DA 2019/002428, ROSNY HILL DEVELOPMENT 12A AKUNA STREET, ROSNY
The TCT is opposed to the development proposal on the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area, lodged by Hunter Developments, and asks the Clarence City Council to reject the proposed.
In summary, the TCT’s concerns are:
- It is far too large for this small reserve;
- will have unacceptable impacts on the scenic beauty of the reserve (viewed from outside and from within the reserve);
- up to 25 % of native vegetation in the reserve to be cleared and degraded;
- will cause the destruction of threatened native flora species;
- will greatly diminish the recreational enjoyment of the reserve by local residents and other users;
- will cause a dramatic increase in vehicles accessing the reserve and increased demand for parking with a subsequent negative impact on residential amenity and visitor enjoyment.
- many potential impacts have not been assessed and these are specified in the representation.
3.0 PLANNING SCHEME OBJECTIVES:
3.0.6 Planning Scheme Objectives, Natural Environment:
The large-scale proposal, on a publicly owned reserved land does not achieve the desired planning scheme objectives in relation to the natural environment as outlined in clause 3.0.6. The proposed development will diminish the natural values, principally through the removal of native vegetation. The existing 180-degree view will be interrupted by the new structures and the forested foreground will be cleared to reveal a suburban aspect.
18.0 RECREATIONAL ZONE:
18.1.1 The Zone Purpose Statement to provide for a range of organised and recreational use or development and complementary uses that do not impact adversely on the recreational use of the land is contravened by the proposed development of a commercial hotel, restaurant, café and large carpark in the centre of a small nature recreation area.
18.3.2 Noise and 18.3.4 Commercial and Patron Vehicle Movements
The proponent’s traffic assessment accepts there will be potential for severe noise and amenity impacts on a small number of residents near the entrance of the Rosny Hill reserve, specifically 8-14 Akuna Street. The increase in traffic including patrons and other non-commercial vehicles accessing 24 hours of the day will be extreme and could be expected to ruin these people’s lives. The proposed response is to undertaken a noise study once the development is operating and this is simply unacceptable. If acceptable impacts cannot be guaranteed then the development should not be allowed to proceed in its current form.
18.3.5 Discretionary Use
A commercial hotel, cafe and restaurant and associated infrastructure does not complement and enhance the use of the land for recreational purposes. Passive recreation, which primarily occurs here is compromised. These uses do not augment or support the permitted uses as described in Clause 18.2 Use Table. Large sections of existing native vegetation will be removed for the buildings and for bushfire protection, having an adverse effect on the natural and scenic values of the public reserve and the associated passive recreational values.
Then proponent’s planner has attempted to claim through a rather bizarre logic that visitor accommodation is capable of augmenting and supporting the use of Rosny Hill for leisure, recreational and conservation uses. Not only is there no requirement for people undertaking recreation or conservation to stay on site over night the argument put by the proponent ignores the reality that the community currently wants the area left largely as it is and that the proposal will destroy the enjoyment they currently get from recreating in a quiet natural area without hundreds of visitors crowding the pinnacle.
The proponent’s planner also bizarrely has us believe that the performance criteria would allow any type and size of building to be built if it facilitates and services some form of recreation. Clearly a building of this size would greatly diminish the enjoyment of most locals and many nature loving visitors while catering to the desires of the proponent’s potential clients. The pinnacle will be a crowded place and locals will not want to go near it while there are hundreds of visitors present.
In a laughable attempt to appease local concerns a new walking track is proposed that takes users within a few metres of the accommodation – hardly something that will please either party.
What is in dispute is what type of recreation is desirable for this small reserve and whether the proposed development and uses are consistent with that or enhance it. The proponent has not done any assessment of current recreational use of the reserve by the local community, who are most strongly connected to the place, and the impacts on it from the proposed development.
The proponent has instead asserted that its own views of recreation are most valid and they relate strongly to using the commercial facilities and little to do with immersing themselves in the quiet natural areas.
E27 NATURAL ASSETS CODE:
Clause 27.1, a, b and c of the Natural Assets Code are contravened by the proposed development as follows;
· The development is situated in the area of the Natural Assets Code Overlay Map.
· The major part of the building footprint and adjacent impacted areas is located in the area designated as High Risk in the Natural Assets Overlay Map.
· The development will result in the direct loss (the development footprint) of an unacceptable area of vegetation including threatened plant species and communities and will result in a much greater area being indirectly lost or degraded over time including potentially threatened plant habitat.
· Key impacts have not been assessed including the habitat of some threatened plant species and impacts from bushfire hazard management.
Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area has the largest known population of the state listed endangered orchid Thelymitra bracteata in Tasmania and it is the only place where this orchid is reserved. Therefore, the Rosny Hill habitat should not be compromised in any way.
The proponent’s Natural Values Assessment by North Baker states that the development will result in the direct loss of 0.7 hectares of potential habitat for the species and is likely to result in the indirect loss of 1.3 hectares of habitat, meaning a total of 2.0 ha out of a total of 5.1 ha (close to 40%) is at risk of being lost. Then the habitat island that will be created is also at some risk and requires special management treatment so the area of impacted may reach 50% of the total. The measures proposed to manage the possible indirect impacts during construction and ongoing impacts from visitors trampling vegetation, i.e. changes to drainage and nutrient availability and weed invasion, are not at all reassuring given this is the stronghold for this species.
The proposals are basically that a vegetation management plan should be developed and we have no control over the quality of such a report and the commitment of the future builder and operator to implement it. While North Barker recommends barriers and signs to limit patron access to the orchids, the proponent has, in fact, proposed an orchid viewing boardwalk, thus drawing attention to the orchids and increasing risk of trampling. To be effective, given that hundreds of people will be visiting this site each day, access is possible 24 hours each day and protection must be perpetual, which is a total exclusion area with six-foot high chain link fence with overhanging barbed wire on top. There would also have to be a clear commitment to prosecutions if orchids or its habitat is damaged by visitors but this is not mentioned as part of the proposed management plan.
I note that the Natural Values Assessment by North Barker concludes that translocation and propagation ‘could reduce residual impacts’. Using the word ‘could’ tells me that they are not convinced that this will deliver the anticipated benefits. We note there is no detailed description of the translocation and propagation program for this species and we wonder whether it is a serious possibility at all.
The proposed translocation or propagation of endangered orchid plants is a doubtful process in the dry environment of Rosny Hill. This is a complex solution, requiring advanced scientific procedures and long-term expert maintenance. We understand that translocation or propagation of this species has never been attempted and it will be a very risky experiment.
The development footprint will impact on the nationally endangered Lowland Themeda triandra (Kangaroo grass) grassland community. Natural Values Assessment by Greening Australia found a small 0.1 hectare of the grassland would be within the direct footprint of the development and would be cleared. There is no assessment by either Greening Australia or North Barker of the indirect impacts on this endangered grassland and this is a serious omission. The Green Australia report does not specifically identify the huge added risks to retaining and restoring vegetation given the vastly increased number of visitors or how this could be managed. It makes no recommendation regarding the design of the development to limit visitor impacts e.g. most users of the main car park will probably want to take a short cut across the grassland to get to the reception building.
An added challenge that is not addressed is the difficulty in using planned burns adjacent to buildings and car parks to assist with the management of the grassland.
Greening Australia proposes that a long-term restoration management plan and weed management plan (with monitoring programs aligned with both) be developed and claims that through these processes it may be possible to restore the remaining grassland. It is highly unlikely that through these processes that conservation and restoration will occur in the long-term. It depends entirely on the quality of the proposed plans and staff employed to implement them. It also depends on the on-going commitment of the, as yet, unknown developer and operator and vigilance of the Clarence City Council as a regulator. It depends on the financial contributions being sufficient for the undoubted challenges of such an exercise.
The Greening Australia report found there would be no direct loss of state-listed threatened species, the rare grassland flaxlily Dianella amoena and the rare speargrass (Austrostipa nodosa) and proposes buffer areas to limit the potential for impacts during construction activities. The assessment was based on potential impacts on known localities and did not take into account that plants may occur in the future in other areas impacted by the development. There has been no assessment of the potential impact on habitat for these species.
Greening Australia finds that only 0.31 hectares of grassland and woodland will be cleared to make way for the development but they make no assessment of the potential for indirect loss due to degradation to adjacent areas due to construction impact, habitat fragmentation and impact of thousands of visitors trampling the area. Over time there is potential for the entire top of the hill, those areas directly impacted by the development and areas surrounding it to be lost.
E1.0 BUSHFIRE – PRONE AREA CODE:
A large area around the proposed buildings, an area of 3.0 hectares, will be managed for bushfire protection, having an adverse effect on both eucalyptus and Allocasuarina woodland. This involves thinning out the standing trees and ensuring no large trees within certain distances of proposed buildings. From our reading of both Natural Assets Assessment, it seems that the impact of managing woodland for bushfire protection has not been assessed and this is a serious omission.
E5.0 ROAD AND RAILWAY ASSETS CODE
Local residential streets will experience an adverse increase in vehicle numbers, and problems with already deficient road junctions will be exacerbated.
The traffic impact assessment has only focused on the impact of the development on traffic at one intersection, Akuna and Rosny Lookout Road and has not considered the potentially much greater impacts on traffic flow through the broader area, including major arterial routes to the local school and toward the Tasman Bridge and Rosny shopping precinct. The proponent’s planning report refers to a letter sent to Clarence City Council addressing these broader traffic issues, but this is not as we understand it a full assessment and nor has the letter made available for the community to comment on.
The proposed development will result in a large increase in vehicles accessing the reserve that will adversely affect local residents and recreational use and enjoyment of the reserve, contrary to the Purpose of the Road and Railway Code. These impacts were not assessed by the proponent.
E6.0 PARKING AND ACCESS CODE
The provision of parking for cars and buses is inadequate. Requirements for future parking will have an adverse effect on the natural and scenic values of the reserve and have adverse impacts on the recreational enjoyment contrary to the Parking and Access Code E6.1(a) and (f).
SCENIC PROTECTION
The gently rounded wooded form of the Rosny Hill reserve is of high scenic value when viewed from surrounding suburbs and the western shore. The scenic landscape value will be degraded by the development, including an extensive band of vegetation clearing around the western and northern slopes of the hill. The Clarence Interim Planning Scheme does not use the Scenic Landscape Code against which landscape impacts could be assessed. This is a flaw in the assessment process.
INCONSISTENT WITH RESERVE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION AND COUNCIL’S LEASE OBLIGATIONS
The proposed development, consisting of a hotel, restaurant, café, and large carpark is inconsistent with the area being a Nature Recreation Areas. Under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 the purposes of nature Recreation Area are for ‘Public recreation and education consistent with conserving the natural and cultural values of the area of land’. The proposal will not conserve natural values but will destroy and degrade them and there it is inconsistent with the purpose.
Furthermore, the proposal is inconsistent with the management objectives for a Nature Recreation Area which include ‘(e)to encourage tourism, recreational use and enjoyment consistent with the conservation of the natural recreation area’s natural and cultural values’. The proposed tourism development is not consistent with natural values but will destroy and degrade them.
The lease that has been issued to Clarence City Council by the state government requires any commercial development to ‘have regard to the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy 2011’. The proposed development fails to have regard to the strategy’s critical requirement that development be limited to two small areas within the reserve.
Yours sincerely,
Peter McGlone
Director