to ensure the integrity of the refuge area.

16

Further comments dated 22 November:

The proposed development was discussed at a meeting of the Wetlands Advisory Group and the following points were made:

• A point of clarification: It is not our responsibility to notify the Commonwealth of the development, though we can. It is the proponent’s responsibility to ensure they have considered the potential for adversely affecting MNES (Jerra) – under EPBC Act, and to demonstrate their response.

• We need to alert the proponent to the fact that the number of Latham Snipe at Jerrabomberra Wetlands means that the wetland now qualifies as an MNES, and that the development in its DA needs to show that it has considered this.

The Migratory Species Plan is nearing completion and the main species of coverage in the ACT will be Latham’s Snipe. The magic number for Snipe is 17 and then the site is regarded as ‘significant’. There were 22 Snipe just on the peninsula opposite Kingston Harbour a few weeks ago (inadvertently flushed by the hot air balloons when a bird survey was being undertaken).

Environment Protection Authority Recommended Conditions of Approval dated 9 January 2018:

All works must be carried out in accordance with Environment Protection Guidelines for Construction and Land Development in the ACT, March 2011, available by calling 132281.

All works at the site must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the following EPA endorsed documents (or subsequent EPA endorsed revisions of these documents) for the site:

1. Site Audit Statement (RJP 030a - ACT) dated 27 January 2016 and Site Audit Report titled "Site 14 Developable Area and Foreshore Land Parcel, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT" dated 27 January 2016 by Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd;

2. "Development Environmental Management Plan, Site 14, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT " dated January 2016 by Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd;

No soil or water is to be disposed from site without the approval of the EPA.

Prior to occupancy of the site application for variation of the Crown Lease under the Planning and Development Act 2007 must be requested and approved to include an additional provision which requires compliance with the above SAS and the site's occupancy environmental management plan (OEMP) titled "Site Occupancy Environmental Management Plan, Site 14, Kingston Foreshore Development Precinct, Kingston, ACT" dated January 2016 by Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd or EPA approved revision of this document.

A copy of the varied lease must be forwarded to the EPA for its records prior to occupancy of the site.

A revised noise management plan must be endorsed by the Environment Protection Authority prior to the release of plans. The plan lodged with the DA incorrectly describes the worst case scenario for

17

a worst case scenario for noise from commercial activities within the development as being a restaurant and hence uses internal generation levels which are not representative of levels at nearby establishments which the EPA has attended for noise complaints. The plan must be revised to ensure noise issues are appropriately considered at the planning stage.

As the site is greater than 0.3 hectares the construction is an activity listed in Schedule 1 as a Class B activity under the Environment Protection Act 1997. The contractor/builder developing the site must hold an Environmental Authorisation or enter into an Environment Protection Agreement with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in respect of that activity prior to works commencing.

An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted to and be endorsed by the EPA prior to works commencing.

Advice:

All rain water that enters the site and pools in excavations during a rain storm event would be considered as a sediment control pond, and must meet the following condition:

• No discharge from pond unless sediment level is less than 60mg/litre. If sediment level is greater, then prior to discharge, the dam must be dosed with either Alum or Gypsum and allowed to settle until the sediment is less than 60 mg/litre.

18