ENVIRONMENT

AL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
KGA581
Assessment Task 1: Representation

Srishti Gautam

554608 | Semester 2 | 29 August 2021

29th August 2021

The General Manager

Clarence City Council
38 Blight Street
ROSNY PARK TAS 7018

REPRESENTATION ADDRESSING THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE CABIN DEVELOPMENT AT 78

GEILSTON BAY ROAD, GEILSTON BAY

Dear General Manager,

As a local resident and neighbour living 800 metres away, I am writing this letter to express
my support for the proposed Eco Cabin Development by Ressen Pty Ltd at 78 Geilston Bay
Road. However, I am concerned about the environmental impact on nearby flora and fauna
as the site falls within a Biodiversity Protection Area – High Risk (Land Information System
Tasmania 2021). I believe that the proposal should be advanced with effective mitigation
strategies in place. Other issues with the development are acknowledged to exist, including
Aboriginal Heritage, future use and expansion, impact on residential amenity,
noncompliance with the Planning Scheme, Nyrstar operations, aesthetics and visual impacts,
vehicular access and traffic, and pedestrian access and safety.

ROLE OF THE PUBLIC

The Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) was established in 1994 to give
Tasmanian citizens the power to enforce pollution, planning and resource management laws
through the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT). One of the
statutory objectives underpinning RMPS legislation is to encourage public participation in
resource management and planning. RMPS allows citizens to initiate and participate in the
process of altering planning schemes that control land use in their municipality through
the local government and Resource Planning and Development Commission. Land Use
Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) forms the basic planning process for discretionary
development. From the standpoint of public involvement, an individual does not need to
show material or proprietary interest in a development to appeal against it. Moreover,
LUPAA gives the community the ability to formally challenge developments based on merit,
not just legal technicalities, but on ‘broad ecologically sustainable development’ criteria.
This is ac
complished by publicising the development proposal and giving citizens a 14-day window
to express their support, opposition, or concerns. People are encouraged to comment on
how land and natural resources are being used by wealthy owners irrespective of their
socio-economic status which makes the whole process more inclusive and democratic. The
RMPS system of integrated environmental regulation and planning has been identified as a
"world-best practise" system. Perhaps its most distinguishing feature being the expansive
scope for public participation (Environmental Defenders Office, 2014). Therefore, different
stakeholders can influence decisions that affect their lives through public participation,
which promotes transparency, encourages openness, and builds ownership of development
decisions and related projects (UN-Habitat, 2004).

The proposed development falls under the Discretionary Use activity under the Clarence
Interim Planning Scheme, 2015 as it does not fulfill all use and development standards but
relies on various performance standards. I was notified of the proposed discretionary
development through an application notice which was mailed to me by the council. This
gave me and the concerned individuals a period of 14 days to submit a representation
voicing our apprehensions.

Legal Context

To govern the development and approval process in Tasmania, an integrated system of

legislation is used, which is a combination of the Environmental Management and Pollution
Control Act 1994 (EMPCA), the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA), the
State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (SPPA), and the Resource Management and Planning
Appeals Tribunal Act 1993.

The application for the proposed development sought a permit under LUPAA as a
permissible level 1 activity. Level 1 activities are classified as having “relatively low impact"
by the EMPCA, making local councils (planning authorities; E27.6 CCIPS) responsible for their
assessment, regulation, and monitoring (Environmental Defenders Office, 2014).
Environmental controls are implemented through applying conditions on the activity’s
planning permit. If the director of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) believes
that the activity will have significant impact on the environment, the planning authority is
asked to refer the development application to the EPA for review. The status of the
development is then changed to a Level 2 activity for assessment purposes when it is called
in (Tasmanian Legal Handbook, 2019). As noted, there are no matters that could escalate
the status of the Eco Cabin development from a Level 1 activity to a Level 2 activity.

Information from the Natural Values Atlas (2021) indicates the presence of species listed
under Schedule 3,4, & 5 of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The activity
proposal falls within a Biodiversity Protection Area- High Risk which triggers the Natural
Assets Code (E27.0 CCIPS). Other relevant parts of the Clarence City Planning Interim
Scheme (CCIPS) being Section 8.10 - Determining Applications, Section 14.0 – Environmental
Living Zone and Section E6.0 – Bushfire-Prone Areas, Stormwater Management and, Parking
and Access.
Concerns and Recommendations

As the development is in a bushfire prone area significant amount of flora and fauna will
be impacted due to bushland clearing for construction and the access road which might be
greater than what the developer claims. However, work on individual floral species will
necessitate the acquisition of a permit. The Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment Report
deems the proposed development to have a "minor impact" on "priority vegetation”.

There is also suggested White Bellied Sea Eagle activity in the area which was not
addressed in the Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment Report. However, the Natural Values
Atlas records (2021) show potential Raptor nests and sightings within 500 metres of the
development (Figure 1). The White-bellied Sea-eagle is listed as a migratory species under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and vulnerable under
Schedule 3.1 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. During the breeding
season, the sea-eagle is known to be sensitive to disturbances around nest sites, and they
have been known to abandon nests, leaving chicks or eggs fatally exposed. Moreover,
disturbances during the mating season within 500–1000 metres of an eagle nest must be
reduced to give young birds the best chance for survival and growth, which may increase
reproductive success and improve the species’ persistence (Nature Conservation Report,
2019). Because the species is endangered, I believe the proposal should have included a
comprehensive natural values survey that took into account local bird sightings in
accordance with E27.8.1 of CCIPS which would then require the proposal to follow the P1(b)
criteria under E27.8.1 of CCIPS.
 Figure 1: Location of a verified raptor nest within 500 metres of the proposed
development – 78 Geilston Bay Road. Source: Natural Atlas Values Report, DPIPWE 2021.

There are three vegetation communities on the property area namely Eucalyptus globulus
(Blue gum), Eucalyptus amygdalina (Black peppermint) and Eucalyptus viminalis (White
Gum). Out of which two are listed as threatened under Schedule 3A Nature Conservation
Act 2002 i.e., blue gum (Community 17) and white gum (Community 25). Furthermore, the
site is home to the Swift Parrot, a nationally (Critically endangered EPBC Act 1999) and
state-endangered (TSP Act 1995) species that relies on blue gums for shelter and resources,
four of which will be removed. The main threat to the species being predation by sugar
gliders, loss of nesting and foraging habitat, and collisions with artificial structures like
windows (Threatened Species Section, 2021). The Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment
addresses the latter concern by putting in place design measures to reduce parrot collisions
and ensure that the flight path between the blue gums and their potential nesting sites is
not disrupted. However, the report does not specify whether the four trees are mature and
bear hollows. Therefore, I would recommend preserving mature blue gum trees with
hollows which are essential parrot nesting and breeding habitats (Threatened Species
Section, 2021).

The site is also home to the Eastern Barred Bandicoot which is listed as Vulnerable under
the EPBC Act 1999. However, the Flora and Fauna Assessment doesn’t consider the
proposed area significant for the conservation of bandicoots.
The proposed site harbours diverse floral and faunal communities. If the proposal is
approved, there will be an influx of visitors and increased traffic, necessitating appropriate
wildlife and roadkill signage to prevent and minimise animal mortality. I would also
recommend putting up educational infographics or signs highlighting the area's rich
biodiversity so that people can appreciate and respect the natural values around them.

Support

Overall, I am in favour of the project because I believe that proper regulations and
mitigation measures were followed and discussed during the development of the proposal
and the habitat assessment. For example, to minimise the environmental impact most of
the proposal resides in the Eucalyptus amygdalina forest which is a non-threatened
community. I will be fully on board with the proposal if my above-mentioned concerns are
addressed with reasonable solutions.

Thank you for reviewing my representation.

Kindest regards,

Srishti Gautam
References:

Environmental Defenders Office, 2014, Environmental Law Handbook, EDO Tasmania,

4thedition, ch. 4-5, available online at
http://www.edotas.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ELH-4th-edition-Chapter-5.pdf

Environment Protection Authority (2019) Guidance for Land Use Planners on Environmental
Impact Assessments Conducted by the EPA Board, Environment Protection Authority,
Hobart, Tasmania.

Land Information Services Tasmania, 2021, search: 78 Geilston Bay Road.

Northbaker Ecosystem Services 2016, Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment, Northbaker
Ecosystem Service, Hobart, Tasmania.

Natural Values Atlas 2020, Natural Atlas Values Report, Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmanian Government, viewed 27 August 2021.

PDA Surveyors 2016, Proposed Multiple cabin Development 78 Geilston Bay Road, Hobart
Tasmania for Ressen, Hobart, Tasmania.

Threatened Species Section (2021). Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot): Species Management
Profile for Tasmania's Threatened Species Link.
https://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au/Pages/Swift-Parrot.aspx. Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania, viewed 28 August 2021.

Tasmanian Planning Commission n.d., Clarence Interim Planning Scheme 2015, viewed 25
August 2021, available at <https://iplan.tas.gov.au/pages/plan/book.aspx?exhibit=claips>

UN-HABITAT (2004). Urban Governance toolkit Series.