Ridgeline Goals of Hunter 36_2012

development Maryland.docx
Regional Plan 2.docxSubdivision layout & contours print.docx

505 MINMI ROAD

BLUE GUM HILLS

SUBMISSION PART Ⅰ

PLANNING PROPOSAL 2020

WILDLIFE CHANGES FROM 2012/2017

CORRIDOR
&
URBAN
GREEN CORRIDOR COALITION
BUFFER
Photograph of tall gums in Stage 2 Blue Gum Hills Regional Park (to be transferred from council) that is framed by the boundary line of 505 Minmi Rd.
 505 MINMI ROAD REZONING REVIEW SUBMISSION 2021
This submission to the 505 Minmi Rd., Fletcher Rezoning Review is for similar reasons our organisation made a submission to the Joint
Regional Planning Panel’s review in 2017. The consultant’s planning proposal document has published incorrect information and omitted
important facts. The substance of our submission focuses on two sections of the consultant’s review document that is of utmost concern.
Submission Part Ⅰ….. retention of wildlife corridor/urban buffer verses full urban development, and changes made to the 2020 planning
proposal when compared with the 2012/2017 proposals.
Submission Part Ⅱ…. analysis of the consultant’s “Visual Impact Assessment” (Pages 330 to 358) in the planning proposal document and
re-evaluation of visual impacts using local knowledge.
Aside from casting general doubt on the rigour and comprehensiveness of other information provided to support the planning proposal,
the impact of these deficiencies on the proposal documentation appears to be favourable to the proponent’s application. If independent
investigation determines that false or misleading information has been provided by any party in association with this – or any previous -
planning proposal for the subject site, we urge that action be considered pursuant to s.10.6 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act.
Background
A. The planning proposal for 505 Minmi Rd. has been refused three (3) times by Newcastle City Council, once (1) by the NSW
Department of Planning, and once (1) by the Hunter Joint Regional Planning Panel. The last council refusal was passed by a vote of
8 to 2, with councillors from all political parties supporting the refusal resolution.
B. After resolution of concerns surrounding the inclusion of 505 Minmi Rd. as a housing release area in Newcastle’s “Local Strategic
Planning Statement” (LSPS), this site has now been removed as a housing release area from the Newcastle LSPS and the Newcastle
Housing Strategy.
C. A resolution of City of Newcastle on 8 December 2020 nominated 505 Minmi Rd. for inclusion in the National Parks Estate. The
council has advised the NSW Minister for Environment of this and is still awaiting a written response.
D. In 1999, National Parks & Wildlife Service consultants drew up plans using ecological sustainability principles that identified two
bushland corridors connecting the planned Regional Park to the wetlands, one passing through 505 Minmi Rd. These plans still
exist. Since that time the wetlands have been purchased by the government for dedication as National Parks.
E. In the 1987 Newcastle LEP all lands in the LGA west of Maryland were zoned 1(a) Rural. In the 2003 LEP all lands west of Fletcher
were rezoned 7 (c ) Environmental Investigation (no studies were done despite many resolutions of council). In the amended 2012
LEP the 7(c ) zoned lands were rezoned R2 Residential or similar, except that 505 Minmi Rd. and Blackhill were rezoned E4
Environmental Living, while the “Tank Paddock”, and surrounding land, were rezoned E1 National Parks.
 SECTION 1
Extracts showing the “Goals of the 2036 Hunter Regional Plan” and mapping from the
2015 Draft Regional Strategy’s “High Environmental Value Vegetation” in the Hunter

ISSUES & COMMENTS

The State Government’s 2036 Hunter Regional Plan’s goals and the 2015 Draft Hunter Regional Strategy’s mapping
of “High Environmental Value Vegetation” both stress the importance of retaining and protecting vegetated linkages in the
Hunter region.
The 2036 Regional Plan specifically highlights the Newcastle LGA (blue box) and the 2015 Draft Strategy mapping
shows the planning proposal site contains high-environmental value vegetation (red circle). These were key factors for the
Joint Regional Planning Panel rejecting the 2017 planning proposal for the subject site. The development of this bushland
corridor is in direct contradiction to the goals of the Regional Plan, with the JRPP making written reference to the
development constraints of this site.
Discussion among Newcastle councillors during debate on the current planning proposal at the council’s 8 December
2020 meeting indicated that the significant reason for refusal was the loss of the national parks wildlife corridor and the
urban buffer.
The goals expressed in the 2036 Hunter Regional Plan (see Fig 1) are quite clear, but will not be achieved if areas such
as 505 Minmi Rd are lost to urban development.
Figure 1 GOALS OF THE 2036 HUNTER REGIONAL PLAN
Page 37 Page 45

Protection and enhancement

of forested corridors in
Newcastle LGA over the
next 15 years

High Environmental Value Vegetation Mapping

Figure 11 – Draft Hunter Regional Strategy 2015

505 Minmi Rd.

 SECTION 2
BLUE GUM HILLS REGIONAL PARK WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
Extract from 2003 Green Corridor Coalition Vision Statement
“Conservation and, where needed, revegetation of the transitional ecosystems between the wetlands and the forests, including
the strategically-important “Tank Paddock”, the Pambalong Swamp Nature Reserve
and the connecting areas to the Blue Gum Hills Regional Park”.

Our organisation, along with others, have advocated for a connecting wildlife corridor to the Blue Gum Hills Regional
Park for eighteen (18) years and, in particular, 505 Minmi Rd. for eleven (11) years. Seventeen (17) years ago a wildlife
corridor was identified by Newcastle City Council immediately to the west of 505 Minmi Rd. but twelve (12) years ago this
area was rezoned for residential development by the NSW government, leaving 505 Minmi Rd. as the only remaining option
to complete this connecting corridor. This narrow tract of fully forested land makes it ideally suited to perform this
environmentally essential role.
This wildlife corridor is shown in Figure 2, flanked by approved housing development. Photo X (blue arrow) shows 505
Minmi Rd. in the larger geographical context of far-western Newcastle and the Stockton Bight-to-Watagans Green Corridor.
Because 505 Minmi Rd. is the last bushland site surrounding the Blue Gum Hills Regional Park that is not rezoned for
housing, development of this site would result in the eventual ecological strangulation of this National Parks & Wildlife
Service regional asset. This has been the fate of the council owned “Blackbutt Reserve” in inner Newcastle.
The 505 Minmi Rd. bushland corridor would also serve as an urban buffer that provides a break in the wall-to-wall housing
developments currently under construction in far-western Newcastle. This corridor and urban buffer will have positive and
long-lasting social benefits for the immediate and wider community, and for the survival of our wildlife.
 505 MINMI ROAD 2020 PLANNING PROPOSAL

PLANNING PROPOSAL CHANGES

There have been significant changes to the resubmitted 2020 planning proposal that makes it even more ecologically
destructive than the three (3) previous proposals in 2009, 2012 and 2017.
Most prominent amongst these is the large increase in the number of lots in the planning proposal and the increase in the
R2 Residential area. This is laid out in Section 3.
Another result of these changes is the proposal now encroaches into the gullied areas of the E2 Environmental Protection
Zone, which would have long-term environmental consequences.
This submission includes examples of the “authorised” clearing and filling of gullies, construction of access roads, etc. in the
E2 zone that surrounds the neighbouring development, because development of 505 Minmi Rd would have similar
consequences.
Topographical comparisons of both adjacent sites show the ancillary works for the “Winten” development that are indicative
of works that would be required in the planning proposal’s E2 zone, and other E2 zones surrounding this site.
The latest proposal now includes a substantial number of “super” lots (≥ 1,500 sq. meters) that would be located next to
completed “super” lots on the “Winten” subdivision (refer Section 4 – Photo D). Such lots involve substantially most removal
of bushland
For table of changes refer to colour coded points at bottom of Figures 6 & 7
 SECTION 3
Note: In the following
Aerial photo layout of 505 Minmi Rd. 2020 Planning Proposal
sections the photos and
figures are cross-referenced & changes made from the 2012/2017 Proposals
with the explanatory text. ISSUES & COMMENT

a) Figure 3 Aerial photo of Blue Gum Hills showing completed developments, approved developments, land zoned for development,
and the current 505 Minmi Rd. planning proposal (darker shade). All vacant developable land in the Wallsend to Minmi urban growth
corridor, except for the planning proposal, has been zoned R2 residential or a similar land-use zone. Maps and photos in this section
examine substantive issues arising from the latest planning proposal.
b) Figures 4 & 5 show boundary maps, areas etc. taken directly from the 2012/2017 and 2020 proposals, and compares them.
Area calculations used figures from the 2020 planning proposal and data published by the consultant.
c) Figures 6 & 7 show the 2020 planning proposal increased the development from around one hundred (100) lots to one hundred
and fifty (150) lots. This large increase contradicts the 2017 JRPP’s main reason for refusal, which required the proponent to reduce
the number of lots by up to half that shown in Figure 6. Such a reduction would have made possible the retention of a wildlife
corridor to the Regional Park.
d) Figures 5, 6 & 7 show the proposed extension of the R2 Zone boundary to accommodate much of the proposed lot increase.
Calculations made from superimposing the 2017 and 2020 proposal zoning boundaries (Fig. 5), indicate that the R2 development
area has been increased by more than 3 hectares (pink areas). This appears to be inconsistent with the R2 area figure (15.4ha)
published in the 2020 proposal document, which is 0.27 hectares less than the 15.67ha figure given in the 2017 proposal (Figs. 6 &
7 - orange dots & red asterisk). If the zone boundary map for the current proposal is correct, the figure for the R2 area should be
significantly more (not less) than the 2017 figure. It is unclear which set of figures is correct, but the difference is substantial. If the
2017 figures are correct, then the R2 Residential Zone proposed in the current proposal would be between 18-19ha, rather than the
stated 15.4ha, and the E2 Environmental Protection Zone area would be between 7-8ha rather than the stated 10.4ha. This
significant discrepancy was not noted in the report accompanying the planning proposal when it was presented to the City of
Newcastle council meeting on 8 December last year. Given the implications for the proposal itself, the proposal should not have
proceeded to the stage of determination by the council. Independent verification and clarification of these figures is clearly
necessary.
Issues & comments continue after Figure 8…….
 ………Section 3 issues & comments continued

e) In the previous planning proposals the E2 land remained in private ownership but in the 2020 proposal it is under community title.
This may explain part of the reason for the development area change?

f) Figure 8 - Photo locations are shown in the bottom right hand corner of “Aerial Photo Insert” (circled in red).

g) Figure 7 lot comparison – “Super” lot located at southern end of planning proposal (red rectangle) is transposed to the northeast
corner for lot size comparison. One (1) “Super” lot is equivalent to over four (4) proposed normal size lots.

h) Because the latest planning proposal boundary now encroaches into the gullied areas of the site (see Fig. 8 contour lines) this would
require substantial clearing of large areas of E2 bushland and filling of the E2 gullies (see Fig. 7 & 8 - estimate based on the contour
lines). At the southern end this would be unavoidable and at the northern end the use of retaining walls would be cost prohibitive.

i) Figure 8 aerial insert and three (3) photos show the partially “approved” ancillary earthworks outside the subdivision boundary of
the neighbouring “Winten” development. At point A (photo A) the earthworks extend over 40 meters into the abutting E2 zone.
Photos B and C also show extensive clearing and filling of E2 to facilitate the council “approved” DA. After the large E2 area reduction
and ancillary clearing and filling, there would be considerably less mature bushland left in the planning proposal’s “protected” E2
zone. There would also be a loss of mature E2 bushland adjacent to the site’s external boundary, but this would happen with any
development on this site. Also shown on figure 8 is the location of past and resent/ongoing activities that are environmentally
degrading.

j) Figures 6 & 7 shows the bushfire escape road for the “Winten” subdivision through 505 Minmi Rd. has been removed (yellow dots),
which limits the number of “Winten” lots that could be developed. This may be reversed if the subject land was rezoned.

k) The 2020 planning proposal shows development of two areas (in R2 zone) of previously retained bushland which would require the
filling of the creek gully that runs across the full width at the southern end of the site, and the clearing of the steep area that runs
close to an off-site creek riparian zone (Figs. 6 & 7 blue dots & Fig. 7 LEP insert).

l) Photo A is the same as landscape Photo X in Section 2 but shows details of the planning proposal. All bushland below the yellow
line would be cleared, along with the above described gullied creek-line cleared and then filled. This clearing would continue down
the “Winten” subdivision to the gully creek shown on the aerial photo of Blue Gum Hills (Fig. 3).
 SECTION 4
Incompatible land use & urban “super” lots
ISSUES & COMMENT
a) The term “super” lot was used in 2006 on the developer-produced Master Plan for “The Outlook” subdivision at Fletcher.

b) Both the NSW Government and Newcastle City Council have approved urban “super” lots at Blue Gum Hills (>1,500 sq.
meters) which has resulted in the clearing of important bushland for little addition to the housing supply. Photo D amply
illustrates this fact, with the extensive cleared area adding only two (2) houses to the supply. Any reasonable person
would decry this needless clearing of far-western Newcastle’s fast disappearing high-value native forest. A
disproportionate amount is destroyed for one “urban” family. Refer to 2017 DA submission extract underneath Photo D.

c) There are at least ten (10) lots in the 505 Minmi Rd. 2020 subdivision plan that would be classified as urban “super” lots,
having a lot yield of around 3.8 dwellings per hectare. These are at the southern end of the site where the older forest
trees are located. Access to these lots would require the clearing and filled of the creek gully (Section 3 & Photo A). Such
size lots are inconsistent with the claim of “affordable housing” being propagated by the proponent.

d) The 505 Minmi Rd. planning proposal would contribute very little to the overall housing supply when compared to other
developments in the area. Weighed against this small contribution is the permanent loss of both the last possible wildlife
corridor to the regional park and the last remaining urban buffer.

e) A large number of diverse zones converge at the point shown in Photo H, but it is still possible to rationalise these into
two zones, thus striking a reasonable balance between development and conservation. This requires the long-delayed
cooperation of Newcastle City Council and the permanent rejection of the 505 Minmi Rd planning proposal. Well planned
urban development and National Parks can co-exist thus resulting in a betterment for all.
 SECTION 5
Photos of 505 Minmi Road bushland.

ISSUES & COMMENTS

a) Photographs of 505 Minmi Rd. bushland taken a few years ago.

b) These types of bushland photos of 505 Minmi Rd. do not appear in the consultant’s planning proposal documentation.
SUBMISSION PART Ⅱ IS SEPARATE