Demolition of IBM buildings

WPHVPA Vice-President and President were allowed to share a 10 minute address to the Local Planning Panel

WPHVPA Vice-President's address to the LPP on 15th September 2021

The residents of West Pennant Hills oppose this DA in its current form because it will have a significant environmental impact on our Valley.

The removal of 1,253 trees from the site is described as ‘a key issue’ in Council’s report, and it certainly is a key issue for our residents.

The recommendation that the ‘treed environment of the Shire’ can be maintained by planting 60 replacement trees is simply not believable. That is a replacement rate of less than 5%.

Surely the best way of maintaining our treed environment is to reduce the size of the demolition footprint so that a much smaller number of trees is removed.

The applicant has justified their approach by claiming that they are just removing a planted garden. That description was true some 40 years ago, but the landscapers were careful to reuse the existing topsoil, containing the native seed bank, with the obvious intention that the native forest would regenerate. This has now happened and the area now contains many species of Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest that were not planted.

The applicant has failed to provide Council with a satisfactory Biodiversity Assessment Report, or BDAR. A Streamlined BDAR was provided, but Council determined that ‘this methodology cannot be utilised.’ Instead of supplying the further information requested by Council, Mirvac commissioned a Peer Review and Legal Advice in order to justify their methods. Both of these further documents were limited in scope, and relied solely on incomplete information provided by Mirvac. Understandably, they did not alter Council’s opinion.

To resolve the situation, Council sent their own Senior Biodiversity Officer onsite to ‘..complete a plot-based floristic vegetation survey…’ It was determined that the development footprint contained 1.85 ha of Blue Gum High Forest; I refer you to pages 58 and 59 of Council’s report.

Based on information provided by Keystone, the applicant does not support Council’s findings. But we have found numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Keystone’s reports. For instance, when listing the species found within the demolition footprint, the BDAR failed to identify 20% of the Blue Gum High Forest species, and 50% of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest species, as belonging to those plant communities. The Panel will need to decide who to rely on.

We are not unreasonable. We accept the fact that the land has been rezoned, that the applicant is entitled to demolish the existing buildings, and that not all the trees can be saved, particularly those around the on-grade carpark. But Council has confirmed that the demolition footprint contains 1.85 ha of Blue Gum High Forest and we do not accept that this Critically Endangered Ecological Community should be clear-felled to facilitate the demolition.

In June 2020, when DPIE rezoned this site, the presence of Blue Gum High Forest in this area was not identified and therefore, could not be considered. It follows that it is even more important that the presence of this vegetation is considered now by the Panel.

The DPIE approval was just for rezoning – it did not give permission for the R3 and R4 areas to be clear felled. There are many residential zones in our Shire where critically endangered vegetation is protected. The Panel does not need to give approval for this Blue Gum High Forest to be cleared.

This DA is for the demolition only, and Council’s report dismisses the concerns of residents that relate to other matters. In the interest of fairness, Council’s suggestions in the report that the removal of 1,253 trees will ‘facilitate a development outcome that is consistent with the site-specific planning proposal’, also have no relevance and should not be considered. The only trees that should be removed are those that are essential for the safe demolition of the buildings. No trees should be removed, at this stage, to facilitate any future development of the site.

The decision on this DA must be deferred until the demolition footprint is significantly reduced in size and excludes the 1.85 ha of Blue Gum High Forest identified by Council.

WPHVPA President's address to the LPP on 15th September 2021

This development application proposes the clearing of a very large and significant demolition footprint. The documentation put before the Planning Panel states that this is required to facilitate the safety of the demolition and also to facilitate the future development of the site. Two separate points to justify the very large scale of the clearing.

Council’s report completely ignores any discussion of how the demolition will be achieved and also ignores mandating a more selective demolition plan to reduce the significant negative environmental impact of the large-scale clearing.

The applicant has told us that it is not possible to demolish the existing buildings from within.

However internal and selective demolitions happen all the time on tight sites both for reasons of safety and to negate any damage to surrounding structures.

It is obviously easier and certainly more convenient to view the critically endangered ecological community surrounding the buildings as being expendable. If the buildings were surrounded by other built structures that needed to be protected, then we would be seeing a completely different demolition plan. We question whether this is actually the best plan or just the cheapest plan.

Is there any evidence that supports the need to fell 1,253 trees to achieve a safe demolition? If this was a site within the CBD we would see a safe demolition within a much smaller footprint.

Risk assessments of demolition activity are carried out and appropriate controls including relevant Safe Work Method Statements are created all the time to help manage workplace safety whilst carrying out demolitions in tight situations. The processes and procedures exist.

Obviously, a safe demolition can be achieved in a much smaller footprint.

We accept that given the rezoning of the site the applicant is entitled to demolish the buildings and that some trees will need to be removed.

The plan for large-scale clearing around the demolition site including the loss of 1.85 ha of critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest clearly benefits the applicant’s plans for future development.

However, this is a DA seeking approval for the demolition of existing structures and associated works not a DA that relates to the future development of the site.

Clearing to facilitate future development is surely not a decision for the Planning Panel to make today. Future development applications will be assessed separately.

There are references within Council’s report to this development complying with the Local Environmental Plan and the Development Standards, none of which are actually covered by this application to demolish and are not relevant to today’s decision. For example, the height of buildings is stated to comply at 22 metres, yet the applicant has told us that they may be looking for approval to build to 30 metres. Until a Master Plan is published or subsequent DAs are lodged we do not know what is proposed and if it is compliant or not.

The residents of West Pennant Hills Valley oppose this DA in its current form because of its irreversible impact on the environment of our valley.

We ask that the application as it stands now be refused or that a decision is deferred until the demolition footprint is significantly reduced in size and excludes the 1.85 ha of Blue Gum High Forest identified by Council.

The panel should not approve the large-scale clearing of trees to facilitate future development and does not need to approve large-scale clearing to facilitate a safe demolition.

Thank you, panel chair and members on behalf of the West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association.

2021-09-01 Submission from West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

EPBC Act Referral number 2021/8995 – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills

The proposal is a controlled action

The proposed action will have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance including Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF), Syzygium paniculatum, the Dural Land Snail and the Grey-headed flying fox. It is a controlled action and should be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for a decision. The Minster should refuse to issue a Permit for this controlled action.

Inclusion of Concept activities

We feel it is inappropriate to request a decision in advance of any construction DA being submitted.

We object to the Concept activities being included in the Referral because a DA has not been lodged for any construction on this site. Whilst lodgement is said to be ‘imminent’, the same commitment was made to CRG members last December. Since then, the Concept plan has been changed several times and therefore the Concept in the Referral cannot be regarded as definitive.

Dedication of approximately 10ha of remnant forest land to the State Government

The Referral states that approximately 10ha of remnant forest will be dedicated to the State Government. This suggestion was first made more than 4 years ago, but we are yet to see any documentation confirming that this will occur. It is therefore inappropriate to rely on the protection of any remnant forest on this site when assessing MNES impacts.

Clearing of BGHF and STIF regrowth forest will have a significant impact on these Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEEC)

The Referral fails to mention that several hectares of regrowth BGHF and STIF will be cleared for this demolition DA. The demolition area contains 1253 trees to be removed, of which more than 450, or 35%, are BGHF or STIF species. (ref AIA part 2 – Attachment 2)

We believe that the areas mapped as ‘landscaped gardens’ some 40 years ago, can no longer be identified as such because they now contain substantial numbers of regrowth BGHF and STIF species not listed in the historical IBM planting schedules. (Appendix 1).

· The ‘IBM 1985 Landscape Technical Specifications’ (Attachment 3) document states that the topsoil across the IBM footprint, (where the demolition footprint is located), was removed, stockpiled, then improved with sand, horticultural grade bark and an organic matter admix, and then used for fill and site soil. The sub-grade was "broken up using a single tyne" and "completely un-compacted and loosened". Therefore, the soil in the demolition area is original soil, improved to encourage plant growth and would have contained seeds from the original BGHF and STIF species on this site.

· There are now over 450 BGHF and STIF species in the demolition area, the majority of which are not shown on the historical IBM planting lists. Most of these species have grown from seeds in the original topsoil or from seeds dispersed from the adjoining forest. Many of the trees are 25-35m high.

· The Senior Biodiversity Officer, Hills Shire Council, noted in an email sent to Mirvac on 12^th July 2021 that ‘…the vegetation present around the buildings are a mixture of naturally occurring vegetation through ‘regrowth and established from surrounding seed sources' as well as planted species that have contributed to the establishment of the vegetation community and structure. The composition of species in these areas contain species that are characteristic of Sydney Turpentine lronbark Forest and /or Blue Gum High Forest which are the two vegetation communities present within the same property and therefore can be reasonably assigned to a Plant Community Type.’ We therefore dispute the claim in the Referral that species in the demolition footprint cannot be assigned to a Plant Community Type (PCT).

· The NSW Government Biodiversity Values Map shows the presence of BGHF and STIF within the demolition footprint.

It appears that these areas are no longer ‘landscaped gardens’ and should instead be labelled as BGHF and STIF regrowth forest and declared as such in the Referral. The clear felling of more than 3 hectares of BGHF and STIF will have a significant impact on matters protected by the EPBC Act.

We believe it is also relevant that the tree survey of the so called ‘landscaped gardens’ was not made available until the demolition DA was lodged in October 2020. Therefore, the BGHF/STIF regrowth was not identified to DPIE when the site was rezoned in June 2020. It is therefore particularly important that the impact on the STIF and BGHF is taken into account now.

The regrowth STIF and BGHF in the demolition footprint meets the relevant definition for the EPBC Act

· The BGHF within the demolition footprint is greater than one hectare in size, it has a canopy cover greater than 10%, and occurs in an area of native vegetation in excess of 5 hectares

· The STIF within the demolition footprint is greater than one hectare in size, is of good condition, having characteristic components from all structural layers (tree canopy, small tree/shrub mid-storey and understorey), has tree canopy cover greater than 10% and is part of a remnant of native vegetation that is 5 hectares or more in area.

Clearing of Corymbia maculata from the on-grade carpark

It is stated in the MNES that ‘High rates of mortality of the Grey-headed Flying Fox can result from losses of small areas of key winter habitat (Eby and Lunney 2002)’. Tree species relied upon during the winter include Corymbia maculata, large numbers of which are proposed to be cleared from the on-grade carpark area. This will have a significant impact on local camps of Grey-headed Flying Fox.

Misleading and/or Inaccurate Information

· It is stated in the applicant’s Referral and accompanying MNES Impact Assessment that the Syzygium paniculatum was planted as "part of landscape works for the IBM development in the 1980's". This statement is misleading because it is not listed in the historical IBM Planting Schedules (Appendix 1). There is no evidence of this species ever being planted. In the Sydney Basin, the Syzygium paniculatum is associated with BGHF, further suggesting that it is likely to be natural regrowth. www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profileData.aspz?id=10794

· The applicant’s MNES states ‘The Critically Endangered Ecological Community Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) also occurs on the subject lot, but as there will be no direct impact to this vegetation, an impact assessment has not been conducted’. This is misleading because there are more than 3ha of regrowth STIF and BGHF within the demolition footprint that will be impacted.

· The MNES states that ‘The total area of impact to BGHF proposed by the small number of intrusions totals 134.82 square metres (0.01 hectares).’ This is misleading because there are more than 3ha of regrowth STIF and BGHF in the demolition footprint that will be impacted by this action.

· The MNES states that the Dural Land Snail ‘…. is generally found in dry habitats’. The individuals found in the demolition footprint were nearly all located on or around the retaining wall of the carpark. It is misleading to extrapolate across the whole site, including creeks and dams, to estimate total population. This understates the percentage impact on the species.

· The MNES also states that for the Dural Land Snail, ‘The total area of connected bushland that potentially provides habitat for this species (including the subject lot) is therefore 301 hectares.’ This is misleading because the subject lot is surrounded by roads and a nocturnal species that travels only one metre at night would therefore not be directly connected to other bushland.

· Table 2 in the BDAR provides a list of all species found in the demolition footprint. Species characteristic of BGHF or STIF communities have been identified in the list.

o The BDAR list identifies 29 BGHF species and 26 STIF species.

o However, comparison with the most up to date species list for BGHF and STIF, which is available on the DPIE website, shows that an additional 7 should have been identified as BGHF and an additional 28 as STIF. (Appendix 2)

In other words, the BDAR has failed to identify 20% of the BGHF species and an astonishing 50% of the STIF species! This means that the numbers of STIF and BGHF species within the demolition footprint have been grossly underestimated. It is no wonder that the applicant has failed to identify correct PCT’s in the demolition footprint.

· The Referral states that there is no feasible alternative to taking the proposed action. This is misleading because the buildings could be demolished from within and the vast majority of trees within the proposed demolition footprint would not need to be removed. This approach would have to be taken on a site surrounded by other buildings rather than trees. The applicant is simply proposing the easiest way to demolish the buildings without trying to minimise MNES impacts.

· The MNES states that ‘…. the existing drainage patterns of the site will not be altered in any significant way’. This is misleading because the stormwater run-off from the proposed dwellings will clearly be greater than the run-off from the existing IBM buildings which are surrounded by vegetation. The action will ‘modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community's survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns.’

This Referral is for a controlled action that should be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for a decision. The Minster should refuse to issue a Permit for this controlled action.

2021-08-13 Additional submission from West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

Demolition DA 585/2021/HC – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills

For the purpose of making this submission, the Committee has considered the following 2 documents which were posted on Council’s website on 3^rd August 2021:

585/2021/HC Documents referenced in Peer Review by Cumberland Ecology

585/2021/HC Council emails referenced in legal advice - re email to BAM support mailbox

together with information contained in emails between Keystone and BAM support of 20^th and 28^th January 2021, made available by Council on 11^th August 2021 (BAM 1669/76).

· It appears from the various emails that Keystone has consistently provided incorrect information to the BAM support team by claiming that the vegetation is ‘…. all planted native vegetation.’ Keystone has a list of species planted on the site and a list of species now growing on the site. The two lists do not match. There are many species growing on the site that were not planted.

· Having been incorrectly told by Keystone that all of the native vegetation was planted, it is not surprising that use of a streamlined BDAR was advised by the BAM support team in their email of 28^th January 2021. Since the site was inaccurately described by Keystone, the response from the BAM support team to Keystone is not relevant.

· Ms Adams-Bennett (THSC) has provided the BAM support team with an accurate description of the site as a mix of planted vegetation and native regrowth ‘adjacent to intact bushland’

· The BAM support team appears to confirm that this type of vegetation fits the description of naturally occurring vegetation existing amongst planted native vegetation, adjacent to intact bushland, and therefore ‘within an area that contains’ a ‘mosaic’ as mentioned in question D.1(1).

We therefore support the opinion of Ms Adams-Bennett stated in her email to Mirvac dated 12^th July 2021 that:

· The Planted Native Vegetation Module should not be used because the vegetation around the buildings is a mixture of planted and naturally occurring regrowth,

· the species are characteristic of BGHF and STIF plant communities,

· the Consultant should stratify the vegetation within the development site to identify areas that can reasonably be assigned to a PCT, and

· apply the full BAM to these areas in the BDAR.

2021-08-05 Additional submission from West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

Demolition DA 585/2021/HC – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills

For the purpose of making this submission, the Committee has considered the following 2 documents which were posted on Council’s website on 27^th and 29^th July 2021:

585/2021/HC Peer Review prepared by Cumberland Ecology of Streamlined BDAR (Review)

585/2021/HC Advice from Malcolm Craig QC regarding Keystone’s BDAR (Advice)

Mirvac has commissioned these 2 documents to justify use of the Streamlined BDAR for the demolition DA 585/2021/HC. The opinion of Malcolm Craig QC should not be preferred by Council to that of an independent legal expert.

Both the Review and the Advice have relied on data provided by Mirvac to reach a conclusion. Our previous submissions of 2^nd and 8^th July 2021 highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in that data. For instance, the BDAR failed to identify 50% of the STIF species found on site as belonging to that plant community. It appears that the Review and the Advice have relied on faulty data, and therefore the conclusions are not justified.

Having someone else look at defective data does not improve the quality of information provided to Council. Therefore, we urge Council to seek peer review of the BDAR by an independent accredited assessor in order to properly consider this application. We also urge Council to seek its own legal advice before making a recommendation to the Local Planning Panel.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that Mirvac seeks to clear-fell 1,253 canopy trees, including more than 450 critically endangered BGHF and STIF species, simply to make it easier to demolish the existing buildings. Many of these trees are regrowth, not planted, and we believe it is inappropriate to use the short-cut method of a Streamlined BDAR for assessing the environmental impact on this unique site.

Detailed comments are given below:

Peer Review

· Mirvac has limited the Review to a desktop assessment.

· The Review is limited to specific documents. The BDAR and the AIA (Arboricultural Impact Assessment) have been excluded, yet they are fundamental documents when considering whether the streamlined assessment module can be used.

· The Review states that ‘……conclusions reached have relied on data and information presented by Keystone Ecological …….. factors such as accuracy of vegetation mapping, field survey effort etc do not form part of this review.’ As stated above, our previous submissions have exposed faulty data.

Legal Advice

· Mr Craig describes the demolition area as ‘…..sufficient only to enable the demolition work to be safely carried out.’ We question whether Mr Craig has demolition expertise, because we have been told both by Council and Mirvac that a smaller demolition footprint could be used if the buildings were demolished from the inside.

· Mr Craig qualifies his conclusion by saying it is ‘…. based upon the material with which I have been provided …….’ but omits to tell us which documents were made available to him.

· The statement that ‘…. a small number of Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly Pilly, an endangered species under the BC Act, were planted.’ implies that this species is named on one of the IBM planting lists. We have been unable to find this species on any of the lists made available on Council’s website.

· In discussing the lack of a definition for ‘remnant’ in the BAM, Mr Craig asserts that the legislature could have used the same definition as in the previous Native Vegetation Act, but ‘It chose not to do so.’ Does Mr Craig have prior knowledge that this is true? The statement from the BAM Support Team that they ‘will consider reducing this ambiguity in future revisions’ suggests that it was an unintended omission.

· In the absence of a definition in the new BAM, we consider the most logical definition of ‘remnant’ comes from the now repealed Native Vegetation Act 2003. Mr Craig states that ‘…… “for the purpose of [that] Act,” the term is defined to mean any native vegetation other than “regrowth.” In that same section ……. “regrowth” is relevantly defined to mean native vegetation that had regrown since 1 January 1990.’ Some native regrowth on the site would likely have occurred before this date and should therefore be classed as remnant.

· The term mosaic is also not defined in the BAM. It appears that Mr Craig has assumed that the mosaic must exist within the demolition footprint, but it could just as easily refer to a mosaic on the whole site. The fact that BAM plots have been scattered across the whole site gives weight to this argument. Many areas of remnant forest on site are not recorded as ever having been cleared.

2021-07-08 Additional submission from West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

Demolition DA 585/2021/HC – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills

For the purpose of making this submission, the Committee has reconsidered the following documents which were posted on Council’s website on 11/06/2021:

585/2021/HC Attachment A Response Cover Letter 55 Coonara Ave (RCL)

585/2021/HC Attachment B Biodiversity Development 55 Coonara Ave (BDAR)

The Committee has found inconsistencies and incomplete data in both the BDAR and the RCL. The BDAR is a required document that Council and the Local Planning Panel (LPP) should be able to rely on when assessing this DA. Council should also be able to rely on answers contained in the RCL when preparing a report for the LPP. The omission of crucial information could lead to the wrong decisions being made.

We urge Council to obtain an accurate and appropriate BDAR before assessing this application. Once an accurate and appropriate BDAR has been provided, the community should be given further time to comment.

Examples of inconsistent and incomplete data are given below:

1. Table 2 in the BDAR provides a list of all species found in the demolition footprint. Species characteristic of BGHF or STIF communities have been identified in the list.

a. The BDAR list identifies 29 BGHF species and 26 STIF species.

b. However, comparison with the most up to date species list for BGHF and STIF, which is available on the DPIE website, shows that an additional 7 should have been identified as BGHF and an additional 28 as STIF.

In other words, the BDAR has failed to identify 20% of the BGHF species and an astonishing 50% of the STIF species! This discrepancy is unacceptable.

2. Inconsistencies between the RCL and BDAR were highlighted in our previous submission dated 2021-07-02. Further consideration of the RCL has revealed that this document is also inconsistent with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) lodged with this DA and posted on Council’s website on 28/10/2020. The AIA provides a list and map of trees within the demolition footprint. Species are identified and numbered on the map. The RCL contains several diagrams showing important tree species, but many of the trees mapped in the AIA have been omitted in the RCL. For instance, a large number of Sydney Blue Gums identified in the AIA are not shown on the RCL maps. This is misleading and inconsistent.

2021-07-02 Additional submission from West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

Demolition DA 585/2021/HC – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills

For the purpose of making this submission, the Committee has considered the following documents which were posted on Council’s website on 11/06/2021:

585/2021/HC Response request for additional information 55 Coonara Ave (RFI)

585/2021/HC Attachment A Response Cover Letter 55 Coonara Ave (RCL)

585/2021/HC Attachment B Biodiversity Development 55 Coonara Ave (BDAR)

585/2021/HC Attachment C – Fuel Management Plan 55 Coonara Ave (FMP)

The Committee is not satisfied with the responses to Council’s requests for further information. Information contained in the RCL appears to be inconsistent with the BDAR, there appear to be misleading statements, and steps proposed to be taken to avoid the impact on native flora and fauna are inadequate.

This DA seeks to dismiss the community’s concerns by implying that the remnant forest is regrowth, that all species in the demolition footprint have been planted, and that the Powerful Owl will only use nesting trees on the adjacent Cumberland State Forest. By trying to use the inappropriate Streamlined Assessment Module, Mirvac is advocating a straightforward, least-cost, clear-fell approach, instead of one that avoids or minimises the impact on the native flora and fauna.

The demolition DA should not be approved in its current form. Detailed comments are below:

1. Use of Streamlined Assessment Module (SAM) of BAM 2020

Many of Council’s requests for further information have been dismissed due to the applicant’s response that ‘the BDAR has been assessed using the Streamlined Assessment Module’ for planted vegetation.

The first question in the decision-making key to determine whether SAM can be used is ‘Does the planted native vegetation occur within an area that contains a mosaic of planted and remnant native vegetation and which can be reasonably assigned to a PCT known to occur in the same IBRA subregion as the proposal? The applicant has answered ‘No’

We agree with Council’s comments in the RFI that SAM cannot be used because

a. Vegetation in the demolition footprint is not all planted. Much of it is regrowth BGHF and STIF.

b. The vegetation is in an area which contains a mosaic of planted and remnant native vegetation.

c. The vegetation can be assigned to a Plant Community Type (PCT) of BGHF and STIF

· The RCL investigates whether or not species in the demolition footprint have been planted and refers to planting lists for Phases 1 and 3, which have not been made available. However, most of the plants discussed in the RCL are found within the Phase 2 planting area and the species list for Phase 2 has been provided by Council. The majority of species found in the Phase 2 planting area are not on the Phase 2 list, but the RCL suggests they are planted because they are on the unseen Phase 3 list. This is a misleading argument because Phase 3 planting occurred in a different location.

· Data contained in the BDAR is inconsistent with data in the RCL.

o In the BDAR there are more than 40 species listed as found in the demolition footprint which belong to BGHF and/or STIF communities. Of these, only 14 appear on the RCL planting list.

o Contradictory evidence is produced in the RCL which only identifies 24 species of BGHF and/or STIF found in the demolition footprint, of which only 9 appear on the RCL planting list.

This is a huge discrepancy, but regardless of which figures are correct, it is clear that only one third of the BGHF/STIF species may have been planted and the remaining two-thirds have regenerated from seed in the topsoil or seed from the adjacent plant communities. The demolition footprint does contain regrowth BGHF and STIF.

· The RCL shows a photo taken in Dec 2018 of new plantings along the Coonara Ave frontage. Clearly, these plantings are very recent, were made after Mirvac acquired the land, and cannot be used as evidence that planting has occurred on a regular basis since the original landscaping. The inclusion of this photo is misleading.

· The BDAR attempts to show that the remnant forest on the lower half of the block is regrowth rather than remnant, but there is no proof. The earliest photographic evidence of this site shows that the forest on the lower half of the block was not cleared in 1943. The forest in this area has always been accepted as remnant forest and was described as such in documents supplied to DPIE when the land was rezoned. It is still referred to as ‘remnant’ in much of Mirvac’s documentation.

The BDAR should not be assessed using the Streamlined Assessment Module.

2. Vegetation Management Plan(VMP)/Fuel Management Plan(FMP)

The RFI response states that the VMP has been ‘modified’ to an FMP, ‘ no longer requiring conformity with The Hills Shire Council Vegetation Management Plan Guidelines’. Although the name of the document has changed, much of the text has not changed. It is also stated that ‘It is Mirvac’s intent that the FMP mimics the requirements of the current Hazard Reduction Certificate (HRC)’. This statement is misleading because the FMP does not mimic the current HRC.

For example,

· the current HRC requires that ‘at least 75% of ground cover is maintained’ and does not permit the clearing of any trees greater than 3m in height.

· The proposed FMP requires that ‘no more than 75% of leaf litter is retained’, that the tree canopy cover should be less than 15%, and that tree canopies should be separated by 2-5m. The FMP allows trees to be removed, including hollow-bearing trees.

The FMP applies to an area containing critically endangered STIF and should not be adopted. The land should be managed in accordance with the current HRC which is valid until 7 July 2023.

3. Dural Land Snail report from Dr Stephanie Clark

Since Dr Stephanie Clark has provided advice on the Dural Land Snail, her report should be made available to THSC. Incorporating Dr Clark’s advice into the revised BDAR, when Dr Clark is not a contributing author, provides no certainty that all significant information has been accurately included. A report from Dr Clark should be provided to Council.

4. Powerful Owl

There are 2 Powerful Owl nesting trees on the site, one being within 100m of the demolition footprint. The RFI response states that ‘Current intensive monitoring has detected no breeding or roosting activity at or near either of these old nest trees.’ This is hardly surprising. Noise from NorthConnex occupying the site day and night, including parking heavy machinery in the vicinity of one of the trees, has probably deterred the birds over the last few years. Since NorthConnex vacated the site, local residents have reported loud noises and site activity at night, causing further disruption at the start of this year’s breeding season.

The BDAR states that ‘if the pair return to the tree’ then noise controls would be imposed.

It is unlikely the pair will return unless noise controls are imposed throughout the demolition to minimise the disruption to the Powerful Owl.

The Demolition DA 585/2021/HC should not be approved in its current form.

2021-03 Additional Submission from The Committee, West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association

Demolition DA – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills, ref. 585/2021/HC

This submission is made in addition to our 2020-12 submission lodged in December 2020.

We have further concerns about the areas mapped as ‘landscaped gardens’ that are contained within the Demolition Footprint. Of the 1253 trees to be removed for demolition, more than 450 are Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) or Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) species.

Some ‘landscaped gardens’ are incorrectly labelled – they should be identified as BGHF/STIF regrowth areas

· The areas around and between the existing IBM buildings were referred to as ‘landscaped gardens’ some 40 years ago by the original Landscape Architect of the IBM site, Mr David Louden. Although we have not spoken to Mr Louden ourselves, we have been told that:

o Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) species were not planted in the ‘landscaped gardens’.

o Prior to construction of the IBM buildings, the topsoil was removed and stored, and on completion of the work, the topsoil was replaced. This topsoil would have contained seeds of BGHF and STIF species, as would the adjacent forest.

· Some 40 years after the IBM buildings were constructed, there are now over 450 BGHF and STIF species in this area, and it follows that these species have grown from seeds in the original topsoil or from seeds in the adjoining forest. These areas are no longer ‘landscaped gardens’ and should instead be labelled as BGHF and STIF regrowth forest. Many of the trees are 25-35m high.

· The tree survey was not made available until the demolition DA was lodged, several months after rezoning. The BGHF/STIF regrowth was not identified to DPIE when the site was rezoned in June 2020.

BGHF and STIF are critically endangered ecological communities (CEEC), regardless of whether they are remnant or regrowth. The demolition would have a Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) on the BGHF/STIF. It states on the DPIE website that if the development is not State Significant, ‘The approval authority must not grant approval if they determine the proposal is likely to have a serious and irreversible impact on biodiversity values.’

The residents of WPHV do not want to see more than 450 CEEC species removed to facilitate the demolition. We request that DA 585/2021/HC is not recommended for approval.

2020-12 Submission from The Committee, West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association Inc.

Demolition DA – 55 Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills, ref. 585/2021/HC

The West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association (WPHVPA) represents about 4,000 households and more than 10,000 residents located in the area bounded by Castle Hill Rd in the north, Pennant Hills Rd in the east, the M2 & Darling Mills Creek in the south and Excelsior Creek in the west. The site at 55 Coonara Ave lies along the northern boundary of our area. The Association has been in existence for more than 25 years. We have received strong support from Valley residents for the views expressed in this submission

Local residents’ concerns about the Demolition DA are summarised as follows:

1. Tree removal to facilitate demolition

2. Disruption to Powerful Owl breeding season

3. Extended working hours and demolition noise and vibration

4. Traffic management and parking

5. Impact on forest of workers and vehicles

6. Vegetation Management plan

7. Mirvac reports are not independent

Concerns are centred on protecting the existing flora and fauna and minimising disruption to local residents. The site is environmentally sensitive and in an area of high bush fire risk, and the DA should be modified to reflect the unique properties of this site.

Detailed concerns are set out as follows:

1. Tree removal to facilitate demolition

Residents are concerned that Mirvac is not trying to preserve the existing tree canopy.

· The DA seeks to remove 1,253 trees just to facilitate the demolition. There are an estimated 11,403 trees on the entire site (including the forest dedication area) and 1,253 represents 11% of this total. Although there are some trees located very close to the existing buildings, the majority are located some distance away and should be retained.

· 358 of the trees proposed for removal are recorded as having high to very high environmental landscape significance. At least 75 are Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum), many of them recorded with heights exceeding 30 metres.

· 29% of the trees to be removed are Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) or Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) critically endangered species.

· After removing any weed species or dead trees from the total, there are still more than 1200 trees proposed for removal which are protected species and require The Hills Shire Council (THSC) permission to remove. THSC has a published strategy of protecting and increasing the tree canopy in our shire.

· Every tree removed should be replaced with a new tree, preferably on site, or within WPHV if that is not possible.

2. Disruption to Powerful Owl breeding season

The Powerful Owl is often seen and heard by local residents and there is concern that this DA does not limit the impact on these endangered birds.

The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) which forms part of this DA states that ‘The Powerful Owl is known to potentially abandon early breeding activities (such as courting, mating, preparing the nest hollow, incubation of eggs, caring for new hatchlings) if sufficiently disturbed in those critical times’. Demolition should not proceed if Powerful Owls are nesting nearby. THSC should obtain an independent report to determine Powerful Owl nesting and roosting locations prior to commencement of noisy works. Construction of the existing buildings by IBM was planned around breeding and migration seasons to minimise the impact on wildlife; demolition of these buildings should be equally sensitive to the environment.

3. Extended working hours and demolition noise and vibration

Local residents will be adversely impacted by noise and vibration from the demolition works. Many of them are currently working from home, and the extended working hours proposed by Mirvac are unacceptable.

· The Demolition Noise and Vibration Management Plan states that ‘There is likely to be periodic exceedances above the Highly Noise Affected Level (i.e. 75dB(A)) during the demolition works within 50m of the site’s boundary to the north and western boundaries’. If complaints are made by neighbours, there are various mitigation steps outlined such as selecting alternative equipment, and implementing additional acoustic treatment. If noise can be reduced to acceptable levels, these steps should be implemented at outset rather than waiting for complaints. The site is located in a residential area where a high proportion of residents are working from home due to COVID-19. Noise must be minimised.

· The report also states that ‘It is impossible to predict the vibrations induced by the excavation operations on site at potentially affected receivers.’ Residents adjacent to the site should be offered dilapidation reports prior to the commencement of works. This will document the structural condition of properties for the purpose of comparison at a later date.

· The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommends standard hours of work on a Saturday from 8am to 1pm, but Mirvac is requesting 7am to 5pm. COVID-19 safe working practices are unlikely to have much impact on the demolition work and there is no good reason to have extended hours in a residential area.

4. Traffic Management and Parking

Residents are concerned that workers will park in local streets. Although there should be sufficient onsite parking, Mirvac has stated in a public webinar that it can’t prevent workers using local streets. The problem would be reduced if Mirvac adopted the following policies:

· In order to promote the use of public transport, a shuttle bus service should be provided between Cherrybrook metro station and the work site.

· The gate to the site should be manned so that ‘walk-ins’ have to account for their journey. Anyone parking in local streets should be turned back.

A manned gate to the site would have the added benefit of preventing commuters using the onsite car park.

5. Impact on forest of workers and construction vehicles

· Residents are concerned about litter entering the surrounding forest. There should be designated areas for workers taking breaks with adequate facilities for disposal of rubbish. If smoking is allowed on site, a designated smoking area must be provided with safe disposal of cigarette butts. The whole site is bush fire prone and Mirvac must ensure that smoking protocols are followed.

· Construction machinery and trucks using the site have the potential to spread pests and fungal diseases such as the airborne Myrtle Rust which could decimate the eucalypts on site. A protocol such as wheel washing must be in place for these vehicles.

· It is noted in the BDAR that there is a current approval for temporary vehicular access to be established along the western boundary so that Sydney Water can maintain the existing sewer. Details of the approval, the environmental impact and the remediation of any damage to the site should be made public.

6. Vegetation Management Plan

Residents are concerned about the proposed use of poisons such as Roundup to control weeds, and excessive clearing of vegetation on the western boundary which contains the Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) of STIF.

The Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) submitted with this DA is inconsistent with the Bush Fire Hazard Reduction Certificate issued by the Rural Fire Services (RFS)

· The Bush Fire Hazard Reduction Certificate issued by the RFS

o Allows hand clearing/brushcutting/mowing of the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) on the western boundary to a width of 15.17 metres

o Does not permit the clearing of any tree greater than 3 metres in height or greater than 300mm in girth (as measured at 1.3 metres above ground level)

· The proposed VMP

o Allows the use of poisons such as Roundup to control weeds

o Shows a map on page 7 with APZs averaging more than 20 metres in width and up to around 30 metres approaching Coonara Avenue

o Allows tree clearing to reduce the tree canopy cover at maturity to less than 30%

The conditions of the Bush Fire Hazard Reduction Certificate should not be replaced by the VMP because the VMP will have a much greater impact on the CEEC of STIF. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPIE) lists STIF as a threatened ecological community at risk of serious and irreversible impact (SAII) of development and its offices have stated that development consent cannot be granted to proposals which impact on SAII entities.

7. Mirvac reports are not independent

The reports lodged to support this DA are not independent and are biased towards producing a favourable result for Mirvac. Some examples are:

· The significance of tree removal is downplayed by consistently referring to the area around the existing buildings as a landscaped garden. An independent report could describe it as revegetated forest which gives a completely different impression.

· The existing buildings, many of which were recently leased, are described as ‘dilapidated’ which is a gross exaggeration.

· It is stated that the majority of trees to be removed are of low and moderate landscape significance (66%) The same statistics can be used to prove that the majority of trees to be removed are of very high, high or moderate landscape significance (66%). The 2 statements are both true but give very different impressions.

THSC must use independent experts to evaluate this DA.

The committee of WPHVPA requests that THSC listens to the concerns of residents and does everything possible to protect this environmentally sensitive site, and to minimise the impact of this DA.

Peter Ernst, President & Joan Rowley, Vice-President

on behalf of The Committee, WPHVPA