Da13324 statement of environmental effec~ report, environmental noise impact assessment and contamin

Statement of Environmental Effects For a Proposed 27 Lot Residential Subdivision & 1 Public Reserve Lot at Holland Street, Goonellabah

ON BEHALF OF KIRKLAND ESTATE

Site: Lot 2 DP 1021834

Our Ref: 13/192 Date: December 2013

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

ENGINEERS

Document and Project Details Document Title:

Statement of Environmental Effects for Proposed 27 Lot Residential Subdivision and 1 Public Reserve Lot.

Author:

Damian Chapelle

Project Manager:

Damian Chapelle

Date of Issue:

9 December 2013

Job Reference:

13/192

Project Outline:

This document presents a Statement of Environmental Effects for a subdivision to create 27 residential lots and 1 public reserve. In association with the subdivision, the project also encompasses the dedication of land for road, completion of civil works (roads, water, sewer, drainage & earthworks), tree removal and construction of an acoustic wall.

Document Distribution Date 8/12/13

Status Final

Distribution – Number of Copies Client

Council

Other

1

3

2

Documentation Verification Checked by:

Damian Chapelle

USAGE NOTE: The plans to this document were prepared for the exclusive use of Kirkland Estate to accompany a Development Application to Lismore City Council for approval for the development of land described herein and is not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person or corporation. Newton Denny Chapelle accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever arising to any person or corporation who may use or rely on this document for a purpose other than that described above.

The maps, development plans and exhibits shown in this report are suitable only for the purposes of this report. No reliance should be placed on this information for any purpose other than for the purposes of this report. All dimensions, number, size and shape of lots/buildings as shown on plans in this document are subject to detailed engineering design plans and final survey and may vary subject to conditions of consent issued by Council.

The information contained in this report is based on independent research undertaken by Newton Denny Chapelle. To the best of our knowledge, it does not contain any false, misleading or incomplete information.

1.0

2.0

3.0

Introduction ......................................................................................................... Page 1 1.1

Background ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Site Details ........................................................................................................ 2

1.3

Development Application ............................................................................ 2

1.4

Purpose .............................................................................................................. 3

1.5

Structure of Report and its Scope ........................................................ 4

1.6

Further Information ...................................................................................... 4

The Site and its Context ............................................................................................ 5 2.1

Site Context ....................................................................................................... 5

2.2

Cadastral Description .................................................................................. 6

2.3

Site Analysis ...................................................................................................... 6

2.4

Opportunities and Constraints .............................................................. 10

Subdivision Proposal ................................................................................................ 13 3.1

Subdivision Design ...................................................................................... 13 3.1.1

Lot Layout ....................................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Road Layout and Pedestrian Network .............................. 14 3.1.3 Tree Removal ............................................................................... 15 3.1.4 Infrastructure Services ............................................................ 16

4.0

3.2

Statistical Description of Proposal ...................................................... 18

3.3

Development Design Plans ..................................................................... 18

Environmental Interactions .................................................................................. 19 4.1

Context and Setting .................................................................................... 19

4.2

Ecological Assessment ............................................................................. 20 4.2.1 Flora .................................................................................................. 20 4.2.2 Fauna ................................................................................................ 21

4.3

Hazards ........................................................................................................... 21

5.0

4.4

Visual Integrity .............................................................................................. 24

4.5

Movement Network ................................................................................... 24

4.6

Cultural Consideration .............................................................................. 25

Statutory and Policy Planning ............................................................................. 27 5.1

Introduction .................................................................................................... 27

5.2

Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012 ........................................ 27 5.2.1 General Provisions ..................................................................... 28

5.3

Lismore Development Control Plan 2012 ...................................... 31 5.3.1 Chapter 5 – Subdivision .......................................................... 31 5.3.2 Chapter 10 – Notification and Advertising of Development Applications ...................................................... 34 5.3.3 Chapter 11 – Buffer Areas ................................................... 34 5.3.4 Chapter 13 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design ............................................................... 35 5.3.5 Chapter 14 – Tree Preservation Order ........................... 36 5.3.6 Part B: Chapter 1 – Residential Development ............. 37

6.0

5.4

State Environmental Planning Policies .............................................. 37

5.5

NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 ................................................................... 39

5.6

S79C(i) Matters for Consideration ..................................................... 41

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 45

Attachments Attachment 1 -

Engineering Services Report Newton Denny Chapelle

Attachment 2 -

Ecological Assessment 28 South Environmental

Attachment 3 -

Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Carter Rytenskild Group

Attachment 4 -

Contaminated Land Assessment Environmental Analysis Laboratory

Attachment 5 -

Bushfire Threat Assessment Report Bushfire Certifiers

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

ENGINEERS

Introduction

1

Section

This section of the report identifies the nature of Newton Denny Chapelle’s engagement, relevant background information and the structure of the report.

1.1 Background Newton Denny Chapelle has been engaged by the Kirkland family with respect to the preparation and lodgement of a Development Application with Lismore City Council for the creation of 27 residential lots and a public reserve upon land located at 20 Holland Street, Goonellabah being Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1021834.

The land was previously zoned 1(d) Investigation and was identified in the

Lismore Urban Strategy (2005) as an ‘infill’ release area potentially suitable for future urban development.

A rezoning submission was lodged with Lismore City Council as part of the comprehensive review of the Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2000.

The rezoning submission sought to rezone the land to R1 – General Residential and RE1 – Public Recreation to permit the development of an urban subdivision.

Lismore City Council concurred with the rezoning

request, subject to the deletion of the proposed road crossing of Tucki Tucki Creek. With the gazettal of the Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012, the aforementioned land zonings have been applied to the land, thus permitting the proposed subdivision.

Residential Subdivision

Page 1

1.2 Site Details Property Address:

20 Holland Street, Goonellabah Holland Street Road Reserve

Property Description:

Lot 2 DP 1021834 Parish of Lismore County of Rous

Registered Owner:

R Kirkland Lismore City Council

Proponent:

R Kirkland

Applicant:

Newton Denny Chapelle for and on behalf of the proponent

Total Site Area:

5.623 Hectares

Land Zoning:

R1 – General Residential RE1 – Public Recreation

Local Authority:

Lismore City Council

Integrated Development Referrals: S.100B Authorisation (Rural Fires Act) S.91 Controlled Activity Permit (Water Management Act 2000)

1.3 Development Application Consent is sought for a subdivision to create twenty-seven (27) residential lots and one (1) public reserve. In association with the subdivision, the project also encompasses the dedication of land for road, completion of civil works (roads, water, sewer, drainage & earthworks), tree removal and construction of an acoustic wall.

Residential Subdivision

Page 2

Holland Street road reserve is included within the project due to the undertaking or road works and the removal of the Pine trees which straddle the boundary with Lot 2 DP 1021834.

1.4 Purpose This Statement of Environmental Effects is intended to accompany the Development Application prepared by Newton Denny Chapelle for and on behalf of the proponent of the proposed development. The subject land is located wholly within the local authority area of Lismore City Council and is described as Lot 2 DP 1021834, Parish of Lismore, being land situated at 20 Holland Street, Goonellabah.

The purpose of this report is to describe the site, its existing and proposed uses and to address all the issues relevant to the application’s assessment and approval.

A comprehensive consulting team has been assembled by the proponent with respect to the preparation and lodgement of a Development Application. Accordingly, this report should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Development Application form and technical reports from the following project team members:

Discipline

Consultant

Project co-ordination

Newton Denny Chapelle

Engineering (stormwater, car parking, bulk earthworks, infrastructure)

Newton Denny Chapelle

Ecological Impact Assessment

28 South Environmental

Environmental Noise Impact Assessment

CRG Group

Contaminated Land Assessment

Environmental Analysis Laboratory

Bushfire Threat Assessment

Bushfire Certifiers

Residential Subdivision

Page 3

1.5 Structure of Report and its Scope Section 2 of this report describes the physical characteristics of the subject land and its planning context. Section 3 describes in detail the rezoning proposal. A review of key environmental interactions and proposed management measures are described at Section 4 of the report. Section 5 sets out an examination of the statutory and policy planning status relating to the land, with particular regard to the subdivision concept described in Section 3. Section 6 of the report undertakes a general summation of the project.

Attachment 1 contains an Engineering Services Report. Attachment 2 contains an Ecological Assessment of the site. Attachment 3 contains a Noise Impact Assessment. Attachment 4 contains a Land Contamination Assessment. Attachment 5 contains the Bushfire Threat Assessment.

1.6 Further Information Should Council require any additional information, or wish to clarify any matter raised by this proposal, please contact Damian Chapelle of Newton Denny Chapelle by telephone on 6622 1011 or by email at dchapelle@newtondennychapelle.com.au.

Residential Subdivision

Page 4

The Site and its Context

2

Section

This section of the report identifies the subject site and describes its environmental planning context.

2.1 Site Context The site is located within the eastern parts of Goonellabah located directly north of Hepburn Park with Holland Street forming the eastern boundary.

The Tucki Tucki Creek defines the northern and western boundaries of the land.

Residential land is located further west of the site with a Council reserve (classified as operational land) located between the residential dwellings and the study area. Development comprising of storage sheds (north), child care facility, vet, bulky good showrooms and general light industrial activities are located east of Holland Street within the Centenary Industrial Estate.

The site is located approximately 3km to the east of the Goonellabah Village Shopping Centre, Goonellabah Sports & Aquatic Centre and the Lismore City Council Chambers (refer to Plan 1).

Residential Subdivision

Page 5

2.2 Cadastral Description The real property description of the site is Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1021834, Parish of Lismore, County of Rous.

The property contains a site area of 5.623 hectares and is irregular in shape as a result of a previous subdivision which excised the existing residential dwelling from the balance of the property. Both properties contain street frontage to Holland Street.

Plate 1: Aerial photo of the subject land and surrounds.

2.3 Site Analysis Detailed Site Investigations Comprehensive site investigations have been undertaken to determine the opportunities and significance of the constraints and to identify mitigation measures and required design responses to be included in the subdivision concept design. Investigations include: Residential Subdivision

Page 6



Preliminary Contamination Assessment (Environment Analysis Laboratory);



Ecological/Bushfire/Cultural

Heritage

Assessment

(Place

Environmental); 

Engineering Services Assessment addressing traffic, water & sewer (Newton Denny Chapelle);



Noise Impact Report addressing potential noise nuisance from industrial land use (Carter Rytenskild Group).



Bushfire Threat Assessment addressing Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Reports and information on these investigations are included in the attachments of this report. Section 4 of this report discusses the design measures adopted to address these issues.

Plan 2 shows a composite site analysis for the land, illustrating planning constraints and opportunities relevant to the proposed subdivision.

Topography and Soils The site comprises of elevated land which slopes towards the primary natural feature of the locality, namely Tucki Tucki Creek.

The land holding falls gently to the north and west with its highest point at the eastern boundary fronting Holland Street. The low-lying parts of the site are defined by Tucki Tucki Creek with the creek bank at RL 134m AHD. The central and eastern portion of the study site is considerably more elevated, being dominated by a ridgeline traversing the site in a south-east to north-west orientation, with elevations ranging from RL 156m AHD on Holland Street, with the predominant central residential area found between RL 140-150m AHD. Within the low-lying areas of the site, the geology is comprised of tertiary deposits of Lismore Basalt, which are part of the Lamington Volcanics, with overlaying deposits of river gravels, alluvium, sand and clay (Tweed Heads 1:250,000 Geological Series). According to Morand (1994) the soils of this low-lying terrain are moderately deep (100 – >200cm), well drained kraznozems and brownish red kraznozems with poorly drained alluvial Residential Subdivision

Page 7

kraznozems in drainage lines. The topsoils have moderate permeability, with slow permeable sub soils.

Flora and Fauna A flora and fauna study was undertaken for the land by Place Environmental for the rezoning submission. A review of the report incorporates the proposed subdivision layout and relevant legislative updates have been completed by 28 South Environmental. A full copy of these reports is contained in Attachment 2.

Place Environmental reported much of the vegetation is dominated by Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora). However, the Camphor laurels have been poisoned, leaving a sporadic growth of pioneer and early successional rainforest species of poor to moderate form. Common species include; Mallotus philippensis (Red Kamala), Guioa semiglauca (Wild Quince), Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood), Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) and Pentaceras australe (Penta’s Ash). The declared noxious weed, Lantana camara var. camara (Common Lantana) has also been poisoned. Groundcover species are generally limited to native grasses such as Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Meadow Grass) and Oplismenus

aemulus (Basket Grass).

With reference to; (i) the EPBC Act; and (ii) the TSC Act, no Endangered or Vulnerable species were recorded in this community, nor is the vegetation representative of an Endangered Ecological Community. A full species list is provided within the Place Environmental Report.

As outlined previously, Tucki Tucki Creek delineates the south-western and northern boundaries of the site. A weir (creating a small water body within the creek) occurs to the north of the site. The water body contains a combination of native and exotic wetland vegetation, though all are threatened by the infiltration of pasture grasses, and by foraging cattle.

Stormwater Management The residential allotment catchment area of the Kirkland Estate site is principally self-contained and is not unduly impacted upon by any significant upstream areas excepting for the Tucki Tucki Creek which traverses the low-lands.

Residential Subdivision

Page 8

Holland Street located east of the site intercepts any flows from the east (Centenary Industrial Estate) and directs surface water down to Tucki Tucki Creek north of the site.

Survey levels have been undertaken across the development lot which demonstrate the following existing drainage patterns. (a) Western Boundary.

The western boundary is shared with Tucki Tucki Creek, with the dominant fall of the natural surface from east to west at approximately 19%. There is no drainage improvements present on the subject site, with all existing stormwater from the original farm discharging directly to Tucki Tucki Creek. There is no external catchment affecting the developable lands of the subject site. (b) Southern Boundary.

The subject site backs onto Hepburn Park sport fields (Lot 1 DP 553239) with a shared drainage gully which discharges into Tucki Tucki Creek. (c) Eastern Frontage.

Shared boundary with Holland Street, with a proportion of Holland Street currently discharging as sheet flow through the subject site. There is a mixture of grassed table drain and kerb and channel heading in a northerly direction. (d) Northern Boundary.

Boundary is shared with Tucki Tucki Creek with a fall from the top of the subject site to the centre and east, to the north at approximately 19%. An existing bridge on Holland Street crosses Tucki Tucki Creek to the north and east of the site.

Cultural Heritage In relation to Indigenous heritage, no archaeological items were uncovered during field work and the research undertaken to support the field work.

Combined with the rezoning being party to the LES process associated with the Lismore LEP 2012 and the land not being listed within any AHIMS searches, we submit the site is generally of low archaeological value in terms of Indigenous Heritage.

Residential Subdivision

Page 9

Bushfire Part of the site is identified by Lismore City Council Bushfire Hazard Mapping as being bushfire prone. The hazard occurs to the site’s immediate east, with the 100m prescribed buffer extending west into the land as illustrated within Plate 2.

Aerial mapping and inspection of the site reveals that the bushfire prone land map is reasonably accurate in respect to the current bushfire hazard associated with the proposed development however the site is mostly cleared of vegetation.

To the north is located grassland on a moderately steep downslope of 15 to 20 degrees and within the allotment as shown in Figure 3 on a slight downslope of zero to five degrees. To the south-west and south is located rainforest vegetation on terrain of zero to five degrees downslope and upslope respectively.

Further details relating to bushfire management within the site are contained within Section 4 of this report.

Existing Character In local character, the subject land is considered to be an infill site with residential land located west and north-east of the site. The surrounding areas provide differing characters, they being: 

The Centenary Industrial Estate located east of the study site;



The Goonellabah residential area located west, north-east and south of the study site covers a large geographical area and accordingly contains in addition to residential uses a mix of commercial, public buildings and open space reserves.

2.4 Opportunities and Constraints The assessment of the site and its context has been synthesised to identify the main constraints and opportunities to residential subdivision of the land.

Residential Subdivision

Page 10

The potential constraints that affect the site include: 

Stormwater management given the existence of the Tucki Tucki Creek;



Transition from adjoining industrial land to residential area and management of potential for conflicting land use issues;



Ecological value of the Tucki Tucki Creek riparian zone;

The potential opportunities identified include: 

Proximity to existing residential development presented through infill location of the land;



Land area considered to be suitable for residential development;



Supply of residential land to support the growth of Lismore in accordance with the Urban Strategy (2005);



More efficient utilisation of land which currently has low productive capacity as agricultural land;



Opportunities to provide further vehicle and pedestrian linkages with housing west of Tucki Tucki Creek;



Protection of ecologically significant vegetation and the creation of a wildlife corridors; and



Opening of the Tucki Tucki Creek as a public asset thereby ensuring contiguous access in perpetuity.

The conceptual development, as described in Section 3 of this report has been designed in accordance with these opportunities and constraints.

Residential Subdivision

Page 11

This page is intentionally left blank

Residential Subdivision

Page 12

Subdivision Proposal

3

Section

3.1 Subdivision Design 3.1.1 Lot Layout This application for the Kirkland Estate is influenced by the alignment of the Tucki Tucki Creek, desired road linkages and the existence of light industrial activities east of the site. The opportunities presented to the site include features such as topography, aspect and setting, as well as specific design features which will be incorporated as a part of the final development.

Based on the site analysis of the land, this application seeks to create twenty-seven (27) residential lots and one (1) public reserve. Associated with the residential subdivision is the undertaking of proposed civil works, removal of nominated trees and the dedication of land for road and public reserve (Tucki Tucki Creek Reserve).

Plan 3 illustrates the proposed subdivision configuration. It is proposed to create 27 residential lots varying in area from 858m2 to 2,837m2.

The larger allotments contain the steeper land and are therefore found within the northern parts of the site. The proposal also encompasses the creation of a public reserve allotment associated with the Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Park totalling 1.9 hectares.

The frontages to the proposed internal road are established between 5 metres (Battle-axe lots) extending to 53 metres with the proposed lot depths exceeding 100 metres although averaging some 50 metres. The proposal has encompassed a 40 metre separation distance between the Residential Subdivision

Page 13

residential allotments and Tucki Tucki Creek to permit future exotic weed removal/rehabilitation works, stormwater management and public access.

The configuration of Lot 1, 4, 5 & 28 have also been designed to permit the creation of a 1.8 metre high gravity packed rock retaining wall on the eastern boundary in order to cater for the topographical change in natural surface levels existing on the Holland Street frontage.

A 1.8m high acoustic barrier is proposed to be constructed along the Holland Street road frontage. The barrier is to be constructed above the proposed retaining walls (ie. at Chainages CH 0m to CH 60m and CH 140m to CH 233.86m). Typical acoustic barrier materials include earth berms & 19mm lapped timber fence to accord with the recommendation of the Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (see Attachment 4).

3.1.2 Road Layout and Pedestrian Network The road configuration within the estate typically consists of a local road connecting to Holland Street. The local road is designed to 9m wide pavement, with a footpath within a 4.5m wide verge, resulting in an 18m wide road reserve. An internal local cul-de-sac is proposed in the northern portion of the site and is proposed to have 7m wide pavement within a 16m wide road reserve.

The proposed local street intersection access from the Kirkland Estate with Holland Street will comply with the Northern Rivers Local Government Development and Design Manual and incorporating the current AUSTROAD intersections standards. The proposed widening of Holland Street to an ultimate 13m road pavement width allows sufficient lane width capacity for through lanes and turning lane manoeuvres into and out of the Kirkland Estate.

A review of the proposed intersection with Holland Street has been completed. In this case, the intersection review concludes sufficient capacity exists within the road network intersection of Holland Street and the proposed new local street intersection to operate at a Level of Service A.

Residential Subdivision

Page 14

A 1.2m pathway will be installed within the new internal road in accordance with Lismore City Council Urban Subdivision standards. This new path would provide a logical connection to the planned Tucki Tucki Creek pathway/track network.

A 2.5m wide shared path is proposed down the Holland Street frontage as per the requirements of the Lismore City Council Cycleway Plan 2011.

The proposal incorporates the widening of Holland Street so as to create a 13m width for the frontage of the property.

Reference should be made to the Engineering Services Report within Attachment 1 of this report for additional details pertaining to road hierarchy and capacity. NDC Plans 4-12 illustrate the associated typical long and cross sections of the proposed internal road and the proposed widening of Holland Street

3.1.3 Tree Removal Pre-lodgement discussions with Council staff and representatives of the project team have occurred prior to the lodgement of this application.

Specific on-site discussions where completed by 28 South Environmental and Council, whereby the preliminary assessment of the site vegetation found the Camphor laurels located on-site have reduced to almost completely decayed stems, and that a strong growth of Lantana has now emerged.

28 South Environmental has identified the broad suite of species identified by the PLACE assessment remains, but many of the trees previously identified as being in good health have now declined or are unsuitable for retention within the proposed development. Agreement between Council and the project ecologist was reached on a suite of healthy and wellpositioned trees to be retained. Additional specimens for removal have also been identified, when full regard is made to the location of key infrastructure, associated road batters and dwelling sites.

The final suite of trees to be retained and removed is shown in Plan 13 (refer also Attachment 4). It is proposed to offset this loss by: Residential Subdivision

Page 15

Providing advanced trees in the streetscape, with Teak (Flindersia

i.

australis) being a particular focus; and ii.

Establishing an offset planting area along the northern bank of Tucki Creek through works by the proponent or financial contribution to Lismore City Council who will undertake the works under the Tucki Tucki Creek Plan of Management.

3.1.4 Infrastructure Services Stormwater Management The residential allotment catchment area of the Kirkland Estate site is principally self-contained and is not unduly impacted upon by any significant upstream areas excepting for the Tucki Tucki Creek which traverses the low-lands. Holland Street intercepts any flows from the east and directs them down to Tucki Tucki Creek.

No known piped stormwater outlets discharge onto the site.

The stormwater concept for the estate is that runoff will be treated in the following manner: 

Residential buildings will capture rainwater in 3KL rainwater tanks;



Rainwater

tanks

will

include

1KL

for

On-site

detention

requirements and 2KL for rainwater reuse. Reuse to include toilet, laundry and garden; 

Residential Landscaped and vegetated areas will be buffered by natural ground cover or be directed to the street;



Internal roadways and driveways will be captured by a conventional piped stormwater network; and



All stormwater will then be treated by two grassed swales (45m and 23m long) and dispersion through a rock filter mattress outlet, which in turn will have a 10m grass buffer prior to waters entering Tucki Tucki Creek.

Residential Subdivision

Page 16

Stormwater management compliance with Lismore Development Control Plan – Part A Chapter 22 – Water Sensitive Design is able to be achieved by the selective use of a combined swale and rock filter treatment device at each of the two piped outlet points.

This will result in an overall length of 68m of swales. Attenuation of runoff is achieved by using spare 1kL capacity within rainwater tanks via a slow release outlet as well as the volume available within the swale/rock filter devices. The location of outlet points from the swales will be a minimum of 10m from the creek bank, thereby allowing a further buffering treatment of water prior to entering Tucki Tucki Creek.

Detailed reference should be made to Section 4 of the ESR provided within Attachment 1.

Water Potable water supply shall be via conventional reticulation systems from the Holland Street 150 diameter main located on the eastern side of Holland Street. Design considerations are also required during road widening matters so as to ensure protection of the existing 450 diameter trunk main.

Sewer The new estate shall require the installation of a suspended sewer gravity main to enable connection to the existing gravity trunk mains located on the western bank of Tucki Tucki Creek. It is proposed to install a sewer viaduct or similar structure which will require liaison with Council’s Technical Officers to ensure these works also meet with management objectives for the Tucki Tucki Creek in this location (ie. there may be another preferred crossing location or type of crossing structure).

Electricity Essential Energy has advised that conventional underground supply would be provided to service the estate in accordance with subdivisional design standards. Due to the infill nature of the development, no substantial upgrade works are anticipated.

Residential Subdivision

Page 17

3.2 Statistical Description of Proposal Key site planning data applicable to Council's assessment of the Development Application is tabulated below in Table 3.1. This information is, of course, subject to final survey, detailed engineering design and Council's conditions of consent.

Table 3.1 – Land Use Budget Land Use

Proposal

Land Area

5.623ha 3.723ha (excluding Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Park)

Lots

28 Residential 1 Public Reserve

Roads

0.67ha

Residential

3.05ha

Regional Public Open Space

1.9ha

Density

7.5 lots/hectare

Average Lot Size

1,329m2

3.3 Development Design Plans Design Plan Proposed Subdivision Layout Proposed Building Envelopes Plan of New Road Long Section of New Road Cross Sections of New Road Cross Sections of New Road Cross Sections of New Road Cross Sections of New Road Cross Sections of New Road Plan of Holland Street Roadworks Long Section of Holland Street Typical Cross Sections of Holland Street Cross Sections of Holland Street Cross Sections of Holland Street Cross Sections of Holland Street Cross Sections of Holland Street Tree Removal Plan

Residential Subdivision

Drawing No. Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 5A Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Plan 9 Plan 10 Plan 11 Plan 11A Plan 12 Plan 13 Plan 14 Plan 15 Plan 16 Plan 17

Plan Date 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13 20/11/13

Page 18

Environmental Interactions

4

Section

This section of the report expands on the contextual description of the physical environment given in Section 2, and undertakes an analysis of environmental interactions applicable to the proposed subdivision with specific reference to the site planning objectives specified in Section 3 of the report. Further, this section reviews a range of comprehensive environmental management measures, again aimed at specifically addressing the site planning objectives.

4.1 Context and Setting As outlined in Section 2 of this report, the site contains an elevated ridge area which falls to the north and west towards Tucki Tucki Creek.

The subject site represents the remaining undeveloped portion of land east of Tucki Tucki Creek and west of Holland Street. The property does not directly adjoin any residential estates with the established areas of Pindari Crescent and Allambie Drive located west of Tucki Tucki Creek and associated Council reserve. Waterford Park and Blue Hills residential estates are located south and south-east respectively of Hepburn Park.

The aforementioned residential areas contain lot areas generally between 800m2 to 1,250m2 on land with grades of 5-20%.

The Centenary Industrial Estate is located east of Holland Street and the subject land. The Estate developed by Lismore City Council contains a Residential Subdivision

Page 19

variety of industrial uses, however predominantly light industrial/ showroom uses occupy the majority of buildings. The design of the industrial lots fronting Holland Street incorporates a 10m wide planted reserve on the eastern side of Holland Street providing a visual screen to the industrial buildings.

The site is identified in the Lismore Urban Strategy (2005) as being potentially suitable for future urban development. The proposal has been designed to be compatible with the residential lots within the aforementioned residential estates pertaining to general frontages and title, however is responsive to the design provisions which are heavily dictated by the existence of Tucki Tucki Creek and the adjacent industrial estate.

4.2 Ecological Assessment 4.2.1 Flora 28 South Environmental has been engaged to reassess the findings of the PLACE Report, and to prepare an updated ecological assessment report to accompany a new Development Application.

Place Environmental has

found through their assessment process (see Attachment 2) the loss of the site’s original rainforest vegetation has had a significant impact on the endemic fauna communities. The fauna which persist are common rural species which are readily recorded in similar habitat throughout the region.

No threatened fauna were recorded, and the site does not contain Declared Critical Habitat. Whilst several threatened species are known from the locality and may use the site on occasions, the loss of vegetation will further reduce habitat for locally common species in a landscape which has already been largely cleared.

With reference to; (i) the EPBC Act; and (ii) the TSC Act, 28 South

Environmental have reported no endangered or vulnerable species were recorded on the site, nor is the vegetation representative of an endangered ecological community.

Residential Subdivision

Page 20

4.2.2 Fauna The PLACE Report assessed the (then) proposed development against SEPP 44. Now that the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for South east Lismore (Lismore KPoM) has commenced, it is necessary for the proposed development to be assessed against this policy. In this regard it is noted that: 

The DA requires development consent under the LEP;



The subject site is in the Koala planning area.

28 South Environmental has identified the land does not contain Koala food trees, but does support two specimens of the sclerophyllous species Pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia) (Specimens 93 & 94). With reference to the criteria for large and small impact development set out in the KPoM definitions and acronyms section of the policy, the proposed development is considered to be a small impact development; Section 4.3.1 of the policy sets out criteria for Koala habitat assessment reports for small impact development. The Method (Part 1) requires any food tree >100mm DBH within the development footprint be searched for evidence of Koala activity in accordance with the Spot Assessment Technique (Phillips and Callaghan 2011). Both of the Pink bloodwoods (Specimens 93 and 94) were searched for Koala scats for well in excess of the 2 minutes specified by the SAT method without scats being located.

Accordingly, these trees do not comprise Koala habitat. It is likely that the Forest red gums to the north of the Subject Site are used by Koalas, and therefore comprise core habitat;

4.3 Hazards This section describes the location of the development in response to the natural hazards within and surrounding the site.

The approach is based upon the best ecological solutions for the site and involves the adoption of buffers for: 

Bushfire Management;



Tucki Tucki Creek Protection/Enhancement.

Residential Subdivision

Page 21

The environmental constraints and associated buffers are discussed in detail below.

Bushfire Parts of the site are identified as being bushfire prone land. Adequate bushfire management measures are available and can be implemented to meet the requirement of the NSW Rural Fire Service "Planning for Bushfire

Protection" (Planning NSW 2006) as evidenced within the Bushfire Threat Assessment Report completed by Bushfire Certifiers (Attachment 5).

Further details relating to bushfire management within the site are contained within Section 4.

Tucki Tucki Creek The proposal encompasses several direct measures to both protect and rehabilitate the Tucki Tucki Creek. The proposal provides a minimum setback of 40m from all residential lots and associated roads. The setback is consistent with the provisions contained within the Lismore DCP Chapter 11. In addition to the prescribed buffer, the proposal incorporates greater focus on the end treatment of stormwater within the subdivision envelope.

Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control: Stormwater

management

compliance

with

Lismore City Council

Stormwater Management Plan for Quality Control of Urban Stormwater is able to be achieved.

The stormwater concept for the estate is that runoff will be treated in the following manner: 

Residential buildings will capture rainwater in 3KL rainwater tanks;



Rainwater tanks will include 1KL for on-site detention requirements and 2KL for rainwater reuse. Reuse to include toilet, laundry and garden;



Residential Landscaped and vegetated areas will be buffered by natural ground cover or be directed to the street;



Internal roadways and driveways will be captured by a conventional piped stormwater network; and

Residential Subdivision

Page 22



All stormwater will then be treated by two grassed swales (45m and 23m long) and dispersion through a rock filter mattress outlet, which in turn will have a 10m grass buffer prior to waters entering Tucki Tucki Creek.

The control of stormwater quality during construction activities shall be achieved through the implementation of Erosion and Sediment Controls in accordance with the requirements of the Landcom ‘Soils and Construction Volume 1 – Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’ (ie. blue book). The measures are to be implemented before the commencement of any construction works and should be inspected regularly, and after heavy storm events to ensure they are achieving their desired purpose.

The measures to be used on site include: 

Minimise the number of site access points and provide stabilised site access;



Installation

of

downstream

sediment

barriers

prior

to

commencement of any works; 

Stabilise and seed earthwork areas immediately once earthwork profiles are achieved;



Stockpile materials in protected locations away from overland flow paths and protected by sediment fence boundaries;



Sediment basins are to be provided in key locations to treat stormwater run-off from the works area;



Once the civil earthworks are complete, the site shall be retopsoiled, seeded and turf strips installed on the downward area of the disturbed site so as to act as a surface filter of any sediments prior to reaching the sediment fences. Once 80% grass cover is achieved (or the site landscaped), the sediment fences shall be removed.

Reference should be made to the stormwater management provisions outlined within Section 4 of the Engineering Services Report (see Attachment 1).

Residential Subdivision

Page 23

4.4 Visual Integrity The visual significance of an environment is generally a function of visual quality and visual sensitivity. Therefore, visually significant land consists of land with a high scenic value and/or land that is visually prominent (and seen by users) within the landscape.

An important element in terms of the context of the site that relates to its visual characteristics is the external perception of the land when viewed from external areas. The site can be viewed from limited locations, most of which are restricted to the foreground (1m to 600m) or middle ground (600m to 1km).

The primary views of the study site is from Holland Street (east and south), Hepburn Park (south) and residential areas of Allambie Drive and Pindari Crescent (west). To this end, the subdivision and associated housing will be visible from houses, pedestrians and users of the sporting grounds, whilst motorists have middle ground views into the site.

The site can be viewed from various locations on Holland Street, however views are mostly obscured by slash pines on the site’s eastern boundary.

Additionally, the greater western parts of the site is not within the driver's cone of vision.

4.5 Movement Network The adopted traffic network strategy provides for the connection to Holland Street through a local access road constructed to a 9m width. The access linkage provides a link to Ballina Road and Oliver Avenue; Holland Street will be upgraded to a 13m width for the full frontage of the development site to accord with the collector road function.

A Traffic Assessment, based on this strategic network planning, has been undertaken within the Engineering Services Report within Attachment 1.

Residential Subdivision

Page 24

Pedestrian Connectivity The future development is within walking distance of the Goonellabah Workers Sports Club, Eastpoint Shopping Centre and Hepburn Park. To this end, access to existing infrastructure such as roads, public transport, shops and community facilities can be achieved.

The local access road will be provided within a 1.2 metre wide concrete path within the road verge connecting to a 2 metre wide path which runs for the frontage of the development along Holland Street.

4.6 Cultural Consideration A preliminary Heritage Assessment has been undertaken in order to assess both the surface and sub-surface archaeological material which could be under threat by residential development.

Searches were conducted of the: 

Australian Heritage Council database;



National and NSW Heritage Office databases;



North Coast Regional Environmental Plan Heritage Listings; and



Lismore City Council's heritage listings.

In relation to indigenous heritage, no archaeological items were uncovered during survey work and the research undertaken to support the survey concludes that the site is generally of low archaeological value in terms of indigenous heritage. It is most likely that any archaeological material located would not be in situ. The likelihood of uncovering such sparse material during archaeological subsurface testing is low. Vegetation would have to be cleared before this potential could be totally dismissed.

Therefore, monitoring of vegetation clearance and topsoil removal activities would be appropriate mitigation measures during the construction stage.

Residential Subdivision

Page 25

This page is intentionally left blank

Residential Subdivision

Page 26

Statutory and Policy Planning

5

Section

This section of the report reviews relevant environmental planning instruments and planning studies to identify their implications for future land uses on the site.

5.1 Introduction Section 5 documents the range of planning controls applicable in the subject case pursuant to Section 79C (1) (a) of the Act and tabulates the effect of these instruments in the circumstances of the subdivision proposal described at Section 4.

5.2 Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012 Lismore LEP 2012 is the principal local environmental planning instrument that applies to the site. Under the LEP, the site is currently zoned R1 – General Residential & RE1 – Public Recreation. Plate 3 depicts the LEP zones affecting the site and surrounding area.

The R1 – General Residential zone contains several objectives which are relevant to the subject proposal. The objectives are below with the proposal’s response to these outcomes;

Residential Subdivision

Page 27

1.

Objectives of zone  To provide for the housing needs of the community.  To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.  To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet

the day to day needs of residents.  To ensure that new development is compatible with the character,

and preserves the amenity, of each residential area.

Comment: The proposal provides for the creation of 27 residential allotments which provide additional housing stock to the Lismore market and thus assist in meeting the housing needs for Lismore.

Plate 3: Lismore LEP zoning extract.

5.2.1 General Provisions Clause 2.6 Subdivision – Consent Requirements Comment: This Development Application seeks consent for the creation of twenty-seven (27) Torrens Title lots and one (1) public reserve.

Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size The minimum Torrens Title subdivision lot size of 400m2 as illustrated within Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_005AB is satisfied with all lots exceeding 400m2.

Residential Subdivision

Page 28

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation The development was the subject of an on-site pre-lodgement meeting with representatives of Lismore City Council with a specific focus on the status of vegetation found upon the land.

As a result of the pre-lodgement

process with Council, the balance between recognising the residential objectives of the land combined with the ecological values and amenity of the locality generated through the presence of Tucki Creek is believed to have been appropriately met.

In this respect, whilst this application provides for the removal of nominated trees, the site layout also affords the opportunity to preserve vegetation on the site and in accordance with Council Policy provide for the completion of compensatory planting through physical works or contribution to Council. It is proposed to provide a financial contribution with the planting to occur within the Tuck Tucki Creek reserve.

Clause 6.2 – Earthworks The proposal provides for the completion of earthworks associated with the development. The earthworks necessitate retaining wall structures which will form part of the built form, as illustrated within the architectural design plans and preliminary civil design plans.

Pursuant to Sub-clause (3) an assessment of the matters for consideration is provided below.

(a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development, (b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land, (c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties, (e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area, (h) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

The sloping nature of the site requires the use of retaining walls to create improved site levels for residential dwellings and associated amenity for Residential Subdivision

Page 29

those lots which front Holland Street. Retaining wall structures with a maximum height of 1.8 metres are proposed on eastern boundaries of Lots 1, 4 & 5. (Refer NDC Plans 1 & 10).

All services for the subdivision are capable of being integrated into the earthworks design. In this respect all services for the subdivision will occur in areas external to the required excavation area fronting Holland Street, whilst the batters associated with the internal access road do not impact the location of the services.

Appropriate sedimentation and erosion controls will be required to be implemented during the construction process. Reference should be made to the Engineering Services Report provided within Attachment 1 of this document for further stormwater management details.

Previously completed contaminated lands assessments for the site have not identified previous land uses which raise potential land contamination issues.

The area in which the development works are proposed is an urbanised area which has been previously disturbed with the construction of the Centenary Estate, Hepburn Park and storage sheds within the broader locality. AHIMS searches completed for the project has not identified any registered cultural heritage sites within 500m of the land. Accordingly, it is unlikely the proposed earthworks will disturb any relics.

Clause 6.9 – Essential Services As provided in Section 3 of this report and within the Engineering Services Report (Attachment 1), the development can be serviced with all essential services including: 

the supply of water;



the supply of electricity and telecommunications;



the disposal and management of sewage;



stormwater drainage;



suitable road access to Holland Street.

Residential Subdivision

Page 30

5.3 Lismore Development Control Plan 2012 The Lismore Development Control Plan 2012 is the principle planning policy governing built form and subdivision controls and guidelines within the Lismore Local Government Area.

5.3.1 Chapter 5 – Subdivision The subdivision, as proposed, is classified as a Class D – Comprehensive Urban Subdivision. The relevant sections of the Development Control Plan applicable to the Class D subdivision are discussed below.

Section 5: Residential Subdivision DCP Provision

DCP Criteria

Proposal

Min Area

400m2 minimum allotment size

The application proposes the creation of residential allotments which comply with the nominated lot size with all lots greater in land area than 400m2. All lots will be connected to the Lismore City Council reticulated infrastructure.

Provision of Sewerage

Lot layout and sewerage network are to be designed to ensure each lot can be connected to gravity sewer.

All proposed lots will be connected to gravity sewerage network. Reference should be made to Attachment 1 in respect to the proposed infrastructure services.

Neighbourhood Design

Subdivision responds to site characteristics

The proposed subdivision achieves performance criteria of this element as it:

the

 Responds to topography, site features and vistas;  Provides a buffer to Tucki Tucki Creek to address rehabilitation works and stormwater management;  Has a street network that responds to the surrounding street hierarchy, whilst allowing convenient pedestrian access to recreation and community facilities;  The road layout supports surveillance and accessibility;  Provides lots that are sized to enable dwellings to have good solar access.

Site accessibility

Residential Subdivision

Site access is achieved from Holland Street comprising a bitumen sealed width of 9 metres.

Page 31

Infrastructure embellishment costs

The proposal will require the extension of infrastructure services to cater for the proposed development.

No irreversible environmental impacts are envisaged as a result of the infrastructure delivery.

Major regional open space are located to define the boundaries of the neighbourhood

The alignment of the Tucki Tucki Creek and the associated buffer forms the boundary for the urban footprint. To this end a minimum 40m buffer to the creek is provided and thus forms the land area (Lot 29) which is to be dedicated for the Tucki Tucki Creek Public Reserve consistent with the Plan of Management.

CPTED

Natural surveillance is provided to all allotments with each lot orientated to the proposed street, with the battle-axe allotments containing dual street frontage or adjoin a public reserve.

Natural hazards

The proposed layout as demonstrated throughout this report responds to the natural hazards, whilst being designed in concert with the topographical features of the study area.

A detailed bushfire hazard assessment is provided within Attachment 5 of this report.

Major & Local Movement Networks

Street network meets local needs and allows for public transport, pedestrians, cyclist and for expected vehicle traffic.

Mode Choice

The internal road layout accords with the Local Street type, which in turn provides shared reserve for use by pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Footpaths are to be provided in the verge.

The street network accords with the traffic study completed for the subdivision in accordance with Chapter 5.

The road network has been designed so as to cater for public transport.

The proposed subdivision achieves performance criteria of this element as:

the

 A street hierarchy is evident via the width and design of roads facilitating a legible and safe transport network;  Street alignments have been designed to calm traffic and provide safe pedestrian environments;  The road layout responds to topography, vegetation and stormwater drainage aspects of the site;  Roads have been designed with capacities to meet their intended function; and  The street layout and design are cost effective.

Street Design and On-Street Parking

Residential Subdivision

Function & Width

 The local street will be designed to reflect the intended function pursuant to Section 5.1.5;  The street will be designed to limit traffic speed, provide safe movements to and from private lots and provide safe crossings for pedestrians; and Page 32

 On-street car parking will be provided along all streets within the carriageway.

Street Construction

Pavement Design Criteria

Pavements, kerb and gutter, verges and drainage will been designed in accordance with Council design standards.

Utility Services

Servicing & Design

Reference should be made to Attachment 1 of this report pertaining to the supply/construction of required infrastructure services.

Stormwater Management

System Design

The stormwater management system has been designed to manage both the flow and quality of stormwater runoff. Refer to the SMP provided in Attachment 3.

Water Quality Management

System Design

Soil and sedimentation controls will be implemented during construction and maintained until establishment of residential development; Bioretention system will be used to retain and filter stormwater runoff before it enters groundwater or watercourses; and Reference should be made to the Engineering Services Report contained within Attachment 1 for the SWMP designed for the project.

Lot Layout

Lot size

 As outlined, all lots will contain an average above 800m2.  No lot affords dwelling sites solely on slopes >25%.  The lot sizes are greater than the minimum area stipulated in Lot Size Map – Sheet

LSZ_005AB.  The residential character and environmental attributes of the subject land lend themselves towards the implementation of larger lots to minimise earthworks and facilitate separation distance to Tucki Tucki Creek.  Plan 4 details six (6) lots requiring a minor variation to the building envelope (15 x 25m).

The variations for the envelopes are minor and are directly associated with the preservation of nominated vegetation, compliance with building line setbacks and lot configuration. The sought variation to Lots 1, 6, 10 11, 12 & 24 are considered to be reasonable given the circumstances of the project with no adverse impacts on the amount amenity of future residents.

Environmental Protection

Residential Subdivision

Natural Environment

The proposal seeks to retain the vast majority of vegetation onsite. This is achieved through the adopted subdivision configuration responding to the existing physical improvements.

Page 33

5.3.2 Chapter 10 — Notification and Advertising of Development Applications Chapter 10 details the proposed subdivision will be advertised and notified to adjoining and adjacent owners and occupiers.

5.3.3 Chapter 11 – Buffer Areas Chapter 11 provides guidelines to minimise land use conflicts between potentially incompatible land uses through the inclusion of buffer areas.

Sections 11.4 outlines the buffer area requirements between dwellings and intensive horticulture and grazing purposes respectively. The underlying objective of both sections is to provide protection for the existing land uses and thus negate conflicting land uses through the introduction of the residential subdivision.

The following uses adjoin the development site and afforded the nominated buffers. 

North – Tucki Tucki Creek = 30m buffer.



South – Hepburn Park = Nil buffer prescribed.



East – Light Industrial Land = 20m buffer.



West – Tucki Tucki Creek = 30m buffer.

The subdivision layout affords a minimum buffer of 40m to Tucki Tucki Creek.

In relation to the industrial buffer, located east of the site, a minimum buffer of 37.5m (20m road reserve, 10m planted reserve on eastern side of Holland Street and 7.5m no build zone within Lots 1–7) is complied with in this instance.

Reference is also made to the Environmental Noise Impact Assessment completed by CRG Acoustical Consultants. The report as provided within Attachment 3 of this document identifies the following recommendations. 

Construction of a 1.8m high acoustic barrier along the road frontage of Holland Street, which is to be constructed above the top of the onsite retaining walls.



To achieve the internal noise criterion at first floor level habitable rooms overlooking Holland Street at noise affected Lots 1 to 7, 13

Residential Subdivision

Page 34

and 26 to 28, additional noise assessments be conducted once dwelling building plans are finalised. Assessment of first floor habitable rooms (if constructed) should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS3671:1989 “Acoustics –

Road traffic noise intrusion – Building Siting and Construction”. An appropriate clause within the Section 88B instrument for the estate will outline the internal acoustic assessment for each dwelling proposed upon the aforementioned lots.

CRG Acoustical Consultants has concluded the proposed development will generally be within acceptable levels of the adopted criterion, subject to the acoustic treatments recommended within their report being integrated into the design and construction of the development.

5.3.4 Chapter 13 — Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Clauses 13.3-13.6 of Chapter 13 apply to subdivision design. These sections and DIPNR's Crime prevention and the assessment of Development Applications guidelines are assessed below:

Surveillance The road and lot layout has been designed to maximise passive surveillance of the public domain areas. Direct views of the Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Park are available from all lots, whilst all dwelling sites front the local road network. Landscaping and lighting of the public domain will aim to deter crime by complementing the surveillance that is designed into the subdivision.

Access Control The proposal does not incorporate mid-block pedestrian connections.

Accordingly, pedestrian travel will be within the road reserve and provides a safe path of travel. Due to the existing road layout and Tucki Tucki Creek, most lots are provided backing a road reserve or the Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Park. Accordingly, regard must be had to the form of fencing to control access.

Residential Subdivision

Page 35

Territorial Reinforcement The subdivision design responds to the alignment of the public domain through the provision of direct road frontage and the restriction on fencing to those lots which back onto the reserve. Those lots which back onto the reserve contain higher land permitting views from future dwellings on the reserve area.

5.3.5 Chapter 14 – Tree Preservation Order Chapter 14 contained within the Lismore Development Control Plan is applicable to the development proposal where removal of trees are proposed.

The project ecologist will have regard to the assessment

criterion within Section 14.13 which is outlined below.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Protecting catchments which provide water for urban purposes: The subject land is not considered to contain vegetation critical to the water catchment of Lismore.

Protecting wildlife corridors and vegetation links: The subject site does not form any recognised wildlife corridor or vegetation link to bushland.

Protection vegetation as a natural stabiliser: The subject site does not contain excessive slope and as such removal of the nominated trees will not impact upon soil stability.

Protecting vegetation for scenic values and the retention of the unique visual characteristics of the landscape: The trees to be removed are almost completely dominated by exotic species, and are of low ecological significance.

Comment: The proposal does not contain vegetation which is critical to the water catchment of Lismore, given the location of the site and the urbanised form of the surrounding locality. The land is also not mapped as being located within the drinking water catchment under the Lismore LEP 2012.

The removal of the vegetation (i.e. nominated trees) will not cause soil instability as the removal of the trees will be completed in conjunction with the development of the land for the multi-dwelling housing.

Reference should be made to the Ecological Assessment report provided within Attachment 2 of this document which addresses the removal of nominated vegetation and the associated compensatory planting adopted for the project.

Residential Subdivision

Page 36

5.3.6 Part B: Chapter 1 — Residential Development This DCP applies to all urban and rural areas where residential development is permitted. While it principally relates to building design the elements of the DCP have been considered to ensure that the proposed subdivision layout may cater for residential development that can comply with the DCP. DCP Provision

DCP Criteria

Proposal

1.2.1 Strategic Road Network

Dedicate road reserve where subdivision fronts strategic road corridor.

The subject land does not front the strategic road corridor as shown on Map 1 within Chapter 1.

1.2.2 Local Road Network

Provide high level of internal accessibility and good external connections for local vehicle, pedestrians and cycle movement.

The subdivision layout accords with Chapter 5 as it relates to urban roads and drainage.

The subdivision seeks to provide a reasonable level of accessibility through the estate, providing access to all lots via the internal local road network and to the future Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Reserve.

1.3.1 Citywide & Regional Open Space

Where development occurs adjoining mapped facilities, Section 94 contributions may be satisfied by dedication of land.

The proposal provides for the extension of the Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Reserve through the dedication of 1.9 hectares of the site area.

Section 94 contributions are sought to be credited against the land dedication.

1.3.2 Neighbourhood Parks

To be provided where no parks exist within 400m of any lot.

The proposal encompasses the creation of public open space with the Tucki Tucki Creek Recreation Park.

Hepburn Park is located adjoining the subject land.

1.4 Constraints to Development 1.4.2 Bushfire

Assessment to have regard to relevant planning instruments and outcomes to be integrated into the subdivision design.

Attachment 5 contains the bushfire hazard assessment addressing relevant planning instruments.

Recommendations have been made in respect to planting schedules and building setbacks which can be adequately catered for within the subdivision configuration.

1.4.3 Koala Habitat

Assessment to have regard to relevant planning instruments and outcomes to be integrated into the subdivision design.

Attachment 2 contains a SEPP 44 assessment of the subject land and development.

1.4.5 Potential land use conflicts

Assessment to be made under Chapter 11.

Reference should be made to Section 5.3.4 of this report.

1.5 Services

Sewer/Water/Stormwater

Reference should be made to Attachment 1 pertaining to the supply of critical infrastructure services.

5.4 State Environmental Planning Policies Several SEPP's apply to future development on the site. These are identified and discussed below.

Residential Subdivision

Page 37

SEPP Infrastructure (2007) The proposed development will not involve the subdivision of land into 50 or more allotments. As such, the development will not be required to be forwarded to the local traffic committee for comment prior to determination pursuant to Clause 104 of the SEPP.

SEPP No. 44 Koala Habitat SEPP 44 provisions conclude that the site does not contain areas in which Schedule 2 species comprise greater than 15% of species in the upper and lower strata of the tree component. As such, further sections of the SEPP do not apply, and there is no requirement for a Koala Plan of Management to accompany the Development Application.

Notwithstanding the assessment under SEPP 44, it is acknowledged Lismore City Council and the State Government have recently approved and adopted the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for South-East

Lismore (‘the Plan’). The provisions and guidelines of the Plan are required to be met for any Development Application on land located within the Koala planning area for a land use that requires development consent under the Lismore Local Environment Plan (LEP). The Plan does not supersede any approved Koala Plans of Management that are currently in force in the Koala planning area.

An assessment by 28 South Environmental has identified pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Plan preferred Koala food trees do not occur within (or within close proximity) to the proposed development. Section 4.5.1 of the policy sets out food tree compensation measures for small impact development for which this project falls within. The proposed development will not result in loss of preferred Koala food trees. However, in order to fulfil the requirements of the Tucki Creek Management Plan, Council has requested during pre-lodgement consultations that rehabilitation works be undertaken on the northern side of Tucki Tucki Creek. The precise location and extent of the works is to be clarified through the lodgement of a rehabilitation plan pursuant to conditions of an approval.

SEPP No. 55 Remediation of land Council must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated; Residential Subdivision

Page 38

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purposes for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Environmental Analysis

Laboratory

has

completed

a

Preliminary

Contaminated Land Assessment of the subject land (see Attachment 4).

The findings of the assessment conclude the land is uncontaminated and may be utilised for the proposed residential subdivision with no further detailed investigation or site remediation necessary.

5.5 NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 Under the provisions of section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 as amended, a Bush Fire Safety Authority (BFSA) is required from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service. Accordingly, a Bushfire Threat Assessment Report has been prepared by Bushfire Certifiers and is contained within Attachment 5 of this report.

The bushfire prone mapping identifies the subject site as being bushfire prone (see Plate 4).

Plate 4: Lismore City Council Bushfire Hazard Mapping.

Residential Subdivision

Page 39

The assessment by Bushfire Certifiers has identified the following key recommendations 

Any future dwellings on the proposed lots are to be assessed in accordance with s79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.



Each allotment is to be maintained as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document Standards for Asset Protection Zones.



A 9 metre wide strip to the northwest of proposed Lots 14 & 16 is to be maintained as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document Standards for Asset Protection Zones. In this regard a vegetation management plan (VMP) is to be prepared for the 9m APZ on the public reserve.



The public road is to comply with s4.1.3(1) of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 with exception to the requirement for a perimeter road and the dead-end to be less than 200 metres in length. The turning circle is to have a minimum 10 metre outer radius.



Water, electricity and gas services shall comply with s4.1.3 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

In respect to the new public road, Bushfire Certifiers have identified the new road from Holland Street providing access from the public road system directly to the private land gives fire fighters access to the habitable dwellings.

The new public road will be a dead-end road that terminates approximately 260 metres from Holland Street. The new road will have a turning circle.

However instead of a 12 metre radius turning circle a 10 metre radius turning circle is proposed with an alternate solution.

The public road will comply with s4.1.3(l) Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 except for the turning circle and being greater than 200 metres Residential Subdivision

Page 40

from Holland Road, for which an alternate solution has been provided below.

The Public road although slightly greater than 200 metres in length (260 metres) will traverse through the new residential area and is not expected to be cut-off by fire or fallen trees. The grassland hazard will be more than 40 metres from the road and is expected to receive very low levels of radiant heat should a fire occur.

Bushfire Certifiers have recommended that a Bush Fire Safety Authority be granted subject to the following conditions.

5.6 S.79C(i) Matters for Consideration (a) the provisions of: (i)

any environmental planning instrument, Comment: All relevant provisions of the Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been considered and addressed within Section 5.1 of this report.

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, Comment: No draft EPI applies to the subject site.

(iii) any development control plan, Comment: The relevant provisions of the Lismore DCP are addressed in Section 5.3 of this report.

(iv)

the regulations (to the extent that they prescribed matters for the purposes of this paragraph), Comment: Not applicable.

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, Residential Subdivision

Page 41

Primary Matters Context & Setting

Access, Transport & Traffic

Proposal The land has been recently zoned R1 – General Residential and thus permits the development of a residential subdivision and associated dwellings. Given the nature of the proposal, no adverse impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area is likely to result from the proposal given the zoned land is located within an urban area of Goonellabah.

No significant impacts are anticipated on the local transport network as the result of this application. Road widening is planned to occur in association with the subdivision.

Reference should be made to the traffic assessment provided within the Engineering Services Report provided within Attachment 1.

Soils

In relation to potential soil contamination, reference should be made to Attachment 4 of this document. The preliminary contaminated lands assessment has identified no constraint for the progression of the subdivision due to contaminated soils.

Flora & Fauna

The proposal provides for the removal of nominated vegetation as illustrated within Section 3.3 of this report. An assessment of the proposal has been completed by 28 South Environmental (Attachment 3).

The proposed development occurs in an area where the scattered pioneer and early successional rainforest trees serve a landscape amenity rather than significant ecological role. Nonetheless, it has been agreed that the suite of species identified in Figure 2 and Attachment 4 of 28 South Environmental Report should be retained. Vegetation loss in other areas will be offset by: (I) providing advanced trees in the streetscape, with Teak (Flindersia australis) being a particular focus; and (ii) establishing an offset planting area along the northern bank of Tucki Creek. The precise location and extent of that planting is to be provided within an appropriately worded condition.

On this basis the following conclusions have been reached by 28 South

Environmental: 





The proposed development is unlikely to cause a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance, and there is no requirement to make a controlled action referral in regard to the proposed development.

The proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. There is no requirement for a Species Impact Statement to accompany the Development Application.

The proposed development does not occur in preferred or core Koala habitat, and minimises the very minor loss of habitat which will occur by way of proposed future planting (on the northern bank of Tucki Creek) to strengthen the Tucki Creek Corridor.

Hazards

No environmental hazards have been identified through the preparation of the Development Application. Soil contamination and bushfire hazard have both been considered in detail as part of the preparation of this application.

Waste

A construction waste management plan will be submitted as part of the construction certificate documentation. Waste generated by future occupants of the land will be collected via Council’s urban waste collection service. In this regard, the cul-de-sac head has been designed to facilitate a garbage truck to manoeuvre through the site.

Residential Subdivision

Page 42

Energy

The subdivision has been designed such that the majority of allotments have a “long� east – west boundary thereby facilitating solar access to future dwellings.

Noise Vibration

&

CRG Acoustical Consultants has made a number of recommendations with respect to managing road traffic noise associated with the development. These recommendations include the provision of a 1.8m high acoustic wall along the Holland Street frontage and a requirement for specific construction materials for the upper levels of future dwellings on nominated lots.

Site Design & Internal Layout

This application involves the creation of a single cul-de-sac servicing 27 lots. Given the size and shape of the lot and its proximity to the Holland Street intersection this represents the preferred access arrangement to the property.

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

The proposed subdivision provides for passive surveillance of the cul-desac. No pedestrian connection is provided from the cul-de-sac head to Holland Street, thereby removing pedestrian through traffic.

Construction

Construction will be completed in accordance with appropriate standards and conditions of consent.

(c) the suitability of the site for the development Primary Matters

Proposal

Does the proposal fit in the locality?

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision and development pattern presented within the approved rezoning submission for the land and subsequent inclusion within the Comprehensive Lismore LEP 2012.

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, Primary Matters Local, State and Federal Legislation

Proposal The report demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the local town planning framework applicable to the site. Council will consider any community or government submissions regarding the proposal as part of the assessment of the application.

(e) the public interest.

Primary Matters The interest

public

Residential Subdivision

Proposal This Statement of Environmental Effects demonstrates that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the planning framework for the site and responds to the topographic and natural features of the property. As such the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Page 43

This page is intentionally left blank

Residential Subdivision

Page 44

Conclusion

6

Section

The proposal by the Kirkland family to develop a residential subdivision at the subject site is a product of many factors.

Those factors include: •

Policies of all levels of government to promote the orderly development and use of land which can be demonstrated to be suitable for a residential development;

•

Demonstrated demand for housing in Goonellabah; and

•

The site planning opportunities presented by the site and surrounds.

The grounds for this approval are summarised below: •

The development proposed provides an opportunity to deliver greater variety of residential housing to the market within Goonellabah;

•

The location and topographical characteristics of the site and surrounds ensures minimal impact to the amenity of adjoining residential areas;

•

The site planning provides appropriate climatic response to the location’s aspect, solar orientation and view paths;

•

The development of the site can be adequately and efficiently serviced with all urban infrastructure necessary at locations immediately adjacent to the site.

Residential Subdivision

Page 45

In consideration of the issues and information provided, approval of the Development Application is warranted in the manner proposed, subject to the imposition of reasonable and relevant conditions.

……………..………………………….

DAMIAN CHAPELLE Town Planner. BTP CPP Date: 9 December 2013

Residential Subdivision

Page 46

ATTACHMENT 1 Engineering Services Report Newton Denny Chapelle

Engineering Services Report For Proposed 27 Lot Residential Subdivision & 1 Public Reserve Lot Holland Street, Goonellabah ON BEHALF OF KIRKLAND ESTATE

Lot 2 DP 1021834

Our Ref: 13/192 Date: December 2013

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

ENGINEERS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... Page 1 1.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0

Scope and Structure of Report ........................................................................................................ 2

3.0

Road Characteristics and Traffic Capacity.................................................................................. 3

4.0

3.1

Proposed T Intersection with Holland Street ............................................................. 4

3.2

Broader Road Network Considerations ......................................................................... 5

3.3

Preliminary Road Design ...................................................................................................... 5

Stormwater Quality and Quantity Management ....................................................................... 5 4.1

General Site Details .............................................................................................................. 6

4.2

Existing Drainage Conditions ............................................................................................ 6

4.3

Stormwater Management Concept .............................................................................. 7

4.4

Stormwater Quality Modelling ......................................................................................... 9

4.5

Stormwater Quantity Requirements ......................................................................... 11

4.6

Erosion and Sediment Control ...................................................................................... 12

5.0

Pedestrian Accessibility and Public Transport ....................................................................... 14

6.0

Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................................................14

7.0

Sewer Servicing .................................................................................................................................... 15

8.0

Potable Water Reticulation ............................................................................................................. 15

9.0

Electrical and Telecommunications Services ............................................................................16

10.0

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 16

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

ENGINEERS

APPENDICES Appendix A –

Engineering Design Plans

Appendix B –

Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control

Appendix C –

Geotechnical Report

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

ENGINEERS

Executive Summary This Engineering Services Report is to accompany an application to create a 27 lot residential development and the creation of one (1) public reserve lot upon Lot 2 DP 1021834, and referenced within this report as the Kirklands Estate lands.

This new residential estate will be bordered by Tucki Tucki Creek to the site’s north and west boundaries road access being via a new intersection with existing Holland Street.

The development will create a maximum upper demand of 235vpd if inclusive of the upper maximum of 40% dual occupancy usage over the land. The internal road system is a 9m wide cul-de-sac configuration. This is wider than the normal cul-de-sac widths of 6m to 7m due to the number of dwellings which will be serviced.

The proposed local street intersection access from the Kirkland Estate with Holland Street will comply with the Northern Rivers Local Government Development and Design Manual and incorporating the current AUSTROAD intersections standards. The proposed widening of Holland Street to an ultimate 13m road pavement width allows sufficient lane width capacity for through lanes and turning lane manoeuvres into and out of the Kirkland Estate.

A 1.2m pathway will be installed within the new internal road in accordance with Lismore City Council Urban Subdivision standards. A 2.5m wide shared path is proposed down the Holland Street frontage as per the requirements of the Lismore City Council Cycleway Plan 2011.

Stormwater management compliance with Lismore Development Control Plan – Part A Chapter 22 – Water Sensitive Design is able to be achieved by the selective use of a combined swale and rock filter treatment device at each of the two piped outlet points.

This will result in an overall length of 68m of swales. Attenuation of runoff is achieved by using spare 1kL capacity within rainwater tanks via a slow release outlet as well as the volume available within the swale/rock filter devices. The location of outlet points from the swales will be a minimum of 10m from the creek bank, thereby allowing a further buffering treatment of water prior to entering Tucki Tucki Creek.

A detailed geotechnical investigation has been undertaken inclusive of 8 test pits. The outcomes from the investigation did not identify any major issues excepting further assessment , but it is proposed that Council incorporate with the development consent, a condition which requires lodgement of slope stability assessment (for Lots 12, 13, 14 and 23, 24, 25, 26) in conjunction with Council’s standard conditional requirement for site soil classification for all lots. These lots represent those residential areas where some slopes exceed 20%.

The new estate shall require the installation of a suspended sewer gravity main to enable connection to the existing gravity trunk mains located on the western bank of Tucki Tucki Creek. It is proposed to install a sewer viaduct or similar structure which will require liaison with Council’s Technical Officers to ensure these works also meet with management objectives for the Tucki Tucki Creek in this location (ie. there maybe another preferred crossing location or type of crossing structure).

Potable water supply shall be via conventional reticulation systems from the Holland Street 150 diameter main located on the eastern side of Holland Street. Design considerations are also required during road widening matters so as to ensure protection of the existing 450 diameter trunk main.

By providing the aforementioned engineering infrastructure, the proposed urban land release area known as Kirklands Estate is able to demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the engineering servicing requirements required by Lismore City Council.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate, Goonellabah Page 1

Newton Denny Chapelle

1.0

Introduction Newton Denny Chapelle has been engaged to prepare an Engineering Services Report to accompany a residential subdivision application to Lismore City Council at Holland Street, Goonellabah. This residential precinct is referenced within this report as the Kirklands Estate.

Refer to following Figure 1.0 which provides the generic overview details of the Site Locality and Development Boundary for a 27 residential lot development and one (1) large public reserve lot.

Site

Figure 1.0 – Kirkland Estate Site Locality and Development Boundary

2.0 Scope and Structure of Report This report focuses upon the providing of sufficient engineering design concept details to make service provision for an additional 27 residential allotments and 1 public reserve lot so as to facilitate a thorough understanding of the proposed works required to meet the residential precinct demands.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate, Goonellabah Page 2

Newton Denny Chapelle

It is recognised that a subsequent submission of Construction Certificate drawings are required to be made pending approval of the rezoning proposal by Lismore City Council, to which any minor ‘tweaking’ of design elements are then able to be addressed in a specific manner to meet Council technical staff requirements.

This report has intentionally been structured such that the body of the document is sufficiently brief to convey a concise overview of the technical aspects of the proposal to which the more detailed engineering/technical data are contained within appendices for specific technical reference.

3.0 Road Characteristics and Traffic Capacity The road hierarchy for the development focuses upon the provision of encouraging a liveable and safe street environment. A review of the various design elements as contained in Development Control Plan 1 Chapter 5 – Subdivision and Infrastructure: Urban Subdivision (SIUS), the Northern Rivers Local Government Development and Design Manual (DDM) have indicated the following details for a collector road and access street.

SIUS (Table 5.5) advocates a street characteristic of: Access Place - 6m pavement Local Street - 7m pavement - or min 9m pavement for a bus route DDM nominates an Access Street of 6m, Local Street of 7m to 9m (Table D.1.5) The road volumes are classified as being upward of 2000 vpd for Local Streets.

The 9m wide pavement is recommended to facilitate traffic movement and onstreet parking given the new cul-de-sac services more than 10 homes and thereby functions more as a local street.

Holland Street will be widened to suit 13m collector road standard.

A 1.2m wide footpath will be provided on the internal road and a 2.5m wide shared footpath is proposed along the Holland Street frontage.

Road reserve widths recommended by these reference documents result in a range from 15m to 18m.

The development proposal is for 18m reserve width with a 9m wide pavement.

The Lismore City Wide Road Study (PPK 1998) identified that the residential land use trip generation for Lismore urban areas is 8.1 trips per dwelling per day (Section 6.1 – Traffic Generation). The more recent Strategic Road Review (2013) has identified that a rate of 6.5 trips per dwelling is more appropriate.

With the proposed development having a nominal 27 residential lots and accounting for the ‘maximum generation impact’ by allocating 40% use of these lots by duplex dwellings, the maximum amount of traffic generation would be 27 x 60% x 6.5 trips + 27 x 40% x 2 x 6.5 trips = 235 trips (or equal to 36 homes of traffic generation).

With the proposed cul-de-sac having 9m wide pavements being consistent with that of a local street of 2,000 trip capacity, it is demonstrated that the proposed internal network can readily accommodate the development.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate, Goonellabah Page 3

Newton Denny Chapelle

3.1 Proposed T Intersection With Holland Street A review was undertaken of the proposed T junction of Holland Street with the new access street to confirm ability of the intersection to comply with AUSTROADS Intersections at Grade.

Holland Street (near Ballina Road) had 3,704vpd in 2008. Say 2% growth due to shopping centre/industrial uses, then 5,000vpd in 2023.

From similar count data, adopt Peak Hour being 12% of vehicles per day (vpd) equals 5,000 x 12% = 600 vehicles per hour.

Additional maximum development traffic generated is 36 homes x 6.5 trips = 234 trips. Peak hour at 12%, then say 30 vehicles per hour.

Total flow through intersection is 600 + 30 equals 630 vehicles per hour.

volumes are less than 700vph, further analysis is not required. That is, sufficient capacity exists. Actual total flow through intersection is less than 630vph using 12% peak flow.

Existing geometry of road allows for 13m carriageway, therefore sufficient width to comply with AUSTROADS Figure 6.27.

Ensure frontage upgraded to 13m required to comply with AUSTROADS Approach sight distance (ASD) complies with standards as exceeds minimum of 70m for a 60kph environment.

AUSTROADS advises that the capacity of unsignalised intersections (Table 4.1) indicates that where intersection

In this case, the intersection review concludes that sufficient capacity exists within the road network intersection of Holland Street and the proposed new local street intersection to operate at a Level of Service A. This is based upon Holland Street being constructed to a 13m frontage, consistent with the existing developed areas of the road.

Refer to following Plate 3.1 – View of Proposed New T Intersection Location (view looking north) demonstrating available sight lines due to intersection being located on a crest.

Plate 3.1 – View of View of Proposed New T Intersection Sight Lines (Looking North Along Holland Street) Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 4

Newton Denny Chapelle

3.2 Broader Road Network Considerations A review of Council’s Lismore City Wide Road Study (1998) and the subsequent Section 94 Strategic Urban Roads works programme and the Strategic Road Review (2013), has identified that Holland Street is not an integral part of the south-eastern bypass strategic road network. However, it is recognised that until this eastern link is constructed, traffic volumes would continue to rise in the medium term due to local development release areas.

During the rezoning assessment, consideration was had of connecting to Allambie Drive. This requires a new drainage structure over Tucki Tucki Creek and additional traffic flows onto Allambie Drive. Preliminary assessment of Allambie Drive shows 65 allotments currently access the street which is of an 8m carriageway. Based upon current design standards, the 8m carriageway can accommodate between 2,000vpd to 3,000vpd. Adopting a maximum 100% traffic flow from Kirkland Estate, the likely maximum demand to travel on Allambie Drive would be 65 lots x 6.5 trips + 235 ‘Kirkland Estate’ trips = 658 vpd which well within volume capacity parameters. The outcome of the rezoning assessment

by Council for this connection, it was concluded that a traffic link was not warranted.

3.3 Preliminary Road Design Preliminary road longsection and cross section designs have been undertaken to demonstrate that the landform, whilst consisting of some steeper lands, is able to provide a road design standard in accordance with current day design standards.

The steeper road gradients identified are in the range of 8% to 12%. Refer to Appendix 1 – Engineer Design Plans.

4 Stormwater Quality and Quantity Management The residential allotment catchment area of the Kirkland Estate site is principally self-contained and is not unduly impacted upon by any significant upstream areas excepting for the Tucki Tucki Creek which traverses the low lands. Holland Street intercepts any flows from the east and directs them down to Tucki Tucki Creek.

No known piped stormwater outlets discharge onto the site.

From previous discussions with Council Officers, it is interpreted that the key controlling feature of the development is to ensure water quality to Tucki Tucki Creek adheres to the Lismore City Council’s (LCC) Stormwater Management Plan.

Water quantity is required to meet current day Lismore City Council development standards of attenuating flows such that the developed catchment peak flow does not exceed undeveloped peak flow for the Q10year 6minute event.

It is recognised within Section 5.2 of LCC’s Stormwater Management Plan that the key aspect of the system design is to use vegetation by employing techniques which are appropriate and effective in reducing runoff and pollution travel. In addition, the Stormwater Management Plan has outlined that On Site Detention (OSD) for new developments containing impervious surfaces is also of key importance in design considerations.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 5

Newton Denny Chapelle

4.1 General Site Details The natural ground levels of the locality within Lot 2 DP 1021834 can be generally described as falling from Holland Street in the east to Tucki Tucki Creek in the west. The high point of the development area is located towards the centre and east of the lot which reaches an elevation of RL 160.8m AHD. The subject lands falls typically to the west at a slope of typically 19%, with a low point of RL 135m AHD. Refer to Plate 4.1 – Subject Site Looking West (from Holland Street).

Plate 4.1 – Subject Site Looking West (from Holland Street)

The development area will cover approximately 3.72ha and is typically undeveloped rural land, with shared boundaries to existing industrial development and natural environmental areas. There is also an existing farm house present on the subject site.

4.2 Existing Drainage Conditions Survey levels have been undertaken across the development lot which demonstrate the following existing drainage patterns. (a) Western Boundary.

The western boundary is shared with Tucki Tucki Creek, with the dominant fall of the natural surface from east to west at approximately 19%. There is no drainage improvements present on the subject site, with all existing stormwater from the original farm discharging directly to Tucki Tucki Creek. There is no external catchment affecting the developable lands of the subject site. (b) Southern Boundary.

The subject site backs onto Hepburn Park sport fields (Lot 1 DP 553239) with a shared drainage gully which discharges into Tucki Tucki Creek. (c) Eastern Frontage.

Shared boundary with Holland Street, with a proportion of Holland Road currently discharging as sheet flow through the subject site. There is a mixture of grassed table drain and kerb and channel heading in a northerly direction.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 6

Newton Denny Chapelle

(d) Northern Boundary.

Boundary is shared with Tucki Tucki Creek with a fall from the top of the subject site to the centre and east, to the north at approximately 19%. An existing bridge on Holland Street crosses Tucki Tucki Creek to the north and east of the site.

4.3 Stormwater Management Concept Stormwater management for the development is to comply with the requirements of the Lismore City Council DCP Part A Chapter 22– Water Sensitive Design. The requirements to which the development must comply are outlined below in Figure

5.1 – Stormwater Requirements for Development

Figure 4.2 – Stormwater Requirements for Development

The stormwater concept for the estate is that runoff will be treated in the following manner: 

Residential buildings will capture rainwater in 3KL rainwater tanks;



Rainwater tanks will include 1KL for On Site Detention Requirements and 2KL for rainwater reuse. Reuse to include toilet, laundry and garden;



Residential Landscaped and vegetated areas will be buffered by natural ground cover or be directed to the street;



Internal roadways and driveways will be captured by a conventional piped stormwater network; and

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 7

Newton Denny Chapelle



All stormwater will then be treated by two grassed swales (45m and 23m long) and dispersion through a rock filter mattress outlet, which in turn will have a 10m grass buffer prior to waters entering Tucki Tucki Creek. Refer to Plate 4.2 and Plate 4.3 for typical example of Grass Swale with Filter Rock Mattress that have previously been installed at Wollongbar Urban Expansion Area. (Note – These photographic examples do not show the length of swale which will be used for this proposal but provides a good indication of how the system functions.)

Plate 4.2 – Grass Swale With Filter Rock Mattress (Rock Filter in Background)

Plate 4.3 – Grass Swale With Filter Rock Mattress (Rock Filter in Foreground)

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 8

Newton Denny Chapelle

4.4 Stormwater Quality Modelling The development is to provide stormwater treatment devices and drainage systems to meet the requirements set out in the Lismore City Council DCP Part A Chapter 2 “Water Sensitive Design” as well as the Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design Specification D5 ‘Stormwater Drainage Design’ and ’Handbook of Stormwater Drainage Design’.

The quality requirements for this site are as defined by Council in the above Figure 5.1 – Stormwater Requirements for Development. To determine compliance with these targets, stormwater quality modelling was undertaken using MUSIC v6.0 (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation) software in accordance with the Music Modelling Guidelines for South East Queensland 2009, Water by Design; and the Draft NSW Music Modelling Guidelines 2010 CMA Sydney.

Rainfall characteristics have been calculated from Bureau of Meteorology rainfall historical data taken at the Lismore Airport, with rainfall period selected from 1 November 2002 to February 2009, typically regarded as an average rainfall period, with time step intervals of 6 minutes being used.

Effective Impervious Areas (EIA) Effective Impervious Area (EIA) is the area that will directly flow to the drainage network. These areas will be “effective” in generating runoff which will be delivered rapidly at the catchment outlet during a rainfall event as per Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Surface type EIA nodes factors (for source nodes <10ha) EIA Factor

Surface Types (CMA, 2010 Table 3-5) Roofs

1.0 x TA

Sealed Roads

1.0 x TA

Vegetated Landscaping

0.05 x TA

Other Pervious Areas (yards, grassed verges, etc)

0 x TA

TA = Total site/Catchment/surface area; TIA = Total Impervious Area; CMA, 2010

The following Table 4.2 lists the post developed effective impervious areas for each of the sub-catchments, and has been applied to the MUSIC water quality model. Impervious area is based on *300m2 per lot, with the internal road being calculated separately.

Table 4.2 – Effective Impervious Areas for Sub Catchments Catchments C1

C2

C3 Engineering Services Report

Subcatchments TOTAL Impervious (Roof, Driveway)* Pervious (Ground Level) TOTAL Impervious (Roof, Driveway)* Pervious (Ground Level) TOTAL

Number of Lots

Total Area (m2)

EIA Factor

EIA (m2) 13,445

12

3,600

1

3,600

9,845

0.05

492 16,300

13

3,900

1

3,900

12,400

0.05

620 4,063

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 9

Newton Denny Chapelle

C_Road

Impervious (Roof, Driveway)* Pervious (Ground Level) Impervious (Internal Roadway)

2

600

1

600

3,463

0.05

173

3,309

1

3,309

The layout used for the developed catchment with the proposed treatment system is presented in Figure 4.3 – MUSIC Model for Developed Case below.

As can be seen from the treatment train effectiveness summary, the stormwater quality concept design will comply with the reduction targets of LCC DCP Part A

Chapter 22 – Water Sensitive Design.

Figure 4.3 – Catchment 1 - MUSIC Model for Developed Case

The roof catchment will be captured by 3KL rainwater tanks per lot providing 2KL for water reuse (toilet, laundry and garden) and 1KL of on-site detention in the form of a “Leaky Tank”, providing a total of 81KL (27 Lots x 3KL/Lot) of rainwater storage available for reuse and detention functions.

Full details of the parameters used for treatment device modelling can be found in Appendix 2 – Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control Using the treatment strategy outlined above, pollutant reductions were found to be as shown below in Table 4.3 – Treatment Efficiency for Proposed Treatment

Train.

Table 4.3 – Treatment Efficiencies for Proposed Treatment Train.

Untreated Discharge

Treated Discharge

DCP % Reduction Required

% Reduction Achieved

Compliant?

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr)

758

88.8

75

88.3

Y

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr)

1.8

0.595

65

66.9

Y

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr)

13.7

7.61

40

44.3

Y

Gross Pollutnts (kg/yr)

172

0

90

100

Y

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 10

Newton Denny Chapelle

4.5 Stormwater Quantity Requirements In Accordance to the Lismore City Council DCP Part A Chapter 22 ‘Water Sensitive Design‘ attenuation for the site is to retain all flows up to the 10 year average recurrence interval to pre-development levels, with flows up to the 100 year storm event assessed for safe flow paths from the development.

Calculations were undertaken in accordance with the Northern Rivers Local Government Handbook of Stormwater Drainage Design for the critical duration storm event. The critical time of concentration (Tc) for the site was calculated by assessing the likely catchment time of concentration using the Probabilistic Method.

The pre-developed and post developed flow for the site was determined using the Rational Method for the relevant critical storm duration for both the 10 and the 100 year storm events. Storage calculations were undertaken in accordance with the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM 2007) to determine the preliminary size of the detention requirements for the site.

Table 4.4 – Pre-developed Catchment Area Summary Catcht.

Ac =

tc

ID C1 C2

(ha) 1.35 1.63

(min)

(mm/hr)

I

C

5.00 5.00

283 283

C3 C_Road

0.41 0.33

5.00 5.00

283 283

TOTAL

3.72

100

Q100

I

50

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.72 0.72

0.764 0.923

256 256

0.72 0.72

0.232 0.187

256 256

C

Q50

I

C

10

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.69 0.69

0.66 0.80

197 197

0.69 0.69

0.20 0.16

197 197

2.11

Q10

I

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.60 0.60

0.44 0.54

178 178

0.60 0.60

0.13 0.11

178 178

1.83

C

5

Q5

I

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.57 0.57

0.38 0.46

113 113

0.48 0.48

0.08 0.10

0.57 0.57

0.12 0.09

113 113

0.48 0.48

0.02 0.02

1.22

1

C

Q3month (cumec)

1.05

0.22

Table 4.5 – Post Developed Catchment Area Summary Catcht.

Ac =

ID

(ha)

tc

I

(min)

(mm/hr)

C1 C2 C3 C_Road

1.35 1.63 0.41 0.33

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

283 283 283 283

TOTAL

3.72

100

C

Q100

I

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00

0.891 1.076 0.271 0.259

256 256 256 256

50

2.50

C 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00

Q50

I

C

10

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.77 0.93 0.23 0.23

197 197 197 197

0.70 0.70 0.70 0.90

2.18

Q10

I

C

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.52 0.62 0.16 0.16

178 178 178 178

5

Q5

I

(cumec)

(mm/hr)

0.44 0.54 0.13 0.14

113 113 113 113

0.67 0.67 0.67 0.86

1.46

1

1.25

A summary of the detention requirement is presented in Table 4.6 – Storage Requirements per Catchment Using the Basha Equation below and full details of these calculations can be found in Appendix 2 – Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control.

Table 4.6 – Storage Requirements per Catchment Using the Basha Equation.

Storage Requirements Summary

10 Year Attenuation

Predevelopment Flow (L/s)

Un-attenuated Developed Flow (L/s)

Attenuation Requirements (m³)

122

146

71

It is proposed to detain the 10 year ARI design storm to predevelopment levels using a combination of “leaky” rainwater tanks and detention storage to be located Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 11

Newton Denny Chapelle

C

Q3month (cumec)

0.56 0.56 0.56 0.72

0.09 0.11 0.03 0.03

0.27

within the proposed swales. As can be seen from the following list there is sufficient storage available within the proposed treatments to satisfy the requirements of the DCP, as follows: 

Leaky Rainwater Tank – 1KL of the proposed 3KL rainwater tank/lot will be dedicated to on site detention giving a total detention volume of 27KL (27 Lots x 1KL).



Swale – The two proposed swales will have two large storage volumes available of 204m3 (45m:Swale + 23m:Swale x 6m av x 0.5 depth).

Discharge control from the swales will be in the form of filter rock mattress (40% voids).

4.6 Erosion and Sediment Control The control of stormwater quality during construction activities shall be achieved by the implementation of Erosion and Sediment Controls in accordance with the requirements of the Landcom ‘Soils and Construction Volume 1 – Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’ (i.e. blue book). The measures are to be implemented before the commencement of any construction works and should be inspected regularly, and after heavy storm events to ensure they are achieving their desired purpose.

The measures to be used on site include:  Minimise the number of site access points and provide stabilised site access  Stabilised site access to be provided to shake down all vehicles entering and leaving the site, minimising the transport of sediment off-site. All vehicles must use the designated site access to enter or leave the site.  Installation of downstream sediment barriers prior to commencement of any works  Sediment fences are to be installed downstream of works and exposed soils to ensure contaminated run-off is filtered and sediment captured before it can make its way into the downstream receiving environment.  All downstream gully pits and stormwater devices to be protected by mesh and gravel inlet filter, sediment fence, etc.  Stabilise and seed earthwork areas immediately once earthwork profiles are achieved.  Exposed areas on site are to be stabilised with either turf or grass seeding as construction works progress. Erosion control matting or mulching may be used as a temporary measure until permanent stabilisation is able to be undertaken if deemed required by the site engineer.  Stockpile materials in protected locations away from overland flow paths and protected by sediment fence boundaries  Stockpile locations will be located in an elevated, level area nominally 5m from any water body or channel. Upslope protection measures (ie. sandbags or equal) are to be used to divert run-off in the event of rain, and sediment fences are to be installed downstream of any Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 12

Newton Denny Chapelle

erodible stockpile. At the end of each day or in the event of rain or high winds, stockpiles are to be covered and secured. Appropriate locations of stockpiles are to be determined by the site manager at the time of construction.  Sediment basins are to be provided in key locations to treat stormwater run-off from the works area  Sediment basins are to be constructed in accordance with the sizing outlined Appendix 2 – Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control of this document. Temporary sediment basins are to be formed in areas subject to earthworks with the initial construction of a bermed perimeter downstream of the area to capture run-off.  To ensure the maximum suspended solid concentration would be nominally 50mg/L for a 5 day rainfall event up to the 75th percentile depth, adopting 300m2/lot disturbance to the site, a type F wet Sediment Basin is required with a total settling and storage volume of: - Catchment 1+ Road Catchment C + Catchment 3 = 135m³ - Catchment 2 = 70m3 Refer to drawing SD 6-4 Earth Basin Wet (Landcom, 2004) for detail.

Once the civil earthworks are complete, the site shall be re-topsoiled, seeded and turf strips installed on the downward area of the disturbed site so as to act as a surface filter of any sediments prior to reaching the sediment fences. Once 80% grass cover is achieved (or the site landscaped), the sediment fences shall be removed.

The following inspection program shall be established by the Site Contractor and monthly Check Sheet reports submitted to the Supervising Engineer. 

Daily inspection of the site Stabilised Access point and amendments as necessary.



Formal weekly inspection of erosion and sediment controls.



Inspections after 10mm rainfall events in 24 hours.

In addition to the inspection details, the following information will be recorded: 

List frequency and method of removal of material from stabilised access point.



Volume of material removed from in/around sediment controls.



Location of site where material disposed.



Any repairs/additions as appropriate.

A checklist is to be completed each month as per details in Appendix 2 – Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Development Application Page 13

Newton Denny Chapelle

5.0

Pedestrian Accessibility and Public Transport The development shall make provision for a 1.2m wide concrete footpath in keeping with the requirements of Lismore City Councils DCP for Subdivision and Infrastructure (Urban Subdivision) for the internal local streets. A review of the Lismore City Council Cycleway Plan 2011 identified a shared bikeway path linking to this locality via Holland Street, being a connection from the Bruxner Highway to Oliver Avenue. The 2.5m wide shared path would be incorporated within the road widening works to be undertaken on the Holland Street frontage.

Enquiries with the local bus operator Northern Rivers Bus Lines confirmed that school bus services would readily be provided to service the new estate at the new Holland Street intersection. Re-routing of daytime services is more problematical as would be subject to a review of anticipated demand for the service. Current advices that until a full network review is next undertaken, public bus route down Holland Street is not feasible.

Location of dedicated bus pick/up and setdown zones and bus shelter can readily be provided within Holland Street should Council require. However it is noted that as advised by Northern Rivers Bus Lines, it is not desirable to install infrastructure (and subsequent public expectation) until such time as a service is implemented.

6.0 Geotechnical Considerations A review of Lismore City Council’s Urban Strategy details on slope stability (Map 5 – Land With Slopes of 20% or More and Slip Prone Lands) did identify portions of the Kirklands Estate locality as having hilly/mountainous regions. As foreshadowed in the rezoning documentation further consideration of the sites stability would be assessed at development application stage by a geotechnical engineer.

A Slope Stability Assessment has been undertaken by Shaw Urquhart (July 2013) which included a site walk over and digging 8 test pits. Refer to Appendix 3 – Geotechnical Report for details of Shaw Urquhart’s assessment.

The general findings of the report were that the site is suitable but that dwellings should be located clear of areas of possible instability which were in those areas where slopes are greater than 18º (ie 32%) were found. This subdivision configuration is in accordance with this recommendation. A further requirement was that at ‘slope stability’ assessment be undertaken for areas steeper than 12º (ie 20%). Refer Extract Section 5 from Slope Stability Assessment. It is proposed that Council incorporate with the development consent, a condition which requires lodgement of slope stability assessment (Lots 12, 13, 14 and 23, 24, 25, 26) in conjunction with Council’s standard conditional requirement for site soil classification for all lots.

Extract – Section 5 from Slope Stability Assessment (Shaw Urquhart 2013)

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Rezoning Page 14

Newton Denny Chapelle

7.0

Sewer Servicing Sewer servicing of the site (maximum of 36 ET) shall be by conventional gravity mains however the sewer main shall need to be suspended above ground level to cross Tucki Tucki Creek due to the sewer main point of connection being located on the western side of the watercourse. It is anticipated that the sewer main shall either be suspended similar to that shown in Plate 7.1 – Sewer Viaduct Crossing or alternatively if there are other connection structures that maybe integrated into the Tucki Tucki Creek management plan works for the locality. Final design solutions would be worked through in consultation with Lismore Water as to the preferred outcome during development design. Indicative sewer main location and longsections are shown on designs drawings within Appendix 1 – Engineering Design Plans.

Plate 7.1 – Sewer Viaduct Crossing

The capacity of the sewer main along this section of Tucki Tucki Creek is known to be at near capacity when based upon the inclusion of future sewer loads (ie. yet to be developed or constructed). Preliminary discussions with Council’s Technical Officers have identified that this section of main will ultimately require some form of augmentation works. Pending Council’s preferred method of augmentation, the manhole point of connection shown within this application is able to be modified to enhance (ie. defer works by connecting further downstream if required) subject to Council’s direction.

8.0 Potable Water Reticulation A conventional potable water reticulation network is proposed for the development.

Discussion with Council officers have indicated that water supply services are readily available in Holland Street via a 150 diameter water main (east side of Holland Street).

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Rezoning Page 15

Newton Denny Chapelle

There is an existing 450 diameter trunk water main along the frontage of the development to which construction considerations (ie. protection) will be required to be documented during the construction certificate design process.

9.0 Electrical and Telecommunication Services Country Energy has advised that conventional underground supply would be provided to service the estate in accordance with subdivisional design standards. Until detail design is undertaken, final location of a transformer is not known.

As per the rezoning advice, Telstra have advised that telephone services shall be provided in accordance with the Universal Servicing Obligation agreement for any new land development. This agreement does not afford the latest in telecommunication services, but rather ensures a single phone service will be available. Options to be serviced by NBNCo fibre are remote given the development size is significantly less than the minimum 100 lot size for direct services to be installed. Notwithstanding this, the development’s pit and pipe infrastructure will installed with the NBNCo specifications to allow for future fibre installation when rollout works for the broadband program are allocated to the region.

10.0 Conclusion From the analysis of the engineering development requirements, it is considered that the rezoning of the proposed Kirkland Estate is able to meet Lismore City Council development standards such that: 

a safe and appropriate level of vehicular and pedestrian access is able to be provided to all allotments;



stormwater quality and quantity controls are practical and effective;



potable water reticulation services are able to be provided;



sewer services are able to be provided;



electricity and telecommunications are able to be provided.

Engineering Services Report

Kirklands Estate Rezoning Page 16

Newton Denny Chapelle

APPENDIX A ď ś Engineering Design Plans

APPENDIX B ď ś Stormwater Management & Erosion Sediment Control 1. Stormwater Management and Erosion Sediment Control Plan 2. On Site Detention Calculation 3. Stormwater Maintenance Checklist 4. Erosion Sediment Control Standard Drawing 5. Erosion Sediment Control Basin Calculation 6. Erosion Sediment Control Maintenance Checklist

ON SITE DETENTION FOR Q10

Based on Basha Equation, QUDM Section 6.06.1 Used to calculate storage volume required.

Inputs

AREAS

. = NEEDS TO BE INPUTTED

3.72 Ha

Total Area

CO‐EFFIENTS C developed

0.72 Ha

MAXIMUM OUTFLOW

Qo tc (mm)

I (mm/hr)

5 6 10 20 30 1 2 3

197 185 152 112 91.4 62.9 41.1 31.8

1.2200 cum/s Qi (cum/s)

Qo (cum/s)

r

Vi (cum)

Vs (cum)

1.4657 1.3764 1.1309 0.8333 0.6800 0.4680 0.3058 0.2366

1.2200 1.2200 1.2200 1.2200 1.2200 1.2200 1.2200 1.2200

0.1676 0.1136 ‐0.0788 ‐0.4641 ‐0.7941 ‐1.6070 ‐2.9897 ‐4.1566

586.2720 660.6720 904.7040 ######## ######## 37.4381 48.9254 56.7821

71 53 ‐46 ‐317 ‐521 ‐8

EQUATIONS

na na

71

Qi (cum/s) = r= Vi = Vs =

Flow as derived from rational method (Qi ‐ Qo)/Qi (4 x tc x Qi) / 3 Vi x ((r x (2 + r)) / 3)

= max Vs

(cum)

Stormwater Quality Maintenance Checklists On Site Detention Tanks Checklist Inspection frequency:

Location: Description: Site vsit by: Inspection Items Excess sediment or rubbish present within tank?

OSD outlet orifice plate damaged?

Evidence of leakage or ongoing bypass of OSD tanks?

Date of visit: 6 monthly On Site Detention Tanks (above and below ground) Y

N

Action required (details) (Remove sediment and rubbish and dispose of appropriately)

(Remove and repair Orifice plate to SMP specification and reattach to OSD outlet) (Repair leak and repair cause of tank bypass)

Drainage system inspected?

Comments: Inspection frequency should be adjusted depending upon observations.

Swale Maintenance Checklist Inspection Date of visit: frequency: 6 monthly Location: Masters Hardware - 28 Bruxner Hwy, Lismore Description: 260m Grassed Floodway Swale

Site visit by: Inspection Items Y N Action required (details) (Remove by hand and dispose of to trash) Obstructions observed at inlet?

(Remove by hand and dispose appropriately) Debris present within swale?

Swale vegetation depleted or in excess to (Remove by hand and dispose appropriately) grasses only (i.e. Trees, etc) (Remove by hand and dispose appropriately) Excess Sediment within Swale?

Swale formation compromised (i.e. Bunding (Reshape swale and make good) breached, etc) Drainage system inspected?

Comments: Inspection frequency should be adjusted depending upon observations

Note: These "Standard Calculation" spreadsheets relate only to low erosion hazard lands as identified in figure 4.6 where the designer chooses to not use the RUSLE to size sediment basins. The more "Detailed Calculation" spreadsheets should be used on high erosion hazard lands as identified by figure 4.6 or where the designer chooses to run the RUSLE in calculations.

1. Site Data Sheet Site name: Kirkland Estate Site location: Holland Street, Goonellabah Precinct: Description of site: Sediment Basin Design for Disturbed Areas.

Site

Site area

ROAD

Total catchment area (ha)

0.33

Disturbed catchment area (ha)

0.33

Remarks

Soil analysis Soil landscape

DIPNR mapping (if relevant)

Soil Texture Group

F

Sections 6.3.3(c), (d) and (e)

Rainfall data Design rainfall depth (days)

5

See Sections 6.3.4 (d) and (e)

Design rainfall depth (percentile)

75

See Sections 6.3.4 (f) and (g)

x-day, y-percentile rainfall event Rainfall intensity: 2-year, 6-hour storm

28.6

See Section 6.3.4 (h)

4.53

See IFD chart for the site

Rainfall erosivity (R-factor)

730

Automatic calculation from above data

2. Storm Flow Calculations Peak flow is given by the Rational Formula: Qy =

where:

Qy

0.00278 x C10 x FY x Iy, tc x A is peak flow rate (m3/sec) of average recurrence interval (ARI) of "Y" years

C10

is the runoff coefficient (dimensionless) for ARI of 10 years. Rural runoff coefficients are given in Volume 2, figure 5 of Pilgrim (1998), while urban runoff coefficients are given in Volume 1, Book VIII, figure 1.13 of Pilgrim (1998) and construction runoff coefficients are given in Appendix F

Fy

is a frequency factor for "Y" years. Rural values are given in Volume 1, Book IV, Table 1.1 of Pilgrim (1998) while urban coefficients are given in Volume 1, Book VIII, Table 1.6 of Pilgrim (1998) is the catchment area in hectares (ha)

A Iy, tc

Time of concentration (tc) =

is the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for an ARI of "Y" years and a design duration of "tc" (minutes or hours) 0.76 x (A/100)0.38 hrs (Volume 1, Book IV of Pilgrim, 1998)

Note: For urban catchments the time of concentration should be determined by more precise calculations or reduced by a factor of 50 per cent.

Peak flow calculations, 1 Rainfall intensity, I, mm/hr

Site

A (ha)

tc (mins)

1 yr,tc

5 yr,tc

10 yr,tc

20 yr,tc

50 yr,tc

100 yr,tc

ROAD

0.33

5

86.8

137

157

172

199

220

C10 0.7

Peak flow calculations, 2 ARI yrs

Peak flows

Frequency

factor (Fy)

ROAD

1 yr, tc

0.85

0.047

5 yr, tc

0.95

0.084

10 yr, tc

1

0.101

20 yr, tc

1.05

0.116

50 yr, tc

1.115

0.142

100 yr, tc

1.2

0.170

(m3/s)

Comment (m3/s)

(m3/s)

(m3/s)

(m3/s)

(m3/s)

3. Volume of Sediment Basins, Type D and Type F Soils Basin volume = settling zone volume + sediment storage zone volume

Settling Zone Volume The settling zone volume for Type F and Type D soils is calculated to provide capacity to contain all runoff expected from up to the y-percentile rainfall event. The volume of the basin's settling zone (V) can be determined as a function of the basin's surface area and depth to allow for particles to settle and can be determined by the following equation: V=

10 x Cv x A x Ry-%ile, x-day (m3)

where: 10 =

a unit conversion factor

Cv =

the volumetric runoff coefficient defined as that portion of rainfall that runs off as stormwater over the x-day period

R=

is the x-day total rainfall depth (mm) that is not exceeded in y percent of rainfall events.

(See Sections 6.3.4(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)).

A=

total catchment area (ha)

Sediment Storage Zone Volume In the standard calculation, the sediment storage zone is 50 percent of the setting zone. However, designers can work to capture the 2-month soil loss as calculated by the RUSLE (Section 6.3.4(i)(ii)), in which case the "Detailed Calculation" spreadsheets should be used.

Total Basin Volume

Site

Cv

R x-day y-%ile

ROAD

0.42

28.6

Total catchment area (ha)

Settling zone volume (m3)

Sediment storage volume (m3)

Total basin volume (m3)

0.33

40

20

60

1

Erosion and Sediment Control â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Maintenance Checklist

Inspection frequency:

2 Weekly/Daily

Date of Inspection:

Location: Description:

Civil Works â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sediment Controls

Site visit by: Inspection items

Y

N

Action required (details)

Sediment accumulation at drainage points? (Weekly Inspection Required or after major rainfall events)

(Remove by sweeping/shovel)

Sediment / Mud at Stabilised Access Point?

(Remove by sweeping/shovel)

Sediment fences operational/clear of sediment? (Daily Inspection Required during construction phase)

(If greater than 10% of fence has sediment, remove and dispose on vegetated buffered lands as topsoil, use excavator if large quantities).

Stockpiles are not eroded and sediment fencing is operational

(Re-place soil into rill/stockpile configuration and reinstate fencing where required)

3

Other Comments

APPENDIX C  Geotechnical Report

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT LOT 2, HOLLAND STREET GOONELLABAH

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

Suite 6, 633 Logan Road GREENSLOPES QLD 4120 Australia PO Box 19 GREENSLOPES QLD 4120 Australia Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

T: +61 7 3847 8751 F: +61 7 3847 7863

13795/1-B ku:ps 24 July 2013

Newton Denny Chapelle PO Box 1138 LISMORE NSW 2480

Attention: Mr J Newton

RE: GEOTECHNICAL SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT, LOT 2, HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Please find attached our report on geotechnical investigations and landslide hazard studies at the above site. The report presents the results of field investigations and slope stability studies and provides geotechnical guidelines for residential development of the site.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss or clarify any of the issues raised in this report, please contact Philip Shaw at our Brisbane office.

For and on behalf of SHAW URQUHART PTY LTD

PHILIP SHAW Principal Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Original held by Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd 1 electronic copy

Newton Denny Chapelle

Suite 6, 633 Logan Road GREENSLOPES QLD 4120 Australia PO Box 19 GREENSLOPES QLD 4120 Australia Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

T: +61 7 3847 8751 F: +61 7 3847 7863

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.

INTRODUCTION

1

2.

SCOPE OF WORK

1

3.

SITE CONDITIONS

1

4.

STABILITY OF NATURAL SLOPES

4

4.1

Discussion

4

4.2

Definition of Terms Used

4

4.3

Landslide Inventory

5

4.4

Identification of Potential Hazards

5

4.5

Hazard Zoning

6

4.6

Constraints to Residential Development

9

4.7

Risk Assessment

5.

FUTURE DESIGN LEVEL INVESTIGATIONS

11 11

Understand the Limitations of Your Geotechnical Report FIGURES Site Plan by Newton Denny Chapelle “Proposed Subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1021834”.

1

Site Contour Plan Showing Approximate Test Pit and Site Observation Locations

2

Site contour Plan Showing Landslide Hazard Zoning

APPENDICES A

Engineering Logs of Test Pits

B

Site Observation Notes

C

Guidelines for Hillside Construction & Appendix C of AGS “Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007”

D

Survey Contour Plan by Newton Denny Chapelle

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

1.

1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of slope stability studies carried out by Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd on land described as located at Lot 2 (DP1021834), Holland Street, Goonellabah.

It is understood that the site is being considered for development as residential allotments and that a development application is to be made to Lismore City Council.

The proposed allotment layout is shown on the attached site plan provided by Newton Denny Chapelle.

A survey contour plan of the site was also provided by Newton Denny Chapelle and is presented in Appendix D. 2.

SCOPE OF WORK

As part of the slope stability studies, the following field investigations were carried out: ď&#x201A;ˇ

A walk-over study was carried out by an Engineering Geologist from our Brisbane office to view surface conditions and make observations of local geology and geomorphology relevant to the stability of the natural slopes on the site.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Eight test pits were excavated at selected locations using a tracked excavator to depths of between 1.9m (test pit TP2) and 3.0m (test pits TP4 to TP8).

Approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the test pits was to investigate the subsurface conditions present on site, particularly the nature of the soils and the depth to weathered rock across the area.

The test pits were carried out in the full time presence of an experienced Geotechnician who was responsible for locating the test pits, nominating and directing sampling and testing and preparing field logs of the soil and weathered rock profiles encountered.

Engineering logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A along with explanation sheets describing the terms and symbols used.

Site observations and surface features are shown on the marked up contour plan on Figure 1 and Site Observation Notes are presented in Appendix B. Site Observation Locations (SOL) are also shown on Figure 1.

3.

SITE CONDITIONS

3.1

Surface Conditions

The site is located on the western side of Holland Street, Goonellabah. Tucki Creek bounds the site on the northern and western sides and Holland Street forms the eastern boundary. An adjacent property forms the southern/south western boundary.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

2

An existing allotment, Lot 1 on DP1021834, is located in the northern eastern area of the site and contains an existing low-set brick house with pool and tennis court, accessed via a sealed driveway off Holland Street. This house was unoccupied at the time of the field investigations.

The overall area of Lot 2 is around 6.5ha.

Topographically, the site lies on the crest and flanks of a low rise, with the crest of the rise located on Lot 1. Slopes fall to the north, west and south with slope angles varying from around 15˚ to 18˚ on the upper northern and north western slopes, 10˚ to 12˚ on the western slopes and around 5˚ on the more gently sloping southern slopes. In general, the slopes tend to be flatter near the crest, steepen up in the upper middle section and then flatten out again on the lower slopes.

In terms of topography, the site can be divided into a number of regions. The crest and uppermost slopes of the low rise, have gentle slopes of typically zero to 5˚. The slopes to the north and north west of Lot 1 are relatively steep, with slopes of around 15˚ to 18˚ and locally 20˚. This area is heavily vegetated with lantana, low shrubs and plantation pine trees.

As the slopes curve around to the west, the upper slopes reduce to around 10˚ to 15˚ reducing to 5˚ in the middle then steepening to around 10˚ to 12˚ on the lower slopes adjacent to Tucki Creek. A stone weir crosses the creek at SOL 6. The upper slopes are heavily vegetated with low shrubs, lantana and scattered mature trees while the middle and lower slopes are covered by open grassed paddock.

The western and central area of the site typically has moderate to gentle slopes of around 12˚ on the upper slopes and 5˚ to 7˚ on the middle and lower slopes, with an area of slightly steeper slopes of 8˚ to 9˚ near the banks of Tucki Creek. A man-made sump or pit is located at SOL 16. The area of dense vegetation on the upper slopes curves around the western and southern boundary of Lot 1 to intersect the Holland Street alignment.

An old abandoned cattle yard and loading ramp is located near the south eastern corner of the site on the Holland Street alignment. A twist-wire access gate is located immediately north of the cattle ramp.

In the southern area of the site, there is a change in topography. The upper slopes fall to the west and north west at around 5˚ to 7˚ over an area of grass, pine trees and shrubs. Down-slope of this is a steep bank, approximately 5m to 7m high, with slopes of typically 15˚ to 20˚. This area is very heavily overgrown with dense lantana and shrubs. To the west of this area, slopes reduce to approximately 3˚ to 5˚ continuing to the banks of Tucki Creek.

An incised drainage channel was observed at SOL 14, with side slopes of typically 20˚.

To the south of this, at SOL 13, is a possible small slope failure on the banks of Tucki Creek, with slopes of typically 35˚.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

3

A steep-sided drainage gully runs along the south western boundary of the site. The gully is around 2m to 3m deep with side slopes of typically 20˚ to 25˚ (SOL 12).

3.2

Subsurface Conditions

According to the published geology map of the area (1:100,000 scale “Lismore” sheet), the site is underlain by weathered volcanic rocks of the Tertiary Lismore Basalt. This was confirmed by site observations.

Generally, the site is underlain by residual soils consisting of 1.2m to greater than 3m of very stiff, red brown silty clay with occasional basalt cobbles and boulders. The silty clay is underlain by gravelly silty clay/clayey gravel grading to extremely weathered basalt.

Highly weathered basalt was encountered at a depth of 2.8m in test pit TP5.

No fill was observed in the test pits excavated on site, however it is expected that some fill may be present in the area of the existing house and driveway on Lot 1.

The subsurface materials encountered in each test pit are summarised in Table 1.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Test Pit No

TP1

TP2

TP3

Material Description

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

Depth (m)

Silty CLAY

0.0-2.2

0.0-1.5

0.0-1.6

0.0-3.0

0.0-2.0

0.0-2.4

0.0-3.0

0.0-2.4

Gravelly CLAY (XW Basalt)

2.2-2.7

1.5-1.9

1.6-2.2

--

2.0-2.8

2.4-3.0

--

2.4-3.0

HW Basalt

--

--

--

--

2.8-3.0

--

--

--

3.3

Groundwater

No groundwater seepage was encountered in any of the test pits at the time of excavation and no surface water seepage was observed on the site during the site visit. The sump at SOL 16 was dry at the time of the site visit.

It is expected that the proximity of Tucki Creek along the northern and western boundary of the site will result in a localised raised groundwater level in this area.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

4.

STABILITY OF NATURAL SLOPES

4.1

Discussion

4

Natural slopes are formed by processes which reflect the site geology, climate and environment. These processes result in ongoing down slope movements of materials within the slope. The area of influence of these down slope movements may range from local to regional. The natural process may be influenced by human intervention in the form of construction and related activities. It must be accepted that the hazards associated with construction on or immediately adjacent to steep slopes are greater than construction on level ground in the same geological environment.

The impact of construction may be adverse and poor construction practice and techniques may increase the potential likelihood of ground movement.

It is not technically feasible to assess the stability of the natural slopes on a particular site in absolute terms such as “stable” or “unstable”. However, a degree of likelihood of slope movement can be assessed by the recognition of surface features supplemented by limited information on the regional and local subsurface conditions and with the benefit of experience gained in similar geological and engineering environments.

4.2

Definitions of Terms Used

The following brief definitions of terms used in this report are taken from the Australian Geomechanics Society “Guideline for Landslide Susceptibility, Hazard and Risk Zoning for Land Use Planning”, Australian Geomechanics Volume 42, No. 1 March 2007.

Landslide - The movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth (soil) down a slope.

Landslide inventory – An inventory of the location, classification, volume, activity and date of occurrence of individual landslides in an area.

Hazard – A condition with the potential for causing an undesirable consequence.

Landslide hazard includes landslides which have their source in the area or may have their source outside the area but may travel to or regress into the area.

Risk – a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property or the environment.

Risk is often estimated by the product of probability and consequences. However, a more general interpretation involves a comparison of the probability and consequences in a non-product form.

Zoning – The division of land into homogeneous areas or domains and their ranking according to degrees of actual or potential landslide susceptibility, hazard or risk.

The general approach of the Australian Geomechanics Society publications is to define and assess “risk” as a function of the likelihood or probability of an event occurring (such as a landslide) and the potential consequences of such an event (eg. damage to property, loss of life). Landslide hazard zonation is a method of assessing the distribution of areas of different relative likelihood of landslide to incorporate management of the hazard and associated risk into local planning and development.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

5

In simple form, the risk assessment process involves answering the following questions: 

What might happen (hazard) ?



How likely is it (frequency or probability)?



What damage or injury may result (consequences)?



How important is it (significance) ?



What can be done about it (mitigation) ?

In this study, only the first two items have been assessed. The site has been divided into zones of potential Likelihood of instability. Zones of the site have been identified which are considered unsuitable for development. Where development is considered feasible, geotechnical constraints have been presented.

It is not possible at this stage to carry out a full landslide risk assessment without knowledge of the actual development and likely consequences that may occur.

4.3

Landslide Inventory

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd is not aware of any documented record of historical slope instability on the site. The periodic history and therefore frequency of slope instability on the site is not known. As mentioned in Section 3.1, a possible small river bank failure was observed at SOL 13. It is considered that such a failure is likely to be the result of undercutting erosion by Tucki Creek under flood conditions.

4.4

Identification of Potential Hazards

On this site, the main potential landslide and related hazards are identified as follows:

Natural steep slopes (steeper than 18˚) with the potential to result in small-scale, localised instability. Instability on these steep natural slopes would take the form of shallow creep, soil scarring and small landslides (>10m3).



Areas of surface water flow under flood conditions, around the channel and banks of Tucki Creek.



Possible areas of stormwater discharge onto the site. It is not known if the residence on Lot 1 is connected to the stormwater reticulation system.



Possible existing fill due to local unidentified earthworks relating to the old cattle yards, drainage works etc.

The hazards have been identified from a site walk-over assessment and observations by an Engineering Geologist and subsurface investigations as described in Sections 2 and 3.

A number of areas of potential slope instability were observed on the site, summarised as follows: 

Localised areas of steeper slopes in the northern area of the site where slope angles exceed 18˚ (approx. 3H:1V).

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

6



Localised areas of steeper slopes in the southern area of the site (SOL 11) where slope angles exceed 18˚ (approx. 3H:1V).



Areas on or immediately adjacent to the banks of Tucki Creek, which may be subject to erosion and/or inundation under flood conditions.



Areas in or immediately adjacent the steep banks of drainage gullies along the south western site boundary (SOL 12) and adjacent to the banks of Tucki Creek (SOL 13 and 14)



Fill may be present on the site in the area of the old cattle yard. Fill may also be present around the margins of the house platform adjacent to Lot 1. Infilled drains and service trenches associated with the residence on Lot 1 may cross adjacent areas of Lot 2.

It should be appreciated that much of the site has been farmed and pre-existing areas of slope instability may have been obscured by farm activities.

4.5

Hazard Zoning

4.5.1

General

The main causes of landslides are well documented in the literature and include the following factors: 

Slope angle.



Underlying geology and soil types.



Vegetation cover.



Variable and transient factors such as rainfall intensity, overland water flows, groundwater flows, piezometric pressure and seismic vibrations.



Presence of soil masses in a potentially unstable condition.



Man-made factors such as excavations, construction activity, vegetation and changes to the surface and subsurface drainage.

removal

of

In a given area, some of the above factors can be identified, while other possible contributing factors can be considered. From a study of existing landslides and an assessment of the likely mechanisms and influences on these events, it is possible to develop an understanding of the processes involved which in turn allows an assessment to be made of the potential, relative likelihood of similar conditions arising in other adjacent areas.

Landslides within the study area may also be induced by man-made factors. causes of landslides in other areas include but are not limited to: 

Construction of loose, uncompacted fill slopes.



Undercutting of steep slopes.

Known

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

7



Relocation of water courses adjacent to the toes of slopes.



Concentrated stormwater run-off from roads or building platforms causing fill failures.



Poor design and/or construction of retaining structures.



Ground saturation of land below septic waste disposal absorption fields.

4.5.2

Qualitative Measures of Likelihood

The qualitative measures of Likelihood presented in Table 2 have been adopted for this study consistent with the terminology of Appendix C of the Australian Geomechanics Society “Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management”, Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007. A copy is presented in Appendix C of this report.

TABLE 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD OF INSTABILITY Approximate Annual Probability

Description

10-2

The event will probably occur under Likely adverse conditions over the design life

10-3

The event could occur under adverse Possible conditions over the design life

10-4

The event might occur under very Unlikely adverse circumstances over the design life

10-5

The event is conceivable but only Rare under exceptional circumstances over the design life

10-6

The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life

4.5.3

Descriptor

Barely Credible

Computer Slope Stability Analyses

The approach adopted in assessing zones of likelihood of instability on this site has taken into account the general observations of Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd personnel over 20 years of working in the Northern Rivers area, site specific observations of geological features including the hazards identified in Section 4.4 and reference to previous slope stability analyses for similar subsurface conditions on other sites.

In addition to observations, theoretical slope stability analyses have been carried out for different slope angles on planar slopes assuming residual soil profiles of typically 3m of

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

8

soil overlying weathered rock.

Soil effective stress shear strength parameters of Cˊ=10kPa and Фˊ=27˚ were used for the residual soils. The estimated factors of safety for a range of slope angles assuming fully saturated conditions are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3: FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR VARIOUS SLOPE ANGLES Slope Angle (˚)

Thickness of Soil (m)

Fully Saturated

Factor of safety

12

3.0

yes

2.0

15

3.0

yes

1.8

18

3.0

yes

1.5

25

3.0

yes

1.0

On this site, the thickness of soil cover over highly weathered rock, as observed in the test pits, varied from 1.6m to greater than 3m. Slope angles were observed to exceed 18˚ in localised areas in the northern area of the site, in an area adjacent to the south western boundary of the site around SOL 11 and on the banks of Tucki Creek and adjacent drainage gullies.

4.5.4

Zones of Likelihood of Instability

Taking into account the measures described above including the computer slope stability analyses, zones of likelihood of instability have been assigned on the basis of slope angle as follows:

Barely Credible: Gently sloping to flat-lying areas with slope angles of less than 7. This does not include the potential for localised instability on drainage ditches, fill stockpiles or other man-made features.



Rare: - Gently sloping areas and the crests and upper slopes of ridges and spurs with slope angles of greater than 7˚ to 12˚.



Unlikely: - Areas with slope angles of greater than 12˚ to 18˚.



Possible: - Areas with slope angles of greater than 18˚ to 25˚.



Likely: Very steep slopes in residual and colluvial soils with slope angles generally steeper than 25˚. Slopes steeper than 25˚ were observed on this site but only in very localised areas on the banks of Tucki Creek.

It should be appreciated that likelihood of slope instability is not defined by slope angle alone and hazard zoning needs to also taken into account many other parameters including drainage, observations on site and site geology as understood from subsurface investigations.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

9

The interpreted zones of different likelihood of instability are presented on Figure 2. These are as interpreted from measured slope angles, site observations and subsurface investigations and may not strictly follow the simplified slope angle categories described previously.

4.6

Constraints to Residential Development

Preliminary development constraints outlined in Table 4 may be considered typical for a site of this type and may be considered for preliminary concept planning purposes.

TABLE 4: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ON SLOPING LAND – RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Barely Credible (Less than 7˚)

Rare (7°-12°)

Unlikely (12°-18°)



No specific constraints other than good engineering and construction practice.  May be settlement issues if areas of uncontrolled fill are present.  Minimise earthworks. Maximum unsupported cut depths and fill thicknesses of 2.0m battered no steeper than 1V:2H are recommended unless subject to site-specific engineering investigations and design.

Steeper and deeper unsupported cuts and fills should be supported with engineered retaining walls.  Pre-strip the vegetation and topsoil prior to placement of any filling, and bench engineered fill into the natural slope and compact to standards appropriate to its purpose.  Provide appropriate surface and subsurface drains, and direct water collected by these drainage systems, together with run-off from gutters, down-pipes, driveways and paved areas, into the stormwater reticulation system.

For residential buildings constructed on the natural slopes and founded in residual soils, it is recommended that the type of building generally be restricted to lightweight slope-sensitive structures of timber or similar construction to limit surcharge loadings on the slopes.

Depending on the results of an appropriate, site-specific geotechnical and slope stability assessment, the constraints on development are expected to typically include:  Avoid development near locally over-steepened areas or gullies.  Pre-strip the vegetation/topsoil prior to placement of any filling, bench engineered fill into the natural slope and compact to standards appropriate to its purpose.  Locate footings on weathered rock where practical.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

10











Possible (18°-25°)

Found engineered retaining walls in rock where practicable, and design to resist applied soil and water forces, allowing for the sloping ground and any surcharge loadings.

Minimise bulk earthworks. Maximum unsupported cut depths and fill thicknesses of 1.0m, and batters no steeper than 1V:2H are recommended unless subject to site-specific engineering investigations and design. Steeper and deeper cuts/fills should be supported with engineer designed retaining walls.

Provide appropriate surface and subsurface drains, and direct water collected by these drainage systems, together with run-off from gutters, down-pipes, driveways and paved areas, into the stormwater reticulation system.

Pay particular attention to drainage and erosion control measures during site development. Areas where surface groundwater seepage currently exists or becomes apparent during or immediately after periods of heavy rainfall may require sub-soil drains.

Assess the potential effects on slope stability if septic systems are to be used for the proposed development and make recommendations accordingly.

On this site, it is recommended that residential development should not extend into areas of Possible instability unless sufficient, appropriate geotechnical studies are carried out to enable the area to be re-zoned as Unlikely or better. This may result in modification of the natural ground surface to achieve the same outcome.

Residential allotments, houses and other structures should not be located within 10m of Possible or Likely zones of instability (see Section 4.5).

Access roads have more potential for the design and construction of risk mitigation measures than other structures and may be permitted in areas of Possible instability provided sufficient, appropriate geotechnical studies are carried out to demonstrate that the road can be constructed with an acceptable risk level.

In general it is recommended that all development on hillside areas should follow Good Hillside Construction Practice in accordance with the information sheets presented in Appendix C. These are taken from the Australian Geomechanics Society “Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management”, Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

11

For the proposed allotment layout shown on the attached Newton Denny Chapelle plan, Lots 24, 25 and 26 and to a lesser extent Lots 13 and 14 contain slopes steeper than 18° (Possible likelihood of instability).

4.7

Risk Assessment

“Risk” as defined in the Australian Geomechanics Society publications as a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property or environment. Risk is often estimated by the product of numerical probability and consequences. However, a more general interpretation involves a comparison of the probability and consequences in a non-product form. To carry out a full risk assessment of each individual allotment would require a full understanding of the type of structure proposed and the associated earthworks along with the likely consequences should failure occur.

It is our opinion based on Appendix C of the Australian Geomechanics Society “Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007” that, if development is restricted to zones of Barely Credible, Rare or Unlikely instability and the geotechnical development constraints presented in Table 4 are strictly followed, the areas can be developed with a Low to Very Low risk of damage to property.

5.

FUTURE DESIGN LEVEL INVESTIGATIONS

It is recommended that at the time of construction, a site-specific geotechnical and slope stability investigation and risk assessment be carried out for each proposed residential allotment and/or building envelope which is located in a zone of Unlikely instability (areas with slopes of 12˚ or steeper).

For and on Behalf of SHAW URQUHART PTY LTD

UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT This report has been based on project details as provided to us at the time of the commission. It therefore applies only to the site investigated and to a specific set of project requirements as understood by Shaw:Urquhart.

differ from those inferred to exist. This will not be known until construction has commenced. Your geotechnical report and the recommendations contained within it can therefore only be regarded as preliminary.

If there are changes to the project, you need to advise us in order that the effect of the changes on the report recommendations can be adequately assessed. Shaw:Urquhart cannot take responsibility for problems that may occur due to project changes if they are not consulted.

In the event that conditions encountered during construction are different to those described in the report, Shaw:Urquhart should be consulted immediately. Nothing can be done to change the actual site conditions which exist but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of unexpected conditions. For this reason, the services of Shaw:Urquhart should be retained through the development stage of a project.

It is important to remember that the subsurface conditions described in the report represent the state of the site at the time of investigation.

Natural processes and the activities of man can result in changes to site conditions. For example, ground water levels can change or fill can be placed on a site after the investigation is completed. If there is a possibility that conditions may have changed with time, Shaw:Urquhart should be consulted to assess the impact on the recommendations of the report.

The site investigation only identifies the actual subsurface conditions at the location and time when the samples were taken. Geologists and engineers then extrapolate between the investigation points to provide an assumed three-dimensional picture of the site conditions. The report is based on the assumption that the site conditions as identified at the investigation locations are representative of the actual conditions throughout an area. This may not be the case and actual conditions may

Š Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd June 2004

Problems can occur when other design professionals misinterpret a report. To help avoid this, Shaw:Urquhart should be retained to work with other design professionals to explain the implications of the report.

This report should be retained as a complete document and should not be copied in part, divided or altered in any way.

It is recommended that Shaw:Urquhart is retained during the construction phase to confirm that conditions encountered are consistent with design assumptions. For example, this may involve assessment of bearing capacity for footings, stability of natural slopes or excavations or advice on temporary construction conditions.

This document has been produced to help all parties involved recognise their individual responsibilities.

g

ne

Li

ck i

.8

7642m²

7/1

.5

38

19

C re

12

23

24

51.4

1191.2 m²

51.7

25

.8

.2

6 .8

858.9 9 m²

41

26

25 .1 .6

20 .5

37

.8

1550.6 m²

28

1 8.1

2 5.3

1002.6 m²

1

49.1

1049.2 m²

2

50.4

Yard

1046 m²

3

50.5

1026.3 m²

4

52.4

5

1191.2 m²

50.4

6 m² 1093.3

50.4

1263.5 m²

Datum :

Email: office@newtondennychapelle.com.au

Consulting Surveyors & Planners

1/1

1070.5 m²

27

.6

.7

11

13

5 2.3

7

Newton Denny Chapelle

29 .4

11

8 m² 930.5

1 5.6

Lot 1 DP 1021834

Land > 20%

Approved

ek

Drawn :

2/1

2836.6 m²

13

1057.5 m²

.6 43

Scale 1:800

1316.4 m²

59.8

31

1273.1 m²

22

56.3

1288.3 m²

21

26 .8

9

948.1 10 m²

45.

962.1 m²

11

4 6.3

1049.6 m²

1308.4 m²

3 9 3/1 .9

5/1

46

20 m² 958.7

4/1

.1

06/03/2013

16.7

Date

'Hepburn Park'

6/1

38

875.6 m²

.6

Lot 1 DP 553239

29 Public Reserve

18 945.8 m²

.1 42

1004.7 17 m²

49

19 .1

1 5 0.

14

1299.9 m²

22.8

.1

19

45

20.8

1 7.1

22

Street Carson

Street

Lot 1 DP 262233

Casino 100 Barker St. Casino 2470 T & F : 66 625000

Lismore First Floor Molesworth House 186 Molesworth St. Lismore 2480 T: 66 221011 F: 66 224088

13

DP

Client:

Widen Holland Street to 13m Wide UR K&G

Paul Kirkland 27 Coogee St. East Ballina

709380

Lot 69 DP 876840

eet Str

Survey :

Design :

8/1

16

1111.4 m²

9/1

.6 21 1 5.4

Notes :

Ei

st in

Tu

23.7

3

.9

20 .5

Amendments

Lot 131 DP 774799

137.17inv

Timber Footbridge

30.3

er

Se w

Stormwater Quality Treatment Area

.9

Land > 20%

20.2

1.137 Ha

20

u/r k& g existing

15 Public Reserve

22.4

Ma in Existing Se we r

10/1

25

34

137.41inv

.3 24 21

28

24 23.4

18.9

3 5.3

2 8.7 18

.7

.7 22 .1

17.2

.1

41

.1 .3

21.6

.6 23 1 4.9

28

19.8

24 33

20.6

.4 15

29

18

21.1

5 16.2 47.5

5 8

5 60.2

1 5.

H olland

de Sla Project :

Proposed Subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1021834 Sheet

of

Ref No. 03438 Rev1 - plan

Sheets

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

APPENDIX A ENGINEERING LOGS OF TEST PITS

TP1

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533710.00mE 6812014.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 3.9mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown, some fine roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown.

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

structure and additional observations

RESIDUAL

VSt

0.5

PP=300kPa

1.0

PP=400kPa

D

1.5

2.0

PP=420kPa CH

Silty, Gravelly CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown to yellowish grey mottled (extremely weathered basalt).

H

2.5 Test pit TP1 terminated at 2.7m

3.0

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP2

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533698.00mE 6812120.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 3.7mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown, some fine roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown, trace of cobbles and boulders.

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

structure and additional observations

RESIDUAL

VSt

0.5

PP=300kPa

1.0

PP=250kPa

PP=400kPa

1.5

CH

Silty Gravelly CLAY: high plasticity, red brown to grey yellow mottled, fine to coarse grained gravel (extremely weathered basalt).

H

Test pit TP2 terminated at 1.9m

2.0

2.5

3.0

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP3

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533634.00mE 6812062.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 3.8mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CL

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity, brown, some roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown, some cobbles and boulders.

0.5

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

RESIDUAL

VSt/H PP=390kPa

1.0

PP=450kPa CH

D

structure and additional observations

Gravelly Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown to pale grey mottled.

H

GP-GC Basalt: fine to medium grained, pale grey to dark brown mottled, extremely to highly weathered, some inclusions of very low to low strength, highly weathered basalt.

D

1.5

PP=430kPa WEATHERED ROCK

2.0 Test pit TP3 terminated at 2.2m

2.5

3.0

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP4

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533631.00mE 6812142.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 4.0mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CL

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity, reddish brown, some fine roots and organic matter.

CL

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown.

0.5

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F VSt

structure and additional observations

TOPSOIL RESIDUAL PP=400kPa

PP=450kPa

1.0 PP=330kPa

1.5

2.0

PP=350kPa

2.5

3.0

Test pit TP4 terminated at 3m

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP5

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533657.00mE 6812186.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 4.2mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CL

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity, reddish brown, some roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown, trace of cobbles and boulders.

0.5

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

RESIDUAL

VSt/H PP=280kPa

1.0

PP=300kPa

CH

1.5

2.0

Gravelly Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown to pale grey mottled, fine to coarse grained gravel.

CH

Silty Gravelly CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown to pale grey mottled, fine to medium grained gravel (extremely weathered basalt).

CH

Silty Gravelly CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown to grey mottled, fine to medium grained gravel (extremely weathered basalt).

2.5

3.0

structure and additional observations

GP-GC BASALT: fine to medium grained, pale brownish grey, extremely to highly weathered, some layering of very low strength highly weathered basalt.

Test pit TP5 terminated at 3m

H PP=470kPa

D

WEATHERED ROCK

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP6

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533584.00mE 6812240.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 4.0mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, brown, some fine roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown.

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

structure and additional observations

RESIDUAL

VSt

0.5

PP=280kPa

1.0

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, pale brown to yellow and reddish grey.

H PP=400kPa

1.5 D

2.0

CH

2.5

3.0

Silty Gravelly CLAY: high plasticity, pale grey brown to red and yellow brown mottled, fine to medium grained gravel (extremely weathered basalt).

WEATHERED ROCK

Test pit TP6 terminated at 3m

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP7

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533646.00mE 6812300.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 4.0mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, brown, some roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown.

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

structure and additional observations

RESIDUAL

VSt/H

0.5

PP=250kPa

1.0

PP=400kPa

CH

1.5

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, pale brown to reddish grey mottled.

VSt PP=360kPa

2.0

2.5

3.0

Test pit TP7 terminated at 3m

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

TP8

Test pit No.

Shaw Urquhart Pty Ltd ACN 108 592 623

Engineering Log - Test Pit

1 of 1

Sheet Job No.:

Client:

NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

Date started:

13795/1 9.7.2013

Project:

HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

Date completed:

9.7.2013

Test pit location:

REFER FIGURE 1

Logged by:

BH

Coordinates:

56533716.00mE 6812306.00mN

Checked by:

Equipment Type And Model: KUBOTA 8 TON EXCAVATOR 3.9mm long

Datum:

soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics, colour, secondary and minor components.

CH

Silty CLAY: medium plasticity to high plasticity, reddish brown, some roots and organic matter.

CH

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, reddish brown.

consistency/ density index

material

moisture condition

depth RL metres

classification symbol

water

support

notes samples, tests, etc

0.6mm wide

material substance

E

method

excavation information

graphic log

Excavation Dimensions:

R.L. Surface:

Pit Orientation:

M

F

structure and additional observations

RESIDUAL

St

0.5

PP=170kPa

CH

1.0

Silty CLAY: high plasticity, pale brownish grey with red brown and yellow brown mottling.

VSt PP=280kPa

1.5

PP=300kPa

CH

2.0

Gravelly Silty CLAY: high plasticity, pale greyish brown with red brown and yellow brown mottling, fine to medium grained gravel.

PP=200kPa

D

CH

2.5

3.0

Silty Gravelly CLAY/Silty Clayey GRAVEL: high plasticity, pale grey to red brown mottled, fine to coarse grained gravel (extremely weathered basalt).

H

Test pit TP8 terminated at 3m

TEST PIT WO SKETCH TEST PIT LOGS.GPJ SHAW URQUHART.GDT 26/7/13

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0 Method N X BH B R E HA

natural exposure existing excavation backhoe bucket bulldozer blade ripper excavator hand auger

Support T timbering N nil

Water water level on date shown water inflow water outflow

Notes, Samples, Tests U50 undisturbed sample 50mm diameter D disturbed sample V vane shear (kPa) Bs bulk sample R refusal E environmental sample

Classification Symbols And Soil Description based on unified classification system Moisture D dry M moist W wet Wp plastic limit Wl liquid limit

Consistency/Density Index VS very soft S soft F firm St stiff VSt very stiff H hard Fb friable VL very loose L loose MD medium dense D dense VD very dense

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

APPENDIX B SITE OBSERVATION NOTES

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

SITE OBSERVATIONS 1.

Existing low-set brick house with gardens, pool and tennis court.

2.

Area of planar slopes, typically 15˚ to 18˚, long grass, mature trees and dense thickets of small trees and lantana. Also scattered 6m to 8m high pine trees.

3.

Tucki Creek and billabong formed by weir downstream.

4.

Area of grassed slopes, typically 18˚ to 19˚, locally 20˚ to 22˚, occasional surface basalt boulders.

5.

Area of long grass and gentle slopes of 3˚ to 5˚ north of tennis court.

6.

Stone weir across Tucki Creek, around 1m high, forming a shallow billabong.

7.

Area of open paddock with long grass, slopes of around 17˚ on the upper slopes reducing to 5˚ to 10˚ on the lower slopes.

8.

Area of lantana and small trees, slopes of around 5˚ to 10˚.

9.

Broad area of open, grassed paddock.

10. Grove of medium-size gum trees and pine trees.

11. Area of dense trees, lantana and creepers, slopes of typically 15˚, increasing to around 18˚ to the south west.

12. Incised creek gully running parallel with the south west property boundary, generally v-shaped with side slopes of around 20˚ to 25˚.

13. Narrow zone of very steep creek bank, typically 30˚ to 35˚, possible erosionrelated failure of the creek bank.

14. V-shaped drainage gully, with side slopes of typically 20˚ to 22˚, locally 25˚.

15. Broad area of scattered trees, lantana, small pine trees and long grass. Slopes of typically 3˚ to 5˚.

16. Sump or pit, around 8m long and 1m deep.

17. Dense trees and undergrowth along the fence line.

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

APPENDIX C GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION & APPENDIX C of AGS “PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007”

-3

-6

(1)

10 years

20 years

Implied Indicative Landslide Recurrence Interval

91

Notes:

0.5%

5%

20%

60%

200%

(4)

(3)

(2)

Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.

Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.

Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.

Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.

Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works.

Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)

Description

INSIGNIFICANT

MINOR

MEDIUM

MAJOR

CATASTROPHIC

Descriptor

BARELY CREDIBLE

RARE

UNLIKELY

POSSIBLE

LIKELY

ALMOST CERTAIN

Descriptor

5

4

3

2

1

Level

F

E

D

C

B

A

Level

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the unaffected structures.

The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.

The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa

10% 1%

40%

100%

Notional Boundary

Approximate Cost of Damage

Indicative Value

Description

The event is expected to occur over the design life.

The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the 100 years design life.

200 years 5x10-3 1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life.

2000 years 5x10-4 The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the 10,000 years design life.

20,000 years 5x10-5 The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances 100,000 years over the design life.

5x10-6 200,000 years 1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life.

The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.

5x10-2

Notional Boundary

QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY

Note:

10

10

-5

10-4

10

10

-2

10-1

Indicative Value

Approximate Annual Probability

QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD

QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY

APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT

PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007

UNLIKELY

RARE

BARELY CREDIBLE

D -

E -

F -

92

-6

-5

L

M

H

VH

VH

VL

L

M

H

VH

VH

VL

L

L

M

H

VH

VL

VL

L

M

M

H

4: MINOR 5%

VL

VL

VL

VL

L

M or L (5)

5: INSIGNIFICANT 0.5%

HIGH RISK

MODERATE RISK

LOW RISK

VERY LOW RISK

H

M

L

VL

Example Implications (7) Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the property.

Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.

May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.

Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is required.

Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.

VERY HIGH RISK

(7)

10

10

VH

Risk Level

RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS

Note:

-3

10-4

10

10

VH

-2

10-1

3: MEDIUM 20%

For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.

When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current time.

POSSIBLE

C -

(5) (6)

LIKELY

B -

Notes:

ALMOST CERTAIN

A –

2: MAJOR 60%

CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage) 1: CATASTROPHIC 200%

Indicative Value of Approximate Annual Probability

LIKELIHOOD

QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX – LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY

APPENDIX C: – QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)

PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007

PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007

APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE

POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE

Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early stage of planning and before site works.

Prepare detailed plan and start site works before geotechnical advice.

Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.

Plan development without regard for the Risk.

ADVICE GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

PLANNING SITE PLANNING

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION HOUSE DESIGN SITE CLEARING ACCESS & DRIVEWAYS EARTHWORKS CUTS

FILLS

ROCK OUTCROPS & BOULDERS RETAINING WALLS

FOOTINGS

SWIMMING POOLS

Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber or steel frames, timber or panel cladding.

Consider use of split levels.

Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.

Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable.

Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage.

Council specifications for grades may need to be modified.

Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.

Retain natural contours wherever possible.

Minimise depth.

Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope.

Provide drainage measures and erosion control.

Minimise height.

Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling.

Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards.

Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall.

Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage.

Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk.

Support rock faces where necessary.

Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces.

Found on rock where practicable.

Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope above.

Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation.

Found within rock where practicable.

Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope.

Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.

Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.

Engineer designed.

Support on piers to rock where practicable.

Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.

Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.

Floor plans which require extensive cutting and filling.

Movement intolerant structures.

Indiscriminately clear the site.

Excavate and fill for site access before geotechnical advice.

Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks.

Large scale cuts and benching.

Unsupported cuts.

Ignore drainage requirements Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails, may flow a considerable distance including onto property below.

Block natural drainage lines.

Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil.

Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil, boulders, building rubble etc in fill.

Disturb or undercut detached blocks or boulders.

Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced blockwork.

Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes.

Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders or undercut cliffs.

DRAINAGE

SURFACE

SUBSURFACE

SEPTIC & SULLAGE EROSION CONTROL & LANDSCAPING

Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes.

Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses.

Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.

Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.

Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.

Provide filter around subsurface drain.

Provide drain behind retaining walls.

Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.

Prevent inflow of surface water.

Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable.

Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded.

Control erosion as this may lead to instability.

Revegetate cleared area.

Discharge at top of fills and cuts.

Allow water to pond on bench areas.

Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.

Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.

Use absorption trenches without consideration of landslide risk.

Failure to observe earthworks and drainage recommendations when landscaping.

DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SITE VISITS

Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER OWNERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S RESPONSIBILITY

Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply pipes.

Where structural distress is evident see advice.

If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

113

PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007

114

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

13795/1-B 24 July 2013

APPENDIX D SURVEY CONTOUR PLAN BY NEWTON DENNY CHAPELLE

ATTACHMENT 2 Ecological Assessment 28 South Environmental

Ecological Assessment Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Residential Development, Holland Street Goonellabah Prepared for Newton Denny Chapelle 11 November 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

2

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................2 1.1

Background ....................................................................................................................2

1.2

Scope of this Assessment ...............................................................................................2

1.3

Site Assessment Methods ..............................................................................................3

Findings in Regard to Flora ....................................................................................................4 2.1

Overall ............................................................................................................................4

2.2

Conservation Significant Flora Communities .................................................................4

2.2.1 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia TEC ......................................................4 2.2.2 Lowland Rainforest EEC .............................................................................................6 2.3 3

4

Conservation Significant Flora Species ..........................................................................7

Findings in Regard to Fauna ...................................................................................................8 3.1

Overall ............................................................................................................................8

3.2

Matters of NES ...............................................................................................................8

3.3

Updated Koala Assessment............................................................................................8

Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................11

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – PLACE Design Group Report (Abridged Copy) ...................................................13 Attachment 2 – EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool ..........................................................15 Attachment 3 – Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife Data .....................................................................16 Attachment 4 – Tree Schedule.....................................................................................................17 Attachment 5 – Response to the IKRAP Guideline ......................................................................18

1

1

Introduction

1.1 Background In 2007, PLACE Design Group (PLACE) prepared an ecological assessment report for the proposed development of Lot 2 DP 1021834 (Holland Street, Goonellabah). However the proposed development did not progress to a development application (DA) and the report remained un-utilised. A copy of the PLACE Report is provided in Attachment 1.

28 South Environmental has been engaged by Newton Denny Chapelle (on behalf of the Applicant â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mr Paul Kirkland) to reassess the findings of the PLACE Report, and to prepare an updated ecological assessment report to accompany a new development application.

The proposed new development occupies a similar footprint to the previous proposal, but does not include a bridge crossing over Tucki Creek (Figure 1). The principal ecologist for 28 South Environmental (Wayne Moffitt) was the author of the PLACE Report, and as such has a high degree of familiarity with the methods and results of the PLACE assessment.

1.2 Scope of this Assessment The intent of this (the 28 South) assessment is to review the findings of the PLACE Report, and provide an updated report: (i) Describing current site values. For example, have the values of the vegetation improved or diminished; have threatened species emerged which were not previously detected) etc; (ii) Assessing the amended development proposal. For example, there is no longer a proposal to establish a bridge structure over Tucki Creek; there is no proposal to remove the weir from Tucki Creek (identified as a potential environmental management initiative by the PLACE Report); and the extent of regeneration identified by the PLACE report is no longer considered feasible; and (iii) providing assessment against contemporary legislation as follows: a) The PLACE report assessed the potential occurrence of Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) at the Subject Site, but did not provide a definitive statement about whether the proposed development could cause a significant impact on a MNES (and therefore require referral to determine controlled action status under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)). A determination of controlled action status will need to be made for the current DA. The determination is made with

2

reference to the Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013) and other EPBC Act policy statements1.Further, there have been additional Threatened Ecological Communities (TECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s), threatened species, and key threatening processes added to the schedules of the EPBC Act since completion of the PLACE report; b) The PLACE report assessed the occurrence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities at the Subject Site, but did not provide a definitive statement about whether the proposed development would cause a significant impact on these species, populations or ecological communities (and therefore require a Species Impact Statement (SIS) to accompany the DA; and c) The PLACE report made a site assessment against the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (Koala Habitat Protection). The proposed development now needs to be assessed against the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for South-east Lismore (Lismore City Council 2013).

1.3 Site Assessment Methods Site survey was undertaken during July 2013. The survey involved a complete walkover of the Subject Site with Council officers Damian Licari and Martin Suters to: (i) assess trees for retention / loss within the development footprint; and (ii) assess alternate rehabilitation options for Tucki Creek.

Fresh database searches were undertaken to inform the habitat assessment. Search data from the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool is provided in Attachment 2. Search data from the Atlas of NSW Wildlife is provided as Attachment 3.

1

Including significant impact guidelines for individual threatened species, groups of species and threatened ecological communities (refer http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/guidelines.html)

3

2

Findings in Regard to Flora

2.1 Overall The PLACE Report noted that the Subject Site’s original lowland rainforest had been completely cleared, and that the extant vegetation was dominated by senescing (due to poisoning) Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora). This left a sporadic growth of pioneer and early successional rainforest species of poor to moderate form such as: Mallotus philippensis (Red Kamala), Guioa semiglauca (Wild Quince), Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood), Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) and Pentaceras australe (Penta’s Ash). The declared noxious weed, *Lantana camara var. camara (Common Lantana) was present, but had been poisoned. Groundcover species were generally limited to native grasses such as Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Meadow Grass) and Oplismenus aemulus (Basket Grass).

The combined 28 South Environmental / Council assessment found that the Camphor laurels have reduced to almost completely decayed stems, and that a strong growth of Lantana has now emerged. The broad suite of species identified by the PLACE assessment remains, but many of the trees previously identified as being in good health have now declined or are unsuitable for retention within the proposed development. Agreement was reached on a suite of healthy and well-positioned trees to be retained. Newton Denny Chapelle identified additional specimens for removal on the basis of infrastructure placement, road batters etc.

The final suite of trees to be retained and removed is shown in Figure 2 (refer also Attachment 4). It is proposed to offset this loss by: (I) providing advanced trees in the streetscape, with Teak (Flindersia australis) being a particular focus; and (ii) establishing an offset planting area along the northern bank of Tucki Creek. The precise location and extent of that planting is to be discussed with Council officers at a further site meeting.

2.2 Conservation Significant Flora Communities 2.2.1 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia TEC Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia is listed as a TEC under the EPBC Act. Historically, this TEC would have dominated the Subject Site. However, it has been completely cleared and there is now only a sporadic growth of pioneer early successional rainforest species of poor to moderate form.

Section 5 (Key Diagnostic Characteristics and Condition Thresholds) of the Commonwealth Listing Advice on the Lowland Subtropical Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (TSSC 2011) notes that: “It is recognised that many examples of the ecological community now occur in a degraded or disturbed state. In some cases, the degradation is irreversible, or the

4

potential for rehabilitation is limited or impractical. For example, areas previously dominated by Lowland Rainforest that are now permanently converted to cropland or development are unlikely to be rehabilitated back to a condition that reaches the Description requirements.

National listing focuses legal protection on patches of the ecological community that are most functional, relatively natural (as defined by the „Description‟) and in relatively good condition. Condition thresholds help identify both the ecological community and ecological function using a set of criteria that assist in indicating when the EPBC Act is likely to apply to an ecological community. They provide guidance for when a patch of a threatened ecological community retains sufficient conservation values to be considered as a Matter of National Environmental assessment and compliance provisions of the EPBC Act are focussed on the most valuable elements of Australia’s natural environment, while heavily degraded or modified patches will be largely excluded.”

The key diagnostic characteristics of the listed ecological community are: 

Distribution of the ecological community is primarily in the NSW North Coast and South Eastern Queensland bioregions, according to Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) version 6.1 (2004).

The Subject Site is in the NSW North Coast Bioregion. This diagnostic character is met.



The ecological community occurs on: soils derived from basalt or alluvium; or enriched rhyolitic soils; or basaltically enriched metasediments.

The Subject Site has basalt-derived soils. This diagnostic character is met.



The ecological community generally occurs at an altitude less than 300 m above sea level.

The Subject Site occurs at less than 300m elevation. This diagnostic character is met.



The ecological community typically occurs in areas with high annual rainfall (>1300mm).

The Subject Site will experience rainfall of > 1300mm/annum. This diagnostic character is met.



The ecological community is typically more than 2 km inland from the coast.

5

The Subject Site is more than 2km inland from the coast. This diagnostic character is met. 

The structure of the ecological community is typically a tall (20 m–30 m) closed forest, often with multiple canopy layers.

The rainforest species present at the Subject Site comprise widely scattered paddock trees or small clumps of regrowth comprising pioneer and early successional species. The structural key diagnostic character is not achieved, and as such the vegetation is not representative of the TEC.



Patches of the ecological community typically have high species richness (at least 30 woody species from Appendix A).

There is a low diversity of rainforest species (significantly less than the 30 prescribed species) present at the Subject Site. The species diversity character is not achieved, and as such the vegetation is not representative of the TEC.

The Subject Site’s vegetation meets the high level diagnostic criteria for the TEC but clearly fail the more important site-specific criteria. With reference to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013), the proposed development will not cause a significant impact on the Lowland Subtropical Rainforest of Australia TEC. Consideration has also been given to other Matters of National Environmental Significance potentially occurring in the locality of the Subject Site. Vegetation survey has found that the Subject Site does not support other TEC’s.

2.2.2 Lowland Rainforest EEC Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) (Lowland Rainforest EEC).

Unlike the Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia TEC listing, the Lowland Rainforest EEC listing does not clearly establish a condition threshold below which an area containing rainforest species will cease to be representative of the EEC. However it is apparent that the original lowland rainforest has been completely cleared and that the young and widely scattered pioneer rainforest trees which now occur cannot be reasonably aligned with the Lowland Rainforest EEC.

6

2.3 Conservation Significant Flora Species Vegetation surveys have failed to record other conservation significant flora species.

7

3

Findings in Regard to Fauna

3.1 Overall The PLACE report noted that: Loss of the Siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original rainforest vegetation has had a significant impact on the endemic fauna communities. The fauna which persist are common rural species which are readily recorded in similar habitat throughout the region. No threatened fauna were recorded, and the Site does not contain Declared Critical Habitat. However, several threatened species are known from the locality and may use the Site on occasions (it is unlikely to provide significant habitat in a regional context).

Nonetheless, the loss will further reduce habitat for locally common species in a landscape which has already been largely cleared. It is intended that the loss be offset by waterway regeneration. The PLACE report concluded that there was no requirement for Section 5A assessments to accompany the DA. We believe that this finding remains valid.

3.2 Matters of NES The Subject Site could provide a small component of a much larger ranging area for a number of fauna species listed under the EPBC Act, but is considered unlikely to provide critical habitat for these species. The proposed development is considered unlikely to cause a significant impact on these species.

In May 2012, koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT were listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Reference has been made to the Interim Koala Referral Advice for Proponents (IKRAP) guideline (DSEWPaC 2012) in order to determine if the project was likely to cause a significant impact on the koala (Attachment 5). It was determined that the proposed development is unlikely to cause a significant impact on the koala.

3.3 Updated Koala Assessment The PLACE Report assessed the (then) proposed development against SEPP 44. Now that the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for South east Lismore (Lismore KPoM) has commenced, it is necessary for the proposed development to be assessed against this policy. In this regard it is noted that: ď&#x201A;ˇ

The DA requires development consent under the LEP;

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The Subject Site is in the koala planning area;

8



Preferred mapped habitat surrounds the Subject Site (to the west and to the northeast). There is no mapped preferred habitat within the Subject Site;



There are areas of primary habitat located along Tucki Creek to the east and west of the Subject Site. The riparian zone of Tucki Creek appears to provide a potential koala movement corridor;



The Subject Site does not contain food trees2, but does support two specimens of the sclerophyllous species Pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia) (specimens 93 and 94);



With reference to the criteria for large and small impact development set out in the definitions and acronyms section of the policy, the proposed development is considered to be a small impact development3;



Section 4.3.1 of the policy sets out criteria for koala habitat assessment reports for small impact development. The Method (Part 1) requires any food tree > 100mm DBH within the development footprint be searched for evidence of koala activity in accordance with the Spot Assessment Technique (Phillips and Callaghan 2011);



Both of the Pink bloodwoods (Specimens 93 and 94) were searched for koala scats for well in excess of the 2 minutes specified by the SAT method without scats being located. Accordingly, these trees do not comprise koala habitat. It is likely that the forest red gums to the north of the Subject Site are used by koalas, and therefore comprise core habitat;



The required content guidelines (Part 3) have been met by way of providing: (i) the tree survey (Figure 1) and description of trees within the Subject Site (Attachment 54);



Section 4.4 of the policy outlines the habitat retention guidelines for preferred koala food trees. Preferred koala food trees do not occur within (or within close proximity) to the proposed development. Two Pink bloodwoods (specimens 93 and 94) will be

2

As defined by the definitions and acronyms section of the policy. However, two specimens of the preferred koala food tree Forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) slightly outside of the northern boundary of the Subject Site. These specimens are well-removed from the proposed development (refer specimens 98 and 101).

3 The Subject Site is dominated by rainforest species, and there are only two sclerophyllous species to be affected. The primary habitat is located to the west and northeast of the proposed impact area, and a future potential movement pathway along Tucki Creek (established by way of rehabilitation) will not be impeded by the proposed development.

4 Some anomalies have developed over the course of time. However, the data clearly shows that the Subject Site is dominated by rainforest rather than sclerophyll species.

9

removed, but this species is not identified as a preferred food tree, and there was no evidence of koala use (SAT assessment); ď&#x201A;ˇ

The preferred habitat areas (naturally occurring forest red gums to the north of the Subject Site and non-endemic landscape plantings to the west of Tucki Creek) are well-removed from the proposed development. Further, the proposed development will not negate the opportunity for the establishment of a habitat connection between these areas;

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Section 4.5.1 of the policy sets out food tree compensation measures for small impact development. The proposed development will not result in loss of preferred koala food trees. However, in order to fulfil the requirements of the Tucki Creek Management Plan, Council has requested that rehabilitation works be undertaken on the northern side of Tucki Creek. The precise location and extent of the works is to be clarified at a further on-site meeting.

10

4

Conclusions and Recommendations

The proposed development occurs in an area where the scattered pioneer and early successional rainforest trees serve a landscape amenity rather than significant ecological role. Nonetheless, it has been agreed that the suite of species identified in Figure 2 and Attachment 4 should be retained. Vegetation loss in other areas will be offset by: (I) providing advanced trees in the streetscape, with Teak (Flindersia australis) being a particular focus; and (ii) establishing an offset planting area along the northern bank of Tucki Creek. The precise location and extent of that planting is to be discussed with Council officers at a further site meeting.

On this basis the following conclusions have been reached: ď&#x201A;ˇ

The proposed development is unlikely to cause a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance, and there is no requirement to make a controlled action referral in regard to the proposed development.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. There is no requirement for a Species Impact Statement to accompany the development application.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The proposed development does not occur in preferred or core koala habitat, and minimises the very minor loss of habitat which will occur by way of proposed future planting (on the northern bank of Tucki Creek) to strengthen the Tucki Creek Corridor.

11

0 1 2

0 1 2

4

6

8

4

10

6

12

Metres

8

10

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Reference Scale: 1:1,500 Project Name : Holland St

Title : Figure 1 - Tree Survey

12

Metres

Âą

Document Path: U:\GIS\28_South\Holland St\Admin\mxd\HollandSt_TreeSurvey_Figure1_Rev1_A3.mxd

0

5 10

20

30

40

50

Metres

Background imagery is supplied by Bing, and is not to be used for measurement.

For visualisation purposes only. Š 28 South Environmental. www.28South.com.au

Client: TBA

Date: Monday, August 05, 2013

Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of development, 28 S outh E nvironmental, and its agents, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.

12

0 1 2

4

6

8

10

Legend

Trees within batter to be removed

12

Metres

! ( ( !

Tree to be removed Tree to be retained Cadastre

All Slash

0 1 2

4

6

8

10

12

Pine on

Metres

Holland Street to be removed

Trees within road batter to be removed

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Reference Scale: 1:1,500 Project Name : Holland St

Title : Figure 1 - Tree Removal Survey

Trees to be removed due to sewer alignment

Âą

0

5 10

Document Path: Q:\GIS\28_South\Holland St\Admin\mxd\HollandSt_TreeRemovalSurvey_Figure2_Rev2_A3.mxd

20

30

40

50

Metres

Background imagery is supplied by Bing, and is not to be used for measurement.

For visualisation purposes only. Š 28 South Environmental. www.28South.com.au

Client: Kirkland

Date: Saturday, November 09, 2013

Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of development, 28 S outh E nvironmental, and its agents, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.

13

Attachment 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PLACE Design Group Report (Abridged Copy)

14

PLACE ENVIRONMENTAL

5 September 2007 Attn: Damian Chapelle Newton Denny Chapelle 180 Molesworth Street, Lismore NSW 2480 Dear Damian ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, KIRKLAND LAND HOLLAND STREET GOONELLABAH Background and Survey Methodology As requested, we have conducted a vegetation survey and fauna habitat assessment of the Kirkland Property (Lot 2 DP1021834) (Site) at Goonellabah (FIGURE 1). The aims of our assessment were to; (a) 1 determine the Site’s ecological values ; (b) assess the suitability of the proposed development (FIGURE 2) in regard to conservation of these values; (c) make recommendations in regard to habitat offsets to ensure no net loss of biodiversity values; and (d) assess compliance with relevant environmental planning legislation (Commonwealth; State and Local Government), and made recommendations for further investigations / approvals as required.

Investigations were completed between March and November 2006. Botanical surveys involved a detailed foot traverse of the entire site, supplemented by systematic quadrat searches of areas providing suitable habitat for threatened species. It was noted that the Site’s dominant copses of Camphor laurel had been poisoned, and that even recent aerial photography did not provide an 2 accurate representation of the vegetation present. As such, we used a Trimble differential GPS unit to locate the remaining rainforest trees. Photos were taken to assist with interpretation.

Determining the suite of fauna likely to occur (in particular threatened species), was conducted by way of a fauna habitat assessment. Fauna habitat assessment requires an experienced observer to consider; (i) habitats available at the Site (in this case regrowth rainforest, open pasture and waterways); (ii) the habitat requirements of species known from the locality, in particular threatened species; and (iii) other influential factors (landscape fragmentation, presence of microhabitats etc). Given the Site’s 1 Particular consideration being given to species / matters listed under; (a) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act); and (b) Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) (TSC Act).

2 Differential signal was sourced from the Omnistar satellite. Accuracy of +/- 1m was achieved.

BRISBANE

l SYDNEY

l GOLD COAST

l SUNSHINE COAST

l TOWNSVILLE

PLACE DESIGN GROUP Pty Ltd ACN: 082 370 063 trading as PLACE Environmental.

PO Box 498 Albion BC, Queensland, 4010, Australia 139 Gotha Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia Tel (61) 7 3852 3922 – Fax (61) 7 3852 4766

l SHANGHAI

l

SHENZHEN

15

Kirkland - Holland Street Goonellabah

Page 2 of 5

highly disturbed nature, this form of assessment is considered sufficient to determine values with a high degree of accuracy.

Given proximity to Tucki Creek, we arranged an on-site meeting with Patrick Dwyer (DPI Fisheries) to discuss; (a) the likely occurrence of species / matters listed under the Fisheries Management (Amendment) Act (1997) (Fisheries Act); (b) suitability of the waterway regeneration proposed; and (c) strategy to remove on Tucki Creek.

Findings •

Morand (1994)3 indicates that the Site is located on the Rosebank Soil Landscape. Morand notes that, historically, the Rosebank Soil Landscape supported subtropical rainforest (Big Scrub) similar that to which remains in Victoria Park and Davis Scrub Nature Reserves. th th However, almost all of this forest was cleared during the 19 and early 20 centuries, and remnant examples of the type are now essentially confined to the Big Scrub group of nature reserves. Our surveys found that the Site’s original vegetation has been completely cleared;

•

A search of the NSW NPWS Wildlife Atlas and EPBC Act Matters of NES Database indicate that several significant species and features have been recorded from this locality (ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2). Several of the threatened plants are known to persist in proximate areas of mature regrowth (eg: Tinospora tinosporoides; Floydia praealta; Archidendron muellerianum; Desmodium acanthocladum; Austromyrtus fragrantissima) (Pers. Obs author). These species were a specific focus for botanical surveys;

•

Much of the vegetation evident on aerial photography is dominated by Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora). However, the Camphor laurels have been poisoned (refer Plates), leaving a sporadic growth of pioneer and early successional rainforest species of poor to moderate form. Common species include; Mallotus philippensis (Red Kamala), Guioa semiglauca (Wild Quince), Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood), Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) and Pentaceras australe (Penta’s Ash) (FIGURE 3). The declared noxious weed, *Lantana camara var. camara (Common Lantana) has also been poisoned. Groundcover species are generally limited to native grasses such as Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Meadow Grass) and Oplismenus aemulus (Basket Grass). With reference to; (i) the EPBC Act; and (ii) the TSC Act, no Endangered or Vulnerable species were recorded in this community. Nor is the vegetation representative of an Endangered Ecological Community. A full species list is provided as ATTACHMENT 3;

•

Much of the Site’s remaining area is Open Pasture (FIGURE 3). The community is variable in composition and weed incursion, reflective of current land use and management. The community is generally dominated by *Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu) and *Axonopus affinis (Narrow-leaved Carpet Grass), with sporadic dominance of *Paspalum dilatatum (Paspalum), *Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo Grass) and Cymbopogon refractus (Barbed Wire Grass). Weeds such as *Cirsium vulgare (Scotch Thistle), *Conyza bonariensis (Flax-leaf Fleabane) and *Verbena rigida (Veiny Verbena) occur commonly. With reference to; (i) the

3

Morand, D.T (2004) “Soil Landscapes of the Lismore – Ballina 1: 100 000 sheet” Department of Conservation and Land Management.

BRISBANE l SYDNEY SHENZHEN

l GOLD COAST

l SUNSHINE COAST

l TOWNSVILLE

PLACE DESIGN GROUP Pty Ltd ACN: 082 370 063 trading as PLACE Environmental PO Box 498 Albion BC, Queensland, 4010, Australia 139 Gotha Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia Tel (61) 7 3852 3922 – Fax (61) 7 3852 4766

l SHANGHAI

l

2

16

Kirkland - Holland Street Goonellabah

Page 3 of 5

EPBC Act; and (ii) the TSC Act, no Endangered or Vulnerable species were recorded in this community. Nor is the vegetation representative of an Endangered Ecological Community. A full species list is provided as ATTACHMENT 3; •

Tucki Creek delineates the southwestern and northern boundaries of the Site (FIGURE 3). A weir (creating a small waterbody within the creek) occurs in the north. The waterbody contains a combination of native and exotic wetland vegetation, though all are threatened by the infiltration of pasture grasses, and by foraging cattle. The most commonly occurring species include; Juncus usitatus (Common Rush), *Nymphaea caerulea ssp. zanzibarensis (Blue Waterlily), Cyperus spp., Ludwigia peploides ssp. montevidensis (Water Primrose) and Nymphoides indica (Water Snowflake). The absolute edge and frequently inundated terraces are dominated by *Paspalum dilatatum (Paspalum) and *Paspalum urvillei (Vasey Grass).

Downstream, waterway vegetation includes dense patches of Typha orientalis (Typha) and scattered occurrence of Blechnum indicum (Swamp water fern); Persicaria spp (Smartweeds); Agertina adenophora (Crofton weed); Ageratina riparia (Mistflower); Ageratum houstonianum (Blue billygoat weed); Salix bablylonica (Willow); Christella dentata (Binung); Philydrum lanuginosum (Frogsmouth); Schoenoplectus mucronatus (Triangular clubrush); Eleocharis equisitina (Sagrush); Juncus usitatus (Juncus); and Glochidion ferdinandii (Cheese tree). Such vegetation is common along the disturbed waterways of the Alstonville Plateau. With reference to; (i) the EPBC Act; and (ii) the TSC Act, no Endangered or Vulnerable species were recorded in this community. Nor is the vegetation representative of an Endangered Ecological Community. A full species list is provided as ATTACHMENT 3;

•

It is proposed that regeneration of proximate sections of Tucki Creek be used to offset the loss of scattered rainforest trees from the development area. The extent and quality of habitat created compared to that loss is considerable, and the regeneration will decrease the operation of the Key Threatening Processes (KTP) “Degradation of Native Riparian Vegetation along NSW Watercourses” 4 and “Clearing of Native Vegetation” 5 in this locality. The regeneration strategy is discussed in latter sections of this advice;

•

Loss of the Site’s original rainforest vegetation has had a significant impact on the endemic fauna communities. The fauna which persist are common rural species which are readily recorded in similar habitat throughout the region. No threatened fauna were recorded, and 6 the Site does not contain Declared Critical Habitat . However, several threatened species are known from the locality and may use the Site on occasions7 (it is unlikely to provide significant habitat in a regional context). Nonetheless, the loss will further reduce habitat for locally common species in a landscape which has already been largely cleared. It is intended that the loss be offset by waterway regeneration (discussed in later sections of this advice). The works will significantly improve the Site’s habitat value for these species, and no Section 5A assessments have been provided;

•

The Site is within a local government area listed in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy 44 (Koala Habitat Protection) (SEPP 44), and the provisions of this policy require

4

Listed under the Fisheries Management (Amendment) Act (1997).

Listed under the TSC Act 6 As defined by the TSC Act. 7 Eg Rose-crowned fruit dove; Black flying fox; Little bent wing bat.

5

BRISBANE l SYDNEY SHENZHEN

l GOLD COAST

l SUNSHINE COAST

l TOWNSVILLE

PLACE DESIGN GROUP Pty Ltd ACN: 082 370 063 trading as PLACE Environmental PO Box 498 Albion BC, Queensland, 4010, Australia 139 Gotha Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia Tel (61) 7 3852 3922 – Fax (61) 7 3852 4766

l SHANGHAI

l

3

17

Kirkland - Holland Street Goonellabah

Page 4 of 5

consideration. With reference to Pimm (2003)8, the Site contains only marginal Koala habitat (FIGURE 4) (a factor confirmed by this study9). While the KPoM shows no records of Koalas from the Site, there are records from surrounding areas, and it is accepted that Koalas could traverse the Site on rare occasions. However, it is clearly unlikely to be part of a significant movement corridor. SEPP 44 provisions (addressed in ATTACHMENT 4) conclude that the Site does not contain areas in which Schedule 2 species comprise greater than 15% of species in the upper and lower strata of the tree component. As such, further sections of the test do not apply, and there is no requirement for a Koala Plan of Management to accompany the application. A Section 5A assessment for the Koala is provided in ATTACHMENT 5; •

On-site discussions with NSW Fisheries indicate that this section of Tucki Creek is unlikely to support species / matters listed under the Fisheries Act, or that the proposed development would cause a significant impact on such species / matters. The 20m vegetated waterway buffer was considered sufficient to protect the stream’s values. Removal of the weir was also supported by Fisheries, with advice provided in regard to timing and methodology (ATTACHMENT 6). It should be noted that removal of the weir and rehabilitation of Tucki Creek will reduce the operation of several KTP listed under the TSC Act and Fisheries Act, notably; (i) Degradation of Native Riparian Vegetation along NSW Watercourses”; (ii)“Clearing of Native Vegetation; (iii) “Instream Structures and other Mechanisms that alter natural flows”; and (iv) “Alteration to the Natural Flow Regime of Rivers, Streams, Floodplains and Wetlands”.

•

Council’s bushfire GIS layer (provided as an overlay on FIGURE 3) indicates that Category 2 vegetation occurs to the Site’s immediate north, and extends across Tucki Creek onto the Site (30m buffer extending well into the Site). With reference to the vegetation plan and site photographs, vegetation in the Site’s north is clearly dominated by low closed pasture grass.

Tucki Creek supports a range of wetland species, the most hazardous of which (from a bushfire perspective) is Typha. There are scattered trees in the upper end of the dam (near Holland Street), although again these are predominately rainforest species. We did not conduct detailed surveys of the adjacent property to ascertain the accuracy of mapping, although cursory observation indicates that this vegetation is also more closely aligned to Category 3. As such, at a minimum, the boundary of Category 2 vegetation should be drawn back to the Site’s northern and western boundaries. This then provides a sufficient bushfire buffer to the development. Establishment of a 20m wide rainforest planting zone (establishing Category 3 vegetation) from the high bank of Tucki Creek does cause some bushfire buffer encroachment into the rear of adjoining lots. However, as shown in FIGURES 5 & 6, sufficient buffer can be maintained to ensure that there is no requirement to adopt particular construction standards under AS3959 - 1999;

•

A search of the AHIMS database indicates that there are no records of Aboriginal artefacts or places of significance in this locality (ATTACHMENT 5). No artefacts or features of obvious significance were located during field surveys (although it is acknowledged that observation of surface artefacts was limited by dense pasture grass). However, it is considered that the Site’s long history of disturbance and urban context is likely to negate significant values.

8

Pimm, S (2003) “Draft Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Southeastern Portions of the Lismore Local Government Area” Lismore City Council (Lismore KPoM). While it is recognised that the KPoM has not been formally adopted, the study’s baseline data remains useful.

9 The Site supports scattered patches of rainforest regrowth. There are no areas in which species listed; (i) under Schedule 2 of SEPP 44; or (ii) as primary Koala feed tree by Pimm (2003) occur. There is a patch of vegetation on the northern side of Tucki Creek (off site near Holland Street) which is comprised of Pimm’s Primary Habitat Species (eg Forest red gum).

BRISBANE l SYDNEY SHENZHEN

l GOLD COAST

l SUNSHINE COAST

l TOWNSVILLE

PLACE DESIGN GROUP Pty Ltd ACN: 082 370 063 trading as PLACE Environmental PO Box 498 Albion BC, Queensland, 4010, Australia 139 Gotha Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia Tel (61) 7 3852 3922 – Fax (61) 7 3852 4766

l SHANGHAI

l

4

18

Kirkland - Holland Street Goonellabah

Page 5 of 5

Recommendations •

The identified patches of rainforest regrowth in Lots 24/25, and Lots 3 and 12 should be retained (FIGURE 5);

•

The waterway should be rehabilitated in accordance with FIGURES 5 & 6;

•

10 The landscape plan should consider the establishment of Koala habitat species -dominated landscape nodes in the open space zone between the edge of development and edge of the regeneration area. The trees should be of a scattered nature to ensure that a future bushfire hazard is not created.

•

The weir should be removed, and the waterbody drained in accordance with FIGURES 5 & 6.

Given that these works will significantly improve fish passage along Tucki Creek, I would encourage the applicant to seek funding under the recreational fishing trust or other environmental funding avenue (requires liaison with NSW Fisheries).

If you have any further questions in regard to this matter, please give me a call.

Yours faithfully, PLACE Environmental

Wayne Moffitt Director, Manager of Environmental Services

10

Eucalyptus tereticornis; Eucalyptus microcorys.

BRISBANE l SYDNEY SHENZHEN

l GOLD COAST

l SUNSHINE COAST

l TOWNSVILLE

PLACE DESIGN GROUP Pty Ltd ACN: 082 370 063 trading as PLACE Environmental PO Box 498 Albion BC, Queensland, 4010, Australia 139 Gotha Street, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006, Australia Tel (61) 7 3852 3922 – Fax (61) 7 3852 4766

l SHANGHAI

l

5

19

Scientific Name

Common Name

dry sclerophyll species Acacia melanoxylon Corymbia intermedia Eucalyptus tereticornis Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi

Blackwood Pink Bloodwood Forest Red Gum Cheese Tree

rainforest species Acmena smithii (minor forma) Arytera divaricata Bridelia exaltata Capparis arborea Elaeocarpus obovatus Ficus obliqua Flindersia australis Guioa semiglauca Jagera psuedorhus Mallotus philippensis Pentaceras australe Pittosporum undulatum Rhodamnia rubescens Rhodomyrtus psidioides Stenocarpus sinuatus

Lilly Pilly Coogera Scrub Ironbark Native Pomegranite Hard Quandong Small-leaved Fig Crow's Ash Wild Quince Foambark Red Kamala Penta's Ash Native Daphne Scrub Turpentine Native Guava Wheel-of-Fire Tree

Row o f Slash

Row o f Eucal

pine o

ypts on

n adjac ent lot

adjace

nt lot

Size Class

rroad eserv e

2-300mm DBH 4-500mm DBH

shpines in

600mm+ DBH

Row of Sla

Community 1 - Copses of poisoned Camphor Laurel (Pioneer Rainforest Species noted) Community 2 - Mixed Riparian Vegetation PHOTO BASE

Community 3 - Low Closed Pasture (kikuyu) Narrow-leaved Carpet Grass

Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bushfire Hazard GIS Layer Category 2 Vegetation 30m Buffer to Category 2 Vegetation

20

0

20

40m approx.

PLACE Environmental 139 Gotha Street Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 AUSTRALIA T + 61 7 3852 3922 F + 61 7 3852 4766

FIGURE 03

HOLLAND STREET

VEGETATION PLAN

DATE: 15/11/2006 DWG NO./ISSUE: SUB906_ECO_03/B SCALE: 1:2000 @ A3

20

DETAIL 1

TEMPORARY PROTECTION ENCLOSURE AT THE DRIP LINE /EXTENT OF CANOPY (OR 4m RADIUS FROM THE TRUNK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER). 1200mm HIGH ORANGE PLASTIC HAZARD MESH FIXED TO STAR PICKETS WITH CABLE TIES AND SPACED AR NOT MORE THAN 4000mm.

(a) General exclusions restrictions apply (refer Schedule 1); (b) Topsoil - Do not place or remove topsoil within the exclusion zone; (c) Excavation within exclusion zone: Planning required to ensure that trench remains open for the shortest time practical.

Main lateral roots within trench pathway to be located by hand digging or small machinery. Roots greater than 50mm to be cut cleanly and immediately treated with bituminous fungal sealant to prevent incursion of rot or disease; Backfill with mixture consisting of 3 parts topsoil to 1 part self composted material with neutral pH value. Backfill to be dry compacted to a density similar to that of original state; After backfilling thoroughly water the entire root zone; Monitor the success of the works by assessing canopy health at (i) one month after excavation; (ii) three months after excavation; (iii) at completion of site works. Assess requirements for and if required undertake remedial action (Arborist Advice required) or remove tree. (d) Decomposed site mulch to be spread to a depth of 50mm within exclusion zone (e) Filling within the root zone of trees proposed for retention should: be undertaken at the landscape establishment rather than the civil works stage to ensure that fill will be spread by persons with tree protection/management skills; consist of a loose friable soil with high sand content; be spread with low-pressure ground machinery such as a bobcat.

42m

Trees to be Retained:

Refer Figure 6 for Waterway Regeneration Plan 35 m

Row o f Slash

Row o f Eucal

pine o

ypts on

adjace

nt lot

Common Name

dry sclerophyll species Acacia melanoxylon Corymbia intermedia Eucalyptus tereticornis Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi

Size Class Blackwood Pink Bloodwood Forest Red Gum Cheese Tree

2-300mm DBH

40m

4-500mm DBH 600mm+ DBH

Lilly Pilly Coogera Scrub Ironbark Native Pomegranite Hard Quandong Small-leaved Fig Crow's Ash Wild Quince Foambark Red Kamala Penta's Ash Native Daphne Scrub Turpentine Native Guava Wheel-of-Fire Tree

Row of Sla

Acmena smithii (minor forma) Arytera divaricata Bridelia exaltata Capparis arborea Elaeocarpus obovatus Ficus obliqua Flindersia australis Guioa semiglauca Jagera psuedorhus Mallotus philippensis Pentaceras australe Pittosporum undulatum Rhodamnia rubescens Rhodomyrtus psidioides Stenocarpus sinuatus

shpines in

rainforest species

rroad eserv e

Scientific Name

n adjac ent lot

Community 1 - Copses of poisoned Camphor Laurel (Pioneer Rainforest Species noted) Community 2 - Mixed Riparian Vegetation PHOTO BASE

Community 3 - Low Closed Pasture (kikuyu) Narrow-leaved Carpet Grass High bank of waterway Proposed Waterway Regeneration Area (refer Figure 6)

20

0

20

40m approx.

PLACE Environmental 139 Gotha Street Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 AUSTRALIA T + 61 7 3852 3922 F + 61 7 3852 4766

Trees to be protected during the civil works program and building construction phase (refer Detail 1)

FIGURE 05

HOLLAND STREET

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT

DATE: 04/09/2007 DWG NO./ISSUE: SUB906_ECO_05/B SCALE: 1:2000 @ A3

21

ATTACHMENT 3 PLANT SPECIES LIST

22

Page 13 of 18

Field Flora List

Family

Botanical Name

Common Name

*Ageratina riparia *Amaranthus viridis *Axonopus affinis *Bidens pilosa *Chloris gayana *Cinnamomum camphora *Cirsium vulgare *Conyza bonariensis *Cyperus sphaeroideus *Drynaria cordata ssp. diandra *Gomphocarpus physocarpus *Hydrocoytle bonariensis *Hypochoeris radicata *Lantana camara var. camara *Ligustrum lucidum *Nymphaea caerulea ssp. zanzibariensis *Ochna serrulata *Paspalum dilatatum *Paspalum urvillei *Passiflora suberosa *Pennisetum clandestinum *Pinus elliottii Plantago deblis *Rubus fruticosa agg. *Salix babylonica *Senecio madagascariensis *Solanum mauritianum

Mistflower Green Amaranth Narrow-leaved Carpet Grass Cobblerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pegs Rhodes Grass Camphor Laurel Scotch Thistle Flax-leaf Fleabane Kyllinga Weed Tropical Chickweed Balloon Cotton (a) Pennyweed Flatweed Common Lantana Broad-leaved Privet Blue Waterlily Mickey-Mouse Bush Paspalum Vasey Grass Corky Passionvine Kikuyu Slash Pine (a) Plantain Blackberry Weeping Willow Fireweed Wild Tobacco

Occurrence

Form

UC R UC to C R UC UC to C UC R R R R UC UC R R UC R UC UC R UC to C UC R R R R R

H H G H G T H H Se H H H H sH sT H sH G G C G sT H C sT H sH

Exotic Flora Asteraceae Amaranthaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Poaceae Lauraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Cyperaceae Caryophyllaceae Asclepiadaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Verbenaceae Oleaceae Nymphaceae Ochnaceae Poaceae Poaceae Passifloraceae Poaceae Pinaceae Plantaginaceae Rosaceae Salicaceae Asteraceae Solanaceae

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 23

Page 14 of 18 Solanaceae Poaceae Verbenaceae

*Solanum nigrum *Stenotaphrum secundatum *Verbena rigida

Blackberry Nightshade Buffalo Grass Veiny Verbena

R R UC

H G H

Acacia melanoxylon Acmena smithii (minor forma) Adiantum hispidulum var. hispidulum Arytera divaricata Bridelia exaltata Capparis arborea Centella asciatica Corymbia intermedia Corymbia torelliana (NL,pl) Cyclosorus interruptus Cymbopogon refractus Cynodon dactylon Cyperus brevifolius Cyperus exaltatus Cyperus gracilis Cyperus polystachyos Dicondra repens Elaeocarpus obovatus Eleocharis dulcis Eucalyptus tereticornis Ficus obliqua Flindersia australis Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi Glycine cladestina Guioa semiglauca Hydrocoytle laxifolia Hypolepsis muelleri Jagera psuedorhus

Blackwood Lilly Pilly Rough Maidenhair Fern Coogera Scrub Turpentine Native Pomegranite Pennywort Pink Bloodwood Cadaghi Barbed Wire Grass Couch Mullumbimby Couch Tall Sedge Whisker Grass Bunchy Sedge Kidney Weed Hard Quandong Water Chestnut Forest Red Gum Small-leaved Fig Crowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ash Cheese Tree Twining Glycine Wild Quince Harsh Ground Fern Foambark

UC to C R R R UC R UC R UC R UC to C UC UC UC R UC UC to C R UC R R C UC R UC to C UC R UC to C

sT sT F sT sT sT H T T F G G Se Se Se Se H T Se T T T sT C sT H F sT

Native Flora Mimosaceae Myrtaceae Adiantaceae Sapindaceae Euphorbiaceae Capparaceae Apiaceae Myrtaceae Myrtaceae Thelypteridaceae Poaceae Poaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Convolvulaceae Elaeocarpaceae Cyperaceae Myrtaceae Moraceae Rutaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Sapindaceae Apiaceae Dennstaedtiaceae Sapindaceae

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 24

Page 15 of 18 Juncaceae Campanulaceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Euphorbiaceae Poaceae Menyanthaceae Poaceae Oxalidaceae Rutaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Philydraceae Pittosporaceae Polypodiaceae Polypodiaceae Myrtaceae Myrtaceae Poaceae Proteaceae Typhaceae Scrophulariaceae

Juncus usitatus Lobelia purpurascens Ludwigia octovalvis Ludwigia peploiodes ssp. montevidensis Mallotus philippensis Microlaena stipoides Nymphoides indica Oplismenus aemulus Oxalis corniculata ssp. corniculata Pentaceras australe Persicaria strigosa Persicaria subsessilis Philydrum lanuginosum Pittosporum undulatum Platycerium bifurcatum Pyrrosia rupestris Rhodamnia rubescens Rhodomyrtus psidioides Sporobolus elongatus Stenocarpus sinuatus Typha orientalis Veronica plebia

Common Rush White Root Native Willow Primrose Water Primrose Red Kamala Weeping Meadow Grass Water Snowflake Basket Grass Creeping Oxalis Penta’s Ash Hairy Knotweed (a) Knotweed Woolly Frogmouth Native Daphne Elkhorn Robber Fern Scrub Turpentine Native Guava Slender Rat’s Tail Grass Wheel-of-Fire Tree Cumbungi Trailing Speedwell

C R R UC UC R R R UC UC vC UC to C C UC R R R UC UC UC C UC

Se H sH H sT G H G H sT H H H sT E F sT sT G sT H H

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 25

Page 16 of 18 LEGEND:

(a) Key for “Form” Column of all Tables (within Text and Appendices) Description

Code C E F G H O Se sH sT T

Denotes Creeper Epiphtye Fern Grass Herb Orchid Sedge/Rushes Shrub Small Tree Tree

V

Vine

Comments Sprawling habit, prostrate, possibly climbing within the understorey Includes ferns and mistletoes Extends to include treeferns Poaceae family Generally, plants lacking a woody stem Terrestrial or epiphytic plant of the Orchidaceae family Includes members of Restionaceae, Cyperaceae and Juncaceae families 50cm to 4m in height 4m to 12m in height Greater than 12m in height Climber with a vigorous habit that would pursue reaching canopy height, generally producing a thick woody stem

(b) Key for “Occurrence” Column of all Tables (within Appendices) Code vC C UC R

Very Common Common Uncommon Rare

Description Dominant species within any particular stratum of the vegetation community Occurs frequently throughout the vegetation community Occurs at low frequency Occurs individually or as only a few specimens

(c) Key for “Botanical Name” Column Code *La…

Exotic Species

Description The species may be naturalised, invasive and/or exotic in nature

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 26

Page 17 of 18

APPENDIX 3: Declared Weed Species Recorded on Site

Botanical Name *Ageratina riparia *Cinnamomum camphora *Lantana camara var. camara

Common Name

Status

Form

Mistflower Camphor Laurel Common Lantana

4 4 4

H T sH

As at 1st March 2006: The following weeds are declared noxious in the Far North Coast County Council control area (Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley and Tweed Council areas)3.

Further information on the legal requirements of the weed's listing and any variation in status within the local control area are available on the NSW Department of Agriculture website at www.agric.nsw.gov.au or from Far North Coast Weeds.

Noxious Weeds Act, 1993: The Noxious Weeds Act requires that occupiers of land control noxious weeds in line with the weed control class as designated in the weed control order.

Control Objectives: The following control objectives for the plants identified as noxious weeds exist in the Far North Coast Weeds area Class 1: Prevent the introduction and establishment of those plants in NSW Class 2: Prevent the introduction and establishment of those plants in parts of NSW Class 3: Reduce the area and the impact of those plants in parts of NSW Class 4: Minimise the negative impact of those plants on the economy, community or environment of NSW Class 5: Prevent the introduction of those plants within NSW or from NSW to another jurisdiction.

Control Categories The following Control Classes apply to noxious weeds in the local control authority area covered by the Far North Coast County Council.

The information contained in this page is based on knowledge and understanding of Order(s) under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 at the time of writing or at the time of last review. However, because: there may be changes to the Order(s) users are reminded of the need to ensure that information on which they rely is up to date, and some weed declarations of particular weeds have explanatory or qualifying notes and users should check the accuracy, completeness and currency of information by reading the Order(s), inquiring with the appropriate officer of the Local Government Authority for the user's locality, and/or consulting with an independent advisor.

3

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 27

Page 18 of 18 Class 1: Class 2: Class 3: Class 4: Class 5:

The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant. Owners or occupiers of land must notify Far North Coast Weeds within 3 days after becoming aware that the weed is present The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant. Owners or occupiers of land must notify Far North Coast Weeds within 3 days after becoming aware that the weed is present The plant must be continuously suppressed and destroyed The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the Local Control Authority Owners or occupiers of land must notify Far North Coast Weeds of the presence of the weed on land or for sale within 3 days after becoming aware that the weed is present.

Created on 12/19/2005 3:15 PM 28

Attachment 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool

29

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 06/11/13 18:44:51 Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information

Caveat Acknowledgements

This map may contain data which are ŠCommonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ŠPSMA 2010 Coordinates Buffer: 5.0Km

30

Summary Matters of National Environmental Significance This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties:

None

National Heritage Places:

None

Wetlands of International Importance:

None

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

None

Commonwealth Marine Areas:

None

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities:

1

Listed Threatened Species:

41

Listed Migratory Species:

14

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies.

As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a place on the Register of the National Estate.

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land:

4

Commonwealth Heritage Places:

None

Listed Marine Species:

15

Whales and Other Cetaceans:

None

Critical Habitats:

None

Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial:

None

Commonwealth Reserves Marine

None

31

Extra Information This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

Place on the RNE:

8

State and Territory Reserves:

1

Regional Forest Agreements:

1

Invasive Species:

39

Nationally Important Wetlands: Key Ecological Features (Marine)

None None

Details Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities

[ Resource Information ]

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

Name Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

Status Critically Endangered

Listed Threatened Species Name Birds Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater [82338]

Type of Presence Community likely to occur within area

[ Resource Information ] Status

Type of Presence

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni Coxen's Fig-Parrot [59714]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird [533]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk [942]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037]

Endangered

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Turnix melanogaster Black-breasted Button-quail [923]

Vulnerable

Species or species

32

Name

Status

Type of Presence habitat likely to occur within area

Frogs Mixophyes iteratus Giant Barred Frog, Southern Barred Frog [1944]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat [183]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population) Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll Endangered (southeastern mainland population) [75184] Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT) Vulnerable Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory) [85104] Potorous tridactylus tridactylus Long-nosed Potoroo (SE mainland) [66645] Vulnerable

Species or species habitat known to occur within area Species or species habitat known to occur within area Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse, Pookila [96]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox [186]

Vulnerable

Roosting known to occur within area

Plants Allocasuarina defungens Dwarf Heath Casuarina [21924]

Endangered

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Arthraxon hispidus Hairy-joint Grass [9338]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Baloghia marmorata Marbled Balogia, Jointed Baloghia [8463]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Bulbophyllum globuliforme Miniature Moss-orchid, Hoop Pine Orchid [6649]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Clematis fawcettii Stream Clematis [4311]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Corchorus cunninghamii Native Jute [14659]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Cryptocarya foetida Stinking Cryptocarya, Stinking Laurel [11976]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Desmodium acanthocladum Thorny Pea [17972]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Diploglottis campbellii Small-leaved Tamarind [21484]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Floydia praealta Ball Nut, Possum Nut, Big Nut, Beefwood [15762]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area 33

Name Gossia fragrantissima Sweet Myrtle, Small-leaved Myrtle [78867]

Status

Type of Presence

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ochrosia moorei Southern Ochrosia [11350]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Owenia cepiodora Onionwood, Bog Onion, Onion Cedar [11344]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Phaius australis Lesser Swamp-orchid [5872]

Endangered

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Randia moorei Spiny Gardenia [10577]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Syzygium hodgkinsoniae Smooth-bark Rose Apple, Red Lilly Pilly [3539]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Taeniophyllum muelleri Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid [10771]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Thesium australe Austral Toadflax, Toadflax [15202]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Tinospora tinosporoides Arrow-head Vine [5128]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Reptiles Coeranoscincus reticulatus Three-toed Snake-tooth Skink [59628]

Vulnerable

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia Monkey Nut, Bopple Nut, Red Bopple, Red Bopple Nut, Red Nut, Beef Nut, Red Apple Nut, Red Boppel Nut, Ivory Silky Oak [21189] Isoglossa eranthemoides Isoglossa [16663]

Macadamia tetraphylla Rough-shelled Bush Nut, Macadamia Nut, Roughshelled Macadamia, Rough-leaved Queensland Nut [6581] Marsdenia longiloba Clear Milkvine [2794]

Myrsine richmondensis Purple-leaf Muttonwood, Lismore Muttonwood [83888]

Streblus pendulinus Siah's Backbone, Sia's Backbone, Isaac Wood [21618]

Listed Migratory Species

[ Resource Information ]

* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.

Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur

34

Name

Threatened

Type of Presence within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni Coxen's Fig-Parrot [59714]

Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670]

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch [610]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592]

Xanthomyza phrygia Regent Honeyeater [430]

Species or species habitat known to occur within area Endangered*

Migratory Wetlands Species Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541]

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542]

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863]

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889]

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Species or species habitat may occur within area Endangered*

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Commonwealth Land

[ Resource Information ]

The Commonwealth area listed below may indicate the presence of Commonwealth land in this vicinity. Due to the unreliability of the data source, all proposals should be checked as to whether it impacts on a Commonwealth area, before making a definitive decision. Contact the State or Territory government land department for further information.

Name Commonwealth Land - Australian Telecommunications Commission Commonwealth Land - Commonwealth Bank of Australia Commonwealth Land - Defence Housing Authority Defence - LISMORE GRES DEPOT ; 41 RNSWR LISMORE

35

Listed Marine Species

[ Resource Information ]

* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.

Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Anseranas semipalmata Magpie Goose [978] Species or species habitat may occur within area Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat may occur within area Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch [610] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitat may occur within area

36

Extra Information Places on the RNE

[ Resource Information ]

Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed.

Name Natural Wilsons and Coopers Creek Brockley Scrub No 1 Brockley Scrub No 2 Brockley Scrub No 3 Boatharbour Nature Reserve Rotary Park Rainforest Reserve Historic Rochdale Community Centre Tulloona

State and Territory Reserves

State

Status

NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW

Indicative Place Interim List Interim List Interim List Registered Registered

NSW NSW

Indicative Place Registered

[ Resource Information ]

Name Boatharbour

State NSW

Regional Forest Agreements

[ Resource Information ]

Note that all areas with completed RFAs have been included.

Name North East NSW RFA

State New South Wales

Invasive Species

[ Resource Information ]

Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Birds Acridotheres tristis Common Myna, Indian Myna [387]

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974]

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403]

Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803]

Lonchura punctulata Nutmeg Mannikin [399]

Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405]

Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul [631]

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780]

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389]

Status

Type of Presence

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Frogs 37

Name Bufo marinus Cane Toad [1772]

Rhinella marina Cane Toad [83218]

Mammals Bos taurus Domestic Cattle [16]

Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog [82654]

Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19]

Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127]

Mus musculus House Mouse [120]

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128]

Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat, Norway Rat [83]

Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84]

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18]

Plants Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed [11620]

Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine, Jalap, Lamb's-tail, Mignonette Vine, Anredera, Gulf Madeiravine, Heartleaf Madeiravine, Potato Vine [2643] Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern, Ground Asparagus, Basket Fern, Sprengi's Fern, Bushy Asparagus, Emerald Asparagus [62425] Asparagus africanus Climbing Asparagus, Climbing Asparagus Fern [66907] Asparagus plumosus Climbing Asparagus-fern [48993]

Cabomba caroliniana Cabomba, Fanwort, Carolina Watershield, Fish Grass, Washington Grass, Watershield, Carolina Fanwort, Common Cabomba [5171] Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983]

Status

Type of Presence Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur 38

Name Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata Bitou Bush [16332]

Dolichandra unguis-cati Cat's Claw Vine, Yellow Trumpet Vine, Cat's Claw Creeper, Funnel Creeper [85119] Eichhornia crassipes Water Hyacinth, Water Orchid, Nile Lily [13466]

Genista sp. X Genista monspessulana Broom [67538]

Hymenachne amplexicaulis Hymenachne, Olive Hymenachne, Water Stargrass, West Indian Grass, West Indian Marsh Grass [31754] Lantana camara Lantana, Common Lantana, Kamara Lantana, Large-leaf Lantana, Pink Flowered Lantana, Red Flowered Lantana, Red-Flowered Sage, White Sage, Wild Sage [10892] Pinus radiata Radiata Pine Monterey Pine, Insignis Pine, Wilding Pine [20780] Protasparagus plumosus Climbing Asparagus-fern, Ferny Asparagus [11747] Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406]

Sagittaria platyphylla Delta Arrowhead, Arrowhead, Slender Arrowhead [68483] Salvinia molesta Salvinia, Giant Salvinia, Aquarium Watermoss, Kariba Weed [13665] Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed, Madagascar Ragwort, Madagascar Groundsel [2624]

Status

Type of Presence within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat may occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Species or species habitat may occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

39

Coordinates -28.81736 153.34468

Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database: - threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

40

Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, New South Wales -Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia -Parks and Wildlife Service NT, NT Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts -Environmental and Resource Management, Queensland -Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia -Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water -Birds Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -SA Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence -State Forests of NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

Š Commonwealth of Australia Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia +61 2 6274 1111

41

Attachment 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife Data

42

Data from the BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife website, which holds records from a number of custodians. The data are only indicative and cannot be considered a comprehensive inventory, and may contain errors and omissions.

Species listed under the Sensitive Species Data Policy may have their locations denatured (^ rounded to 0.1°; ^^ rounded to 0.01°).

Copyright the State of NSW through the Office of Environment and Heritage.

Search criteria : Public Report of all Valid Records of Protected Entities in selected area [North: ‐28.76 West: 153.29 East: 153.39 South: ‐28.86] returned a total of 2,523 records of 222 species.

Report generated on 6/11/2013 6:52 PM Kingdom

Class

Family

Animalia

Amphibia

Animalia

Amphibia

Animalia

Amphibia

Animalia

Amphibia

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Amphibia Amphibia Amphibia Amphibia Amphibia Amphibia Amphibia Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia

Myobatrachida e Myobatrachida e Myobatrachida e Myobatrachida e Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Scincidae Scincidae Scincidae

Animalia Animalia

Reptilia Reptilia

Scincidae Scincidae

Animalia

Reptilia

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Species Code

Scientific Name

Exotic

Common Name

NSW Comm.

Records Info status status

3134

Crinia signifera

Common Eastern Froglet

P

2

3061

Limnodynastes peronii

Brown‐striped Frog

P

2

3118

Pseudophryne coriacea

Red‐backed Toadlet

P

1

3158

Uperoleia laevigata

Smooth Toadlet

P

1

3171 3180 3183 3184 3187 3199 3204 2417 2375 2575

Green Tree Frog Bleating Tree Frog Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog Freycinet's Frog Dainty Green Tree Frog Rocket Frog Peron's Tree Frog Land Mullet Robust Ctenotus Pink‐tongued Lizard

P P P P P P P P P P

19 2 4 1 1 1 4 6 2 2

2430 2450

Litoria caerulea Litoria dentata Litoria fallax Litoria freycineti Litoria gracilenta Litoria nasuta Litoria peronii Bellatorias major Ctenotus robustus Cyclodomorphus gerrardii Egernia whitii Lampropholis delicata

P P

1 9

Scincidae

2451

Lampropholis guichenoti

P

1

Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia

Scincidae Scincidae Agamidae Varanidae Typhlopidae

2542 2580 2252 2283 2599

P P P P P

3 1 2 7 1

Animalia Animalia

Reptilia Reptilia

Typhlopidae Boidae

T112 2625

Saiphos equalis Tiliqua scincoides Physignathus lesueurii Varanus varius Ramphotyphlops nigrescens Ramphotyphlops sp.

Morelia spilota

White's Skink Dark‐flecked Garden Sunskink Pale‐flecked Garden Sunskink Three‐toed Skink Eastern Blue‐tongue Eastern Water Dragon Lace Monitor Blackish Blind Snake blind snake Carpet & Diamond Pythons

P P

1 2

Animalia

Reptilia

Colubridae

2633

Common Tree Snake

P

5

Animalia

Reptilia

Elapidae

2646

Dendrelaphis punctulatus Cacophis krefftii

P

4

Animalia Animalia

Reptilia Reptilia

Elapidae Elapidae

5136 2693

Cryptophis nigrescens Pseudechis porphyriacus

Southern Dwarf Crowned Snake Eastern Small‐eyed Snake Red‐bellied Black Snake

P P

3 3

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Reptilia Reptilia Aves Aves

Elapidae Elapidae Phasianidae Anseranatidae

2699 2734 0011 0199

Pseudonaja textilis Vermicella annulata Coturnix ypsilophora Anseranas semipalmata

Eastern Brown Snake Bandy‐bandy Brown Quail Magpie Goose

P P P V,P

4 2 2 1

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Anatidae Anatidae Phaethontidae

0208 0202 0107

Anas superciliosa Chenonetta jubata Phaethon rubricauda

Pacific Black Duck Australian Wood Duck Red‐tailed Tropicbird

P P V,P

2 2 1

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Columbidae Columbidae Columbidae Columbidae Columbidae

0033 0028 0032 0044 0027

Chalcophaps indica Columba leucomela Geopelia humeralis Leucosarcia picata Lopholaimus antarcticus

Emerald Dove White‐headed Pigeon Bar‐shouldered Dove Wonga Pigeon Topknot Pigeon

P P P P P

20 10 6 2 5

Animalia

Aves

Columbidae

0029

Macropygia amboinensis

Brown Cuckoo‐Dove

P

6

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves

Columbidae Columbidae Columbidae Podargidae

0043 0025 0021 0313

Ocyphaps lophotes Ptilinopus magnificus Ptilinopus regina Podargus strigoides

Crested Pigeon Wompoo Fruit‐Dove Rose‐crowned Fruit‐Dove Tawny Frogmouth

P V,P V,P P

1 8 17 7

43

Animalia

Aves

Apodidae

0333

Australian Swiftlet

P

0334

Aerodramus terraereginae Hirundapus caudacutus

Animalia

Aves

Apodidae

Animalia

Aves

Animalia

Aves

Animalia

2

White‐throated Needletail

P

Anhingidae

8731

Anhinga novaehollandiae

Australasian Darter

P

1

0100

P

2

0183

Black‐necked Stork

E1,P

7

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Ardeidae Ardeidae

0977 0188

Microcarbo melanoleucos Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Ardea ibis Egretta novaehollandiae

Little Pied Cormorant

Aves

Phalacrocoracid ae Ciconiidae

Cattle Egret White‐faced Heron

P P

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

0196 0182

Ixobrychus flavicollis Platalea flavipes

Black Bittern Yellow‐billed Spoonbill

Animalia

Aves

0179

Threskiornis molucca

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Ardeidae Threskiornithid ae Threskiornithid ae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae

0222 0221 0220

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae

0224 0234 0218 0232 0223

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Accipitridae Accipitridae

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

C,J,K

C,J

1

2 2

V,P P

2 1

Australian White Ibis

P

2

Collared Sparrowhawk Brown Goshawk Grey Goshawk

P P P

1 1 2

Wedge‐tailed Eagle Pacific Baza Spotted Harrier Black‐shouldered Kite Red Goshawk

P P V,P P E4A,P,2

2 13 1 4 1

0227 0225

Accipiter cirrocephalus Accipiter fasciatus Accipiter novaehollandiae Aquila audax Aviceda subcristata Circus assimilis Elanus axillaris ^Erythrotriorchis radiatus Haliastur indus Hieraaetus morphnoides

Accipitridae Falconidae Rallidae

8739 0239 0053

^^Pandion cristatus Falco berigora Amaurornis moluccana

Eastern Osprey Brown Falcon Pale‐vented Bush‐hen

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Rallidae Rallidae Rallidae Charadriidae Laridae Cacatuidae Cacatuidae

0056 0045 0049 0133 0972 0269 0267

Dusky Moorhen Lewin's Rail Australian Spotted Crake Masked Lapwing White Tern Sulphur‐crested Cockatoo Yellow‐tailed Black‐Cockatoo

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves

Psittacidae Psittacidae Psittacidae Psittacidae

0281 K/SH 0288 0295

Animalia

Aves

Psittacidae

0256

Animalia

Aves

Psittacidae

9947

Animalia

Aves

Centropodidae

0349

Gallinula tenebrosa Lewinia pectoralis Porzana fluminea Vanellus miles Gygis alba Cacatua galerita Calyptorhynchus funereus Alisterus scapularis Parrot Hybrid Platycercus eximius Psephotus haematonotus Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Trichoglossus haematodus Centropus phasianinus

Animalia

Aves

Cuculidae

0338

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Cuculidae Cuculidae Cuculidae Cuculidae Cuculidae Strigidae

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Brahminy Kite Little Eagle

V

P V,P

1 1

V,P,3 P V,P

2 2 3

P P P P V,P P P

2 1 1 2 1 1 1

Australian King‐Parrot King/Superb Parrot Eastern Rosella Red‐rumped Parrot

P P P P

4 1 5 1

Scaly‐breasted Lorikeet

P

9

Rainbow Lorikeet

P

6

Pheasant Coucal

P

4

Cacomantis flabelliformis

Fan‐tailed Cuckoo

P

6

0337 0339 0343 9936 0347 9922

Cacomantis pallidus Cacomantis variolosus Chalcites lucidus Cuculus saturatus Eudynamys orientalis Ninox novaeseelandiae

Pallid Cuckoo Brush Cuckoo Shining Bronze‐Cuckoo Himalayan Cuckoo Eastern Koel Southern Boobook

P P P P P P

1 1 11 1 4 3

Tytonidae Tytonidae

9923 0250

Tyto javanica ^^Tyto novaehollandiae

Eastern Barn Owl Masked Owl

Tytonidae Alcedinidae Alcedinidae Alcedinidae Meropidae Coraciidae

9025 0319 0322 0326 0329 0318

Tyto sp.

Ceyx azureus Dacelo novaeguineae Todiramphus sanctus Merops ornatus Eurystomus orientalis

Unidentified 'Barn' Owl Azure Kingfisher Laughing Kookaburra Sacred Kingfisher Rainbow Bee‐eater Dollarbird

C,J,K

P V,P,3

3 1

P P P P P P

1 3 7 3 7 1

J

44

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Pittidae Climacteridae

0352 0558

Pitta versicolor Cormobates leucophaea

Noisy Pitta White‐throated Treecreeper

P P

6 1

Animalia

Aves

0676

Ailuroedus crassirostris

Green Catbird

P

13

Animalia

Aves

0679

P

2

Aves

0684

Ptilonorhynchus violaceus Sericulus chrysocephalus

Satin Bowerbird

Animalia

Regent Bowerbird

P

20

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Ptilonorhynchid ae Ptilonorhynchid ae Ptilonorhynchid ae Maluridae Maluridae Maluridae

0529 0536 0541

Malurus cyaneus Malurus lamberti Malurus melanocephalus

Superb Fairy‐wren Variegated Fairy‐wren Red‐backed Fairy‐wren

P P P

19 1 1

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Acanthizidae Pardalotidae Meliphagidae

0470 0471 0475 0453 0454 0488 0494 0976 0591

Striated Thornbill Yellow Thornbill Brown Thornbill White‐throated Gerygone Brown Gerygone White‐browed Scrubwren Large‐billed Scrubwren Striated Pardalote Eastern Spinebill

P P P P P P P P P

1 1 12 1 11 28 23 3 2

Animalia

Aves

Meliphagidae

0710

Acanthiza lineata Acanthiza nana Acanthiza pusilla Gerygone albogularis Gerygone mouki Sericornis frontalis Sericornis magnirostra Pardalotus striatus Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Anthochaera chrysoptera

Little Wattlebird

P

1

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Meliphagidae Meliphagidae Meliphagidae

0641 0597 0634

Blue‐faced Honeyeater Brown Honeyeater Noisy Miner

P P P

1 2 3

Animalia

Aves

Meliphagidae

0633

Entomyzon cyanotis Lichmera indistincta Manorina melanocephala Manorina melanophrys

Bell Miner

P

1

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Meliphagidae Meliphagidae

0605 0586

Meliphaga lewinii Myzomela sanguinolenta

Lewin's Honeyeater Scarlet Honeyeater

P P

103 5

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

0421 0424

P P

15 10

Aves

0431

Psophodes olivaceus Coracina novaehollandiae Lalage leucomela

Eastern Whipbird Black‐faced Cuckoo‐shrike

Animalia

Varied Triller

P

16

Animalia

Aves

0408

Colluricincla harmonica

Grey Shrike‐thrush

P

12

Animalia

Aves

0413

P

17

Aves

0398

Colluricincla megarhyncha Pachycephala pectoralis

Little Shrike‐thrush

Animalia

Golden Whistler

P

46

Animalia

Aves

0401

Pachycephala rufiventris

Rufous Whistler

P

3

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Psophodidae Campephagida e Campephagida e Pachycephalida e Pachycephalida e Pachycephalida e Pachycephalida e Oriolidae Oriolidae Artamidae Artamidae Artamidae Artamidae Dicruridae Rhipiduridae Rhipiduridae Rhipiduridae Corvidae Corvidae Monarchidae Monarchidae Monarchidae Monarchidae Monarchidae

0671 0432 0700 0705 0702 0694 0673 0361 0364 0362 0930 9902 0376 0373 9955 0365 0375

Olive‐backed Oriole Australasian Figbird Pied Butcherbird Australian Magpie Grey Butcherbird Pied Currawong Spangled Drongo Grey Fantail Willie Wagtail Rufous Fantail Australian Raven Torresian Crow White‐eared Monarch Black‐faced Monarch Restless Flycatcher Leaden Flycatcher Spectacled Monarch

P P P P P P P P P P P P V,P P P P P

9 13 6 6 4 10 7 20 3 12 3 8 1 1 3 1 6

Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves Aves Aves

Petroicidae Petroicidae Petroicidae Cisticolidae Megaluridae

0392 0384 0396 0525 0509

Oriolus sagittatus Sphecotheres vieilloti Cracticus nigrogularis Cracticus tibicen Cracticus torquatus Strepera graculina Dicrurus bracteatus Rhipidura albiscapa Rhipidura leucophrys Rhipidura rufifrons Corvus coronoides Corvus orru Carterornis leucotis Monarcha melanopsis Myiagra inquieta Myiagra rubecula Symposiachrus trivirgatus Eopsaltria australis Petroica rosea Tregellasia capito Cisticola exilis Cincloramphus mathewsi

Eastern Yellow Robin Rose Robin Pale‐yellow Robin Golden‐headed Cisticola Rufous Songlark

P P P P P

52 3 2 3 1

Animalia

Aves

Megaluridae

0523

Megalurus timoriensis

Tawny Grassbird

P

2

45

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves Aves

Timaliidae Hirundinidae Hirundinidae

0574 0357 0359

Zosterops lateralis Hirundo neoxena Petrochelidon nigricans

Silvereye Welcome Swallow Tree Martin

P P P

18 6 2

Animalia

Aves

Nectariniidae

0564

Dicaeum hirundinaceum

Mistletoebird

P

10

Animalia

Aves

Estrildidae

0657

Lonchura castaneothorax

Chestnut‐breasted Mannikin

P

1

Animalia Animalia

Aves Aves

Estrildidae Estrildidae

0662 0655

Neochmia temporalis Taeniopygia bichenovii

Red‐browed Finch Double‐barred Finch

P P

12 1

Animalia

Aves

Motacillidae

0647

Anthus novaeseelandiae

Australian Pipit

P

1

Animalia

Mammalia

1001

P

26

Mammalia

1003

Ornithorhynchus anatinus Tachyglossus aculeatus

Platypus

Animalia

Ornithorhynchi dae Tachyglossidae

Short‐beaked Echidna

P

65

Animalia Animalia Animalia

Mammalia Dasyuridae Mammalia Dasyuridae Mammalia Phascolarctidae

1008 1045 1162

Dasyurus maculatus Planigale maculata Phascolarctos cinereus

Spotted‐tailed Quoll Common Planigale Koala

Animalia Animalia

1138 1129

P P

1 1

1735

Petaurus breviceps Pseudocheirus peregrinus Trichosurus caninus

Sugar Glider Common Ringtail Possum

Animalia

Mammalia Petauridae Mammalia Pseudocheirida e Mammalia Phalangeridae

Short‐eared Possum

P

1

Animalia

Mammalia

Phalangeridae

T082

Trichosurus sp.

brushtail possum

P

31

Animalia

Mammalia

Macropodidae

1242

Wallabia bicolor

Swamp Wallaby

P

2

Animalia Animalia

Mammalia Mammalia

Pteropodidae Pteropodidae

1282 1280

Pteropus alecto Pteropus poliocephalus

Black Flying‐fox Grey‐headed Flying‐fox

Animalia Animalia

Mammalia Mammalia

1281 1349

Pteropus scapulatus Chalinolobus gouldii

Little Red Flying‐fox Gould's Wattled Bat

Animalia

Mammalia

1372

Falsistrellus tasmaniensis

Animalia

Mammalia

1346

Animalia

Mammalia

Animalia

Mammalia

Animalia

Mammalia

Animalia

Mammalia

Animalia Plantae

Mammalia Flora

Pteropodidae Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Vespertilionida e Muridae Adiantaceae

Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora

Plantae Plantae

V,P V,P V,P

P V,P

E V

V

3 1 209

29 683

P P

251 1

Eastern False Pipistrelle

V,P

1

Miniopterus australis

Little Bentwing‐bat

V,P

3

1357

Myotis macropus

Southern Myotis

V,P

2

1334

Nyctophilus gouldi

Gould's Long‐eared Bat

P

1

1365

Scotorepens orion

Eastern Broad‐nosed Bat

P

1

1377

Vespadelus pumilus

Eastern Forest Bat

P

2

1395 7997

Rattus fuscipes Adiantum aethiopicum

Bush Rat Common Maidenhair

P P

1 1

Adiantaceae Adiantaceae Adiantaceae Apocynaceae Arecaceae

7998 7999 8000 1176 6458

Filmy Maidenhair Giant Maidenhair Rough Maidenhair Southern Ochrosia Bangalow Palm

P P P E1,P P

1 2 4 9 1

Flora Flora

Arecaceae Arecaceae

1215 1220

Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora

Arecaceae Aspleniaceae

1221 8031

Adiantum diaphanum Adiantum formosum Adiantum hispidulum Ochrosia moorei Archontophoenix cunninghamiana Calamus muelleri Linospadix monostachyos Livistona australis Asplenium australasicum

Plantae Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora Flora

1018 8076 2833

Plantae

Flora

Plantae

Flora

Plantae

Flora

Asteliaceae Cyatheaceae Fabaceae (Faboideae) Menispermace ae Menispermace ae Myrtaceae

E

Southern Lawyer Cane Walking‐stick Palm

P P

6 2

Cabbage Palm Bird's Nest Fern

P P

1 4 1 1 55

Narrow‐leaved Palm Lily Straw Treefern Thorny Pea

P P V,P

7167

Cordyline stricta Cyathea cooperi Desmodium acanthocladum Tinospora smilacina

Tinospora Vine

E1,P

3691

Tinospora tinosporoides

Arrow‐head Vine

V,P

V

5

11894

Gossia fragrantissima

Sweet Myrtle

E1,P

E

35

V

1

46

Plantae

Flora

Myrtaceae

4290

Syzygium hodgkinsoniae

Red Lilly Pilly

V,P

V

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

9018

Red Rope Orchid

P

1

Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora

Orchidaceae Orchidaceae

4419 4424

Bulbophyllum schillerianum Cymbidium suave Dendrobium gracilicaule

Snake Orchid

P P

1 1

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

4425

Dendrobium kingianum

Pink Rock Orchid

P

2

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

4426

Dendrobium linguiforme

Tongue Orchid

P

1

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

4427

Lily‐of‐the‐valley Orchid

P

1

Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora

Orchidaceae Orchidaceae

4429 4432

Dendrobium monophyllum Dendrobium mortii Dendrobium speciosum

Rock Lily

P P

1 2

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

4435

Dendrobium teretifolium

Rat's Tail Orchid

P

2

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

4436

Dendrobium tetragonum

Tree Spider Orchid

P

2

Plantae

Flora

Orchidaceae

6990

^Oberonia complanata

E1,P,2

1

Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora

Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Poaceae Polypodiaceae

4562 4577 4582 4776 8159

Pterostylis nutans Rhinerrhiza divitiflora Sarcochilus falcatus Arthraxon hispidus Platycerium bifurcatum

Yellow‐flowered King of the Fairies Nodding Greenhood Raspy Root Orchid Orange Blossom Orchid Hairy Jointgrass Elkhorn Fern

P P P V,P P

1 2 1 73 6

Plantae

Flora

Polypodiaceae

8161

Platycerium superbum

Staghorn

Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora

Proteaceae Proteaceae

5354 5432

Floydia praealta Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia

Ball Nut Red Boppel Nut

V,P V,P

V V

18 2

Plantae

Flora

Ranunculaceae

5494

Clematis fawcettii

Northern Clematis

V,P

V

3

Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae

Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora

Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Rutaceae Santalaceae Tiliaceae

8297 13561 5799 5871 6198

Randia moorei Triflorensia cameronii Geijera paniculata Thesium australe Corchorus cunninghamii

Spiny Gardenia Cameron's Tarenna Axe‐Breaker Austral Toadflax Native Jute

E1,P E1,P E1,P V,P E1,P

E

2 2 2 1 3

V

P

2

4

V E

47

Attachment 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tree Schedule

48

OBJECT SPECIES 1 Flindersia australis 2 Flindersia australis 3 Pittosporum undul.

4 Pittosporum undul.

5 Pittosporum undul.

6 Pittosporum undul.

7 Pittosporum undul.

8 Stenocarpus sinuatus 9 Flindersia australis 10 Stenocarpus sinuatus 11 Pittosporum undul.

12 Pittosporum undul.

13 Jagera psuedorhus 14 Guioa semiglauca 15 Pittosporum undul.

16 Pittosporum undul.

17 Jagera psuedorhus 18 Stenocarpus sinuatus 19 Guioa semiglauca 20 Pittosporum undul.

21 Rhodamnia rubesc.

22 Jagera psuedorhus 23 Bridelia exaltata 24 Bridelia exaltata 25 Rhodomyrtus psid.

26 Jagera psuedorhus 27 Flindersia australis 28 Elaeocarpus obovat.

29 Pittosporum undul.

30 Jagera psuedorhus 31 Pentaceras australe 32 Pentaceras australe 33 Pittosporum undul.

34 Pittosporum undul.

35 Pittosporum undul.

36 Pittosporum undul.

37 Guioa semiglauca 38 Pentaceras australe 39 Pentaceras australe 40 Pentaceras australe 41 Rhodomyrtus psid.

42 Rhodomyrtus psid.

43 Guioa semiglauca

DBH

HEIGHT 4 5 2 1 2 1.5 2 2 6 2 4 1 3 1.5 2 2 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 2.5 1 5 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 0.5 1 1 0.3 0.5 0.5 1

SPREAD 15 15 10 7 10 15 10 15 20 15 10 5 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 15 15 20 10 10 10 20 5 15 15 20 10 15 10 10 5 15 15 5 5 10 15

10 10 4 5 7 4 5 6 7 6 8 3 10 4 7 8 12 4 7 6 6 5 2 6 3 8 6 6 5 9 4 7 6 6 7 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 2

49

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Guioa semiglauca Pentaceras australe Guioa semiglauca Flindersia australis Flindersia australis Ficus obliqua Jagera psuedorhus Flindersia australis Acmena smithii Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Jagera psuedorhus Jagera psuedorhus Jagera psuedorhus Mallotus philipp.

Guioa semiglauca Mallotus philipp.

Stenocarpus sinuatus Stenocarpus sinuatus Mallotus philipp.

Bridelia exaltata Arytera divaricata Jagera psuedorhus Capparis arborea Jagera psuedorhus Pittosporum undul.

Guioa semiglauca Jagera psuedorhus Stenocarpus sinuatus Stenocarpus sinuatus Stenocarpus sinuatus Stenocarpus sinuatus Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Jagera psuedorhus Stenocarpus sinuatus Pittosporum undul.

Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Pittosporum undul.

Rhodamnia rubesc.

3 0.5 4 7 5 3 4.5 5 3 4 3 1.5 3 2 4 4 3 0.4 3 0.5 3 1 1 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 2 3 2 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 1.5 2 4 4 4 0.5

15 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 15 15 15 20 12 12 15 5 20 10 20 10 10 20 5 5 5 5 15 20 15 20 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 10 15 15 15 10

7 4 7 12 8 7 8 11 8 12 4 2 7 5 7 11 7 3 6 3 4 2 5 7 3 1 2 2 6 8 7 5 6 8 4 11 11 8 4 6 7 6 9 4

50

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Offsite Offsite

Pittosporum undul.

Jagera psuedorhus Guioa semiglauca Guioa semiglauca Pittosporum undul.

Corymbia intermedia Corymbia intermedia Glochidion ferd/ferd Glochidion ferd/ferd Glochidion ferd/ferd Eucalyptus tereti.

Acacia melanoxylon Acacia melanoxylon Eucalyptus tereti.

Eucalyptus tereti.

Eucalyptus tereti.

1 3 2 3 1.5 7 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4

5 15 10 15 5 30 30 30 8 8 25 10 10 30

4 7 8 8 5 8 9 9 7 7 7 7 6 8

51

Attachment 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Response to the IKRAP Guideline

52

Koala populations occur in moist forests along the coast, sub humid woodlands in southern and central Queensland, and in some eucalypt woodlands along watercourses in the semiarid environments of the western part of the State. Koalas have also been found to occur in non-riverine communities in semiarid areas.

Biogeographic regions of Queensland where koalas have been recorded include the Einasleigh Uplands, Wet Tropics, Desert Uplands, Central Mackay Coast, Mitchell Grass Downs, Mulga Lands, Brigalow Belt, South Eastern Queensland and Channel Country. The greatest density of koalas in the State occurs in south-east Queensland, and lower densities occur through central and eastern areas.

For example, population densities range from moderately high in south-east Queensland and some parts of central Queensland (e.g. 1-3 koalas per hectare) to low in other parts of central Queensland (0.01 koalas per hectare) (TSSC 2012). Koalas inhabit a range of temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid communities dominated by species from the genus Eucalyptus. The distribution of koalas is also affected by altitude (limited to <800m ASL), temperature and, at the western and northern ends of the range, leaf moisture.

The koala is a leaf-eating specialist. Its diet is restricted mainly to foliage of Eucalyptus species. It may also consume foliage of related genera, including Corymbia, Angophora and Lophostemon and at times supplement its diet with other species, including species from the genera Leptospermum and Melaleuca. While koalas have been observed sitting in or eating up to 120 species of eucalypt, the diet of individual koalas is usually limited to obtaining most of their nutrition from one or a few species present at a site. Species-level preferences may also vary between regions or seasons.

Consequently, assessment of habitat quality for koalas is usually based on the identification of local preferences for species and quantification of the availability of those species (TSSC 2012).

Do Koalas occur in the Landscape to be affected by the Proposed Development?

Yes, the protected matters search tool indicates that the koala (and its habitat) is known from the locality (Attachment 2), and this is supported by the Atlas of NSW Wildlife Data (Attachment 3).

For the purpose of this assessment we: (i) conducted line transect canopy survey to the extent aloowed by the highly fragmented nature of the vegetation; (ii) searched the Subject Site’s two koala habitat trees (two Pink bloodwoods) in accordance with the Spot Assessment Technique; and (iii) assessed the occurrence of “habitat critical to the survival of the koala” by searching for the specified primary, secondary and supplementary species.

The diurnal canopy search did not record koalas, and the scat search effort was similarly unsuccessful. With reference to Phillips and Callaghan (2011), the scat search results are indicative of a low level of use within an East Coast medium-high density population. While use of the Subject Site cannot be completely discounted, the lack of suitable habitat trees is a strong indicator that habitat values with the proposed development area are likely to be low.

53

Is an Important Population Present?

The IKRAP does not yet define an Important Population, and so the definition established under the SIG 1.1 stands. The SIG 1.1 notes that: An ‘Important Population’ is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are: Key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; Yes, the broader locality supports a key source koala population.

Populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and /or; While the landscape is highly fragmented, there are no barriers which isolate the koalas using the immediate locality from populations in the broader locality. In this regard it is considered unlikely that the population to be affected by the proposed development is genetically distinct.

Populations that are near the limit of the species’ range.

The Investigation Area is not at the limit of the species’ range.

Is Habitat Critical to the Survival of the koala Present?

The IKRAP identifies habitat critical to the survival of the koala as areas of forest or woodland where: • • • •

•

•

Primary koala food tree species comprise at least 30% of the overstorey trees; Primary koala food tree species comprise less than 30% of the overstorey trees, but together with secondary food tree species comprise at least 50% of the overstorey trees; Primary food tree species are absent but secondary food trees species alone comprise at least 50% of the overstorey trees; The above qualities may be absent in a forest or woodland but other essential habitat features are present and adjacent to areas exhibiting the above qualities (eg koalas in the Pilliga are known to escape the heat of the day by taking refuge in white cypress pines, which are not food trees), or; A relatively high density of koalas is supported, regardless of the presence of food tree species. Koala populations vary across their range, and regional data should be used to judge relative density; Habitat critical to the survival of the koala is also considered to be any form of landscape corridor which is essential to the dispersal of koalas between forest and woodland habitats.

54

Primary, Secondary and Supplementary food tree species are defined in the New South Wales (NSW) Recovery Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008). We have utilised the list for North Coast NSW. In regard to Primary, Secondary and Supplementary food tree species, Philips (2000) notes that: “Primary food trees exhibit a level of use that is significantly higher than that of other Eucalyptus spp. while also demonstrating a mode of utilisation by koalas that is independent of density … Secondary and/or Supplementary food trees … invariably exhibit (on average) a significantly lower level of use than a primary food tree while also demonstrating evidence of more complex variables associated with their use, generally by being both density and/or size class dependent … Note: Supplementary food trees arguably represent a third tier in the koala food resource. In common with secondary food tree species they exhibit a level of utilisation that is also size class/density dependent. However, the levels of utilisation of supplementary food tree species are generally lower than that of a secondary food tree species, and possibly dependent upon the presence of the latter in the first instance.

Interestingly, supplementary food tree species invariably tend to be stringybarks but with significant variation in the use of some species across their range.”

The Subject Site supports only two sclerophyll trees (two specimens of Pink bloodwood). The remainder of the Subject Site supports rainforest species. In this regard it is apparent that the Subject Site does not support habitat critical to the survival of the koala.

55

ATTACHMENT 3 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment CRG Acoustical Consultants

Proposed Residential Subdivision 20 Holland Street, Goonellabah (Lot 2 on DP1021834)

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: Mr. P Kirkland C/ - Newton Denney Chapelle

1 November 2013 crgref: 13041a report

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This report is in response to a request by Newton Denny Chapelle on behalf of Mr. P Kirkland for an environmental noise impact assessment of a proposed residential subdivision at Goonellabah. In undertaking the impact assessment, unattended noise monitoring was conducted; and through noise modeling, predictions of road traffic noise and offsite commercial industrial noise immissions were produced. Based upon the predicted noise impact levels, recommendations regarding acoustic treatment to the development have been provided.

2.0

SITE & DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

The site is located along Holland Street at Goonellabah and is described as part of Lot 2 on DP1021834 on which 28 residential Lots are proposed (Lot 15 is Public Reserve). The land is zoned as Residential under the Lismore LEP 2012. Access to the proposed lots will be via a new internal street; and no Lots will be accessed off Holland Street directly. For site location refer to Appendix A; and for the proposed subdivision plan refer to the Appendix B of this report.

The land across Holland Street to the east is an established industrial area, with a self-storage facility to the north. From observation, the commercial / industrial uses operate Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm and include storage facilities, joiner / cabinet fitter, garage / shed manufacturer and automotive / panel beater enterprises. Further, a childcare centre is located along Slade Street and operates between 6:30am and 6:30pm Monday to Friday. The existing industrial premises across Holland Street are elevated approximately 1m to 6m above Holland Street level, with the subject site falling away from Holland Street. Noise emissions from the offsite commercial / industrial enterprises to the north and east have been assessed against the noise criterion specified in the “NSW Industrial Noise Policy” to ensure acceptable noise amenity can be achieved at the proposed residential lots.

Road traffic noise from Holland Street has been assessed in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. It is noted that “The State environmental planning policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) (Department of Planning 2007) sets internal noise criteria which must be met by new developments along some of the busiest transport corridors in NSW. This is a major initiative to ensure that sustainable higher density living can occur along major transport routes whilst maintaining an acceptable level of amenity for residents” (Extract from the “NSW Road Noise Policy”, March 2011). While application of the Infrastructure SEPP requirements are mandatory only for proposed noise sensitive developments near highly trafficked roads (i.e. roads with annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of more than 40,000), the design advice offered in the SEPP may be useful when designing noise sensitive sites near other roads such as Holland Street.

It is noted that Lismore Workers Sports Club and playing fields are located to the south of the site; however, the main entry and the club building are along Oliver Street and are around 350m from the subject site. Further, existing offsite dwellings are located much closer to the Sports Club than the subject site; hence, activities occurring at the Sports Club are unlikely to cause annoyance at the development and have not been assessed within this report.

CRG Acoustics completed an acoustic assessment for the subject site back in September 2007 (CRGref: 189a report). The previous report recommended acoustic barrier treatments and building shell treatments to mitigate road traffic noise from Holland Street. It is noted that the previously assessed commercial laundry to the east has now closed with the building currently for sale.

Page 2

3.0

AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY

3.1 Instrumentation The following equipment was used to record ambient noise levels in the locale:  

Rion NC 73 Calibrator; Rion NL-21 Environmental Noise Logger.

3.2 Unattended Noise Measurement Methodology and Results A logger was located at the southern end of the eastern site boundary. The microphone was in a freefield location approximately 1.4m above ground and approximately 16m from the nearest lane of Holland Street. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the logger location.

The logger was set to record noise statistics in 15 minute blocks continually between Monday 19/08/2013 and Monday 26/08/2013.

Road traffic noise levels were conducted generally in accordance with Australian Standard AS2702 1984 “Acoustics - Methods for the measurement of road traffic noise”. The operation of the sound level logging equipment was field calibrated before and after the measurement session with no significant drift from the reference signal recorded.

Daily weather observations were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology’s website (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2006.latest.shtml). The nearest weather station to the subject site is located at Lismore. Weather conditions during the noise monitoring period were fine, with a temperature range between 5 and 24oC, relative humidity between 20% to 75% and local wind speeds at the logger location generally at or below 5m/s.

Table 1 below presents the measured ambient noise levels from the logger location A. Graphical presentation of the measured levels from the logger is presented in the Appendix C. Traffic Noise Descriptors LAeq 24hr LAeq 15hr Day LAeq 9hr Night LAeq 1hr Day LAeq 1hr Night

Time Period N/A 7am - 10pm 10pm - 7am 7am - 10pm 10pm - 7am

Background Noise Monday 19/08/13 Tuesday 20/08/13 Wednesday 21/08/13 Thursday 22/08/13 Friday 23/08/13 Saturday 24/08/13 Sunday 25/08/13 Monday 26/08/13 Measured RBLs

21/08/2013 54 56 49 59 56

Daytime (7am-6pm) 37 35 37 42 35 35 37 37

Measured Level SPL dB(A) 22/08/2013 23/08/2013 54 54 56 56 49 50 59 59 56 56 Measured Level LA90 dB(A) Evening (6pm-10pm) 34 29 32 32 36 29 31 32

Average 54 56 49 59 56

Night (10pm-7am) 24 23 22 27 30 22 23

Table 1: Measured ambient noise levels at the logger location.

Page 3

4.0

NOISE CRITERIA

4.1 Commercial / Industrial Activity Noise Criteria Noise associated with the commercial premises is regulated by the “NSW Industrial Noise Policy” (the INP) and is as follows: 

Control of intrusive noise impacts – The limit criteria for this assessment is as follows: LAeq, 15 min ≤ rating background level1 + 5 dB:   



Daytime (7 am – 6 pm Mon-Sat; 8 am – 6 pm Sun) Evening (6 pm – 10 pm) Night (remaining periods)

42 (RBL 37 + 5) dB(A) Leq; 37 (RBL 32 + 5) dB(A) Leq; 28 (RBL 23 + 5) dB(A) Leq.

Maintaining noise level amenity for residential premises. This is achieved by ensuring that the proposed development complies with the noise limit criteria set in Table 2.1 of the Policy. If it is assumed that the area is within a Urban Area (as defined in the Policy), the following applies:

Table 2: Amenity Criterion Prescribed in the New South Wales EPA “Industrial Noise Policy”.

The overall resulting criteria for the site determined by applying the L Aeq, 15 min ≤ rating background level + 5 dB criterion based upon the measured daytime RBLs is as follows:   

Daytime (7 am – 6 pm Mon-Sat; 8 am – 6 pm Sun) Evening (6 pm – 10 pm) Night (remaining periods)

1

42 dB(A) Leq; 37 dB(A) Leq; and 28 dB(A) Leq.

The rating background level is the overall single figure background level representing each assessment period (day/evening/night over the whole monitoring period.

Page 4

4.2 Criteria for Road Traffic Noise Impacts from Holland Street In 1999, the Environment Protection Authority published the now superseded “Environmental criteria for road traffic noise” (ECRTN), which outlined the noise goals for noise sensitive developments impacted by road traffic noise. The ECRTN has now been replaced by the “NSW Road Noise Policy” since 1st July 2011.

Road traffic noise criterion for new residential developments is now specified in The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP); therefore, the current “NSW Road Noise Policy” does not provide noise goals for new residential developments.

Of particular importance, the Infrastructure SEPP prescribes internal noise goals (based on World Health Organisation guidelines) for proposed noise sensitive developments. The Infrastructure SEPP recognises that judicious land use planning, architectural design, building orientation and good internal layout can achieve acceptable acoustic amenity near busy transport corridors.

While application of the Infrastructure SEPP requirements are mandatory only for proposed noise sensitive developments near highly trafficked roads (i.e. roads with annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of more than 40,000 vehicles), the design advice offered in the SEPP may be useful when designing noise sensitive developments near other roads such as Holland Street.

Developers and Council can find advice on how to meet the noise criterion within the Infrastructure SEPP by referring to the “Development near rail corridors and busy roads – interim guideline”.

The internal noise goals specified in the Infrastructure SEPP are as follows:

For assessment of external areas we have applied the “Existing residences affected by additional traffic on existing freeways / arterial / sub-aerial roads” of 60 dB(A) LAeq 15hr and 55 dB(A) LAeq 9hr from the “NSW Road Noise Policy” given that Holland Street acts as a collector road.

Page 5

5.0

RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

5.1 Predicted Offsite Commercial / Industrial Activity Noise Impacts All noise source levels used in the assessment have been collected from previous similar investigations. All noise levels have been corrected for impulsiveness or tonality as per Australian Standard AS 1055:1997 – “Acoustics-Description and measurement of environmental noise”.

Short-term measured LAeq levels have been converted to LAeq 15min levels by estimating a worst case duration for which each piece of equipment is used during any 15 minute period.

For continuous noise sources, a fifteen minute duration has been adopted. Continuous plant noise sources (i.e. commercial A/C unit and air compressor) have also been combined to a single source level for prediction at the offsite receivers. It is also noted that noise levels associated with mechanical plant are purely illustrative as access to offsite plant was not granted.

Activity / Noise Source Fluctuating Noise Source Dropping metal inside shed Drop saw inside shed Grinder inside shed Welding inside shed Dropping metal in shed Paint spray gun inside Waste collection Truck pass-by Truck airbrakes Forklift bypass Car door closure Car bypass Children normal play Children boisterous play Continuous Noise Source Commercial A/C unit Air compressors *

Distance (m)

Measured LAeq Adjusted dB(A)

Duration per 15 minutes

Noise Level, SPL LAeq 15min dB(A)

1m 2m 1m 6m 1m 2m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m

105** 94** 96** 75 105** 82 97** 82 102** 77 83** 77 70 80

15 sec. (30 events) 5 5 10 5 sec. (10 events) 12 0.5 5 1 sec. (2 events) 15 10 sec. (20 events) 2 (20 events) 15 15

87 89 91 73 82 81 82 77 72 77 63 68 70 80

1m 1m

65 80

15 15

65 80

Denotes + 5 dB(A) correction due to tonality as per AS1055 – 1997

**

Denotes + 5 dB(A) correction due to impulsiveness as per AS1055 – 1997

Table 3: Typical noise source levels associated with the offsite commercial / industrial activities.

Based upon the location of offsite commercial / industrial activities in relation to the proposed subdivision, we predict the noise impact levels as presented in Table 4 over the page.

For point source calculations refer to Appendix C of this report.

Page 6

Predicted Noise Impact, SPL LAeq dB(A)

Noise source

Nearest Faรงade to Onsite Activity Nearest Future Dwellings on Lots 1 to 7 and 26 to 28 Dropping metal inside shed Drop saw inside shed Grinder inside shed Welding inside shed Dropping metal inside shed Paint spray gun inside paint shed Waste collection Truck pass-by Truck airbrakes Forklift bypass Car door closure Car bypass Children normal play Children boisterous play Combined A/C unit and air compressors x 2 Setback Future Dwellings on Lots 8 to 25 Dropping metal inside shed Drop saw inside shed Grinder inside shed Welding inside shed Dropping metal inside shed Paint spray gun inside paint shed Waste collection Truck pass-by Truck airbrakes Forklift bypass Car door closure Car bypass Children normal play Children boisterous play Combined A/C unit and air compressors x 2 Criterion dB(A)

34 42 38 36 29 37 49 44 39 44 30 35 31 41 41 31 39 35 32 26 34 43 38 33 38 24 29 29 39 30 7am to 6pm: 42

Table 4: Predicted offsite commercial / industrial activity impacting future onsite dwellings.

Page 7

5.2

Road Traffic Noise Predictions

5.2.1 Traffic Volumes on Holland Street Existing traffic volumes including the percentage of heavy vehicles were obtained from Lismore City Council (correspondence dated 31/10/2013). We were advised that the traffic data was collected in year 2008 to the south of the intersection with the Bruxner Highway. Year 2013 and 2023 traffic volumes were determined by applying a 2% annual growth rate as advised by project Traffic Engineer of Newton Denny Chapelle. The existing and predicted traffic volumes are as follows: Surveyed 2008 Traffic Volumes: Predicted 2013 Traffic Volumes: Predicted 2023 Traffic Volumes:

4,290 vehicles per 24 hours, 6.5% heavy vehicles 4,737 vehicles per 24 hours, 6.5% heavy vehicles 5,774 vehicles per 24 hours, 6.5% heavy vehicles

5.2.2 Modeled Road Traffic Noise Levels – Existing Year 2013 Situation Road traffic noise predictions were conducted using PEN3D, a CoRTN based model acceptable under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy. To verify the road traffic noise prediction model, the year 2013 LAeq 24hr traffic noise level was calculated for the logger location and compared to the measured noise level. For PEN3D point calculation sheets refer to Appendix C of this report.

The calculated existing LAeq 24hr noise level, approximately 16m from the nearest lane of Holland Street is 55.3 dB(A). Compared with the measured LAeq 24hr level of 54.3 dB(A), the model is overpredicting by 1.0 dB(A), which is within the allowable 2 dB(A) deviation from measured levels.

5.2.3 Modeled Road Traffic Noise Levels – Ultimate Year 2023 Situation The following parameters were used in developing the PEN3D model for the development site:    

   

2.5 dB(A) façade correction.

50 km/hr posted speed limit on Holland Street.

Recommended acoustic barrier treatments as detailed in Section 6.1 of this report.

NAASRA Working Group (Saunders, Samuels, Leach and Hall 1983) adjustment for Australian conditions of minus (-) 1.7 dB for façade locations and 0.7 dB(A) for free-field locations as recommended in Section B4 of the “NSW Road Noise Policy”.

Ground levels and development plans for the site provided by Newton Denny Chapelle (refer to Appendix B).

Ground Floor receiver heights taken at 1.8m above ground level.

First Floor receiver heights taken at 4.6m above ground level.

LAeq 1hr levels based upon the differences between the measured L Aeq 24hr levels (refer to Table 1).

Based upon ultimate traffic volumes, the PEN3D model predicts the following façade corrected traffic noise levels as detailed in Table 5 over the page.

Page 8

Ground Floor Level Building Façades Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 25 Lot 26 Lot 27 Lot 28

Predicted Ultimate Year 2023 Traffic Noise – Façade Corrected dB(A) TNR* TNR* LAeq 24hr LAeq 15hr Daytime LAeq 9hr Night time Living Sleeping 54 56 49 16 14 54 56 49 16 14 55 57 50 17 15 54 56 49 16 14 53 55 48 15 13 51 53 46 13 11 50 52 45 12 10 46 48 41 8 6 45 47 40 7 5 45 47 40 7 5 45 47 40 7 5 45 47 40 7 5 51 53 46 13 11 44 46 39 6 4 41 43 36 3 1 40 42 35 2 0 41 43 36 3 1 41 43 36 3 1 41 43 36 3 1 42 44 37 4 2 42 44 37 4 2 43 45 38 5 3 44 46 39 6 4 45 47 40 7 5 47 49 42 9 7 48 50 43 10 8 50 52 45 12 10 50 52 45 12 10

*TNR: Traffic Noise Reduction Required to Achieve Indoor Design Sound Levels

Table 5 (P9 to 10): Predicted year 2023 road traffic noise impacts from Holland Street.

Page 9

Above-ground Floor Level Building Façades Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 25 Lot 26 Lot 27 Lot 28

Predicted Ultimate Year 2023 Traffic Noise – Façade Corrected dB(A) TNR* TNR* LAeq 24hr LAeq 15hr Daytime LAeq 9hr Night time Living Sleeping 61 63 56 23 21 61 63 56 23 21 61 63 56 23 21 61 63 56 23 21 62 64 57 24 22 62 64 57 24 22 61 63 56 23 21 48 50 43 10 8 46 48 41 8 6 47 49 42 9 7 46 48 41 8 6 46 48 41 8 6 52 54 47 14 12 45 47 40 7 5 42 44 37 4 2 41 43 36 3 1 41 43 36 3 1 42 44 37 4 2 42 44 37 4 2 43 45 38 5 3 44 46 39 6 4 44 46 39 6 4 46 48 41 8 6 47 49 42 9 7 48 50 43 10 8 50 52 45 12 10 53 55 48 15 13 62 64 57 24 22

*TNR: Traffic Noise Reduction Required to Achieve Indoor Design Sound Levels

Table 5 (P9 to 10): Predicted year 2023 road traffic noise impacts from Holland Street.

Page 10

6.0

RECOMMENDED ACOUSTIC TREATMENTS

6.1 Recommended Acoustic Barrier Treatments We recommend construction of a 1.8m high acoustic barrier along the Holland Street road frontage.

The recommended location of the acoustic barrier is presented in Sketch 1 of Appendix A. The barriers are to be constructed above the top of the proposed retaining walls (i.e. at Chainages CH 0m to CH 60m and CH 140m to CH 233.86m).

It is noted that the retaining wall option should be chosen over the batter option (i.e. between Chainage CH140 and CH233.86) as the barrier on top of the retaining wall will achieve a higher noise attention compared to placing the barrier at the reduced batter ground level (at the site boundary).

6.2 Recommended Building Shell Treatments at Future Dwellings To determine the extent of acoustic building shell treatments, assessment of habitable spaces (future dwelling bedrooms and living/dining/kitchen and study areas) should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS3671:1989 “Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion – Building Siting and Construction” to achieve the internal noise criterion of 35 dB(A) for sleeping areas and 40 dB(A) for living areas.

Future dwellings on Lots with TNR values at 10 or less (refer to Table 5 of this report), will achieve the internal road traffic noise criterion with standard building shell treatments and windows partially open (for fresh air ventilation); hence, acoustic building shell treatments to mitigate road traffic noise would not be required at these Lots (i.e. Lots 8 to 12 and 14 to 25).

TNR values between 10 and 25 (Lots 1 to 7, 13 and 26 to 28) are considered as Construction Category 2 within AS3671:1989, which is defined as follows: “Standard construction, except for lightweight elements such as fibrous cement or metal cladding or all-glass facades. Windows, doors and other openings must be closed.”

Australian Standard AS3671:1989 also provides guidance on standard building construction as presented in Table 6. To allow occupants to close windows and doors and still have a supply of fresh air, provision for air conditioning or sealed mechanical ventilation is required to habitable rooms.

Building Space Component Standard Building Construction: Noise Affected Living Areas and Bedrooms

Rw

Indicative Acoustic Treatment **Verify with supplier proposed element achieves required Rw**

Glazing

24

4mm glass in a standard grade frame

External Wall

33 - 35

Roof / Ceiling

33 - 35 Conventional pitched roof with tiles or corrogated metal, over 10mm thick plasterbaord

Conventional timber stud framed wall, clad externally with 9mm thick timber or hardboards or flat cellulose-cement sheets, and internally with 10mm thick plasterboard

Table 6: Standard building construction presented in Australian Standard AS3671:1989.

Hence, we recommend that additional noise assessments be conducted once dwelling building plans are finalised for Lots 1 to 7, 13 and 26 to 28 to ensure the internal noise criterion can be achieved at the future dwellings.

Page 11

Assessment of habitable rooms should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS3671:1989 “Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion – Building Siting and Construction”.

Provision for air conditioning or sealed mechanical ventilation (e.g. a 15 amp power supply) is required to noise affected habitable rooms, should end users wish to install ventilation or air conditioning to allow occupants to close windows and doors and still have a supply of fresh air.

7.0

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

The site is located along Holland Street at Goonellabah and is described as part of Lot 2 on DP1021834 on which 28 residential Lots are proposed (Lot 15 is Public Reserve). The land is zoned as Residential under the Lismore LEP 2012.

CRG Acoustics completed an acoustic assessment for the subject site back in September 2007 (CRGref: 189a report). The previous report recommended acoustic barrier treatments and building shell treatments to mitigate road traffic noise from Holland Street. It is noted that the previously assessed commercial laundry to the east has now closed with the building currently for sale.

Noise emissions from the offsite commercial / industrial enterprises to the north and east have been assessed against the noise criterion specified in the “NSW Industrial Noise Policy” to ensure acceptable noise amenity can be achieved at the proposed residential lots.

Based upon the assumed noise source levels for offsite activity, noise impacts at the proposed residential lots are predicted to be within 2 dB of the daytime external noise criterion with the exception of waste collection impacts at the nearest proposed lots fronting Holland Street.

As the average person cannot generally detect a 3 dB variation in sound pressure level, a 2dB rise is unlikely to be detectable and is typically considered an acceptable outcome. Further, given that waste collection activities would typically be infrequent occurrences (likely to be once or twice per week) and of short duration they are unlikely to cause annoyance.

Road traffic noise from Holland Street has been assessed in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. It is noted that “The State environmental planning policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) (Department of Planning 2007) sets internal noise criteria which must be met by new developments along some of the busiest transport corridors in NSW. This is a major initiative to ensure that sustainable higher density living can occur along major transport routes whilst maintaining an acceptable level of amenity for residents” (Extract from the “NSW Road Noise Policy”, March 2011).

While application of the Infrastructure SEPP requirements are mandatory only for proposed noise sensitive developments near highly trafficked roads (i.e. roads with annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of more than 40,000), the design advice offered in the SEPP may be useful when designing noise sensitive sites near other roads such as Holland Street.

Page 12

It is noted that we have recommended the construction of a 1.8m high acoustic barrier along the road frontage of Holland Street, which is to be constructed above the top of the onsite retaining walls. It is noted that the retaining wall option should be chosen over the batter option (i.e. between Chainage CH140 and CH233.86) as the barrier on top of the retaining wall will achieve a higher noise attention compared to placing the barrier at the reduced batter ground level (at the site boundary).

The predicted external levels are within the adopted external noise criterion of 60 dB(A) LAeq 15hr and 55 dB(A) LAeq 9hr from the “NSW Road Noise Policy” at ground floor level building façades and recreation areas due to the recommended acoustic barrier construction.

To achieve the internal noise criterion at first floor level habitable rooms overlooking Holland Street at noise affected Lots 1 to 7, 13 and 26 to 28, we recommend that additional noise assessments be conducted once dwelling building plans are finalised. Assessment of first floor habitable rooms (if constructed) should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS3671:1989 “Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion – Building Siting and Construction”.

Provision for air conditioning or sealed mechanical ventilation (e.g. a 15 amp power supply) is required to noise affected habitable rooms, should end users wish to install ventilation or air conditioning to allow occupants to close windows and doors and still have a supply of fresh air.

8.0

CONCLUSIONS

This report is in response to a request by Newton Denny Chapelle on behalf of Mr. P Kirkland for an environmental noise impact assessment of a proposed residential subdivision at Goonellabah.

Overall, the proposed development will generally be within acceptable levels of the adopted criterion, subject to the acoustic treatments recommended in Section 6 being integrated into the design and construction of the development.

Report Reviewed By:

Report Compiled by:

JAY CARTER BSc Director

Matthew Lopez BEng Consultant

Page 13

APPENDIX A Subject Site, Logger Location and Recommended Acoustic Barrier Sketch

Page 14

Figure No. 1: Subject Site & Locale (NSW SIX maps http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/).

Holland Street

Subject site

Industrial

Logger location

N

Page 15

X

Figure No. 2: Subject Site & Locale (Google Maps).

Subject site

N

Page 16

Sketch No. 1: Development Layout and Recommended Acoustic Barrier (Not to Scale).

20m return

10m returns

ACOUSTIC BARRIER TREATMENT LEGEND Recommended 1.8m high acoustic barrier constructed along the Holland Street road frontage. The barrier is to be constructed above the proposed retaining walls (i.e. at Chainages CH 0m to CH 60m and CH 140m to CH 233.86m). Typical acoustic barrier materials include earth berms, 19mm lapped timber fence (40% overlap), 9mm FC sheet, masonry, or a combination of the above (a minimum surface mass of 11kg/m 2).

It is noted that the retaining wall option should be chosen over the batter option (i.e. between Chainage CH140 and CH233.86) as the barrier on top of the retaining wall will achieve a higher noise attention compared to placing the barrier at the reduced batter ground level (at the site boundary).

Page 17

APPENDIX B Subdivision Layout Plans

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

APPENDIX C Measurement Results and Modelling Calculations and Predictions

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Pen3D2000 V 1.9.11 Project Code:13041a Project Description:Noise assessment of Kirkland at Holland St File:Z:\CRG_Accoustics\ACOUSTIC JOBS\13041a Holand St Goonellabah\13041a_existing.PEN File Description:Data file covering existing Friday 01 Nov, 2013 at 09:38:01 CoRTN Calculations All road segments included. Segmentation angle: 1degrees. Road elevations apply.

Receptor X Posn Y Posn Height Leq(24hour) (m) (m) (m) (dB(A)) monitor 42.9 -69.6 1.4 55.3 free-field File:Z:\CRG_Accoustics\ACOUSTIC JOBS\13041a Holand St Goonellabah\13041a_ultimate.PEN File Description:Data file covering ultimate Friday 01 Nov, 2013 at 09:41:53 CoRTN Calculations All road segments included. Segmentation angle: 1degrees. Road elevations apply.

Receptor X Posn Y Posn Height Leq(24hour) (m) (m) (m) (dB(A)) 1 43.9 -35.1 1.8 53.8 2 43.8 -7.6 1.8 54.1 3 44 6.7 1.8 54.8 4 44.2 25.8 1.8 53.6 5 44.6 54.1 1.8 52.7 6 44.5 72.5 1.8 51.3 7 45.1 92.4 1.8 49.9 8 -6.7 98.5 1.8 45.7 9 -24.9 107.4 1.8 44.9 10 -32.4 119.9 1.8 45.1 11 -43 134.3 1.8 44.7 12 -52.5 152.1 1.8 44.6 13 -16.1 188.1 1.8 51.2 14 -72.4 176.3 1.8 43.5 15 -122 155.3 1.8 40.8 16 -113.2 125.1 1.8 40.4 17 -103.1 106.8 1.8 40.6 18 -88.8 89.8 1.8 40.9 19 -72.9 71.1 1.8 41.2 20 -54.2 54.8 1.8 41.7 21 -31.7 35.1 1.8 42.1 22 -25 9.4 1.8 42.9 23 -24.2 -11.1 1.8 44.1 24 -22.1 -30.7 1.8 45.2 25 -11.1 -44.1 1.8 46.7 26 2.4 -59.9 1.8 48 27 22.5 -69 1.8 50.2 28 45.5 -72.5 1.8 50.1 1 43.9 -35.1 4.6 60.9 2 43.8 -7.6 4.6 60.8 3 44 6.7 4.6 60.9 4 44.2 25.8 4.6 60.9 5 44.6 54.1 4.6 61.5 6 44.5 72.5 4.6 61.5 7 45.1 92.4 4.6 60.9 8 -6.7 98.5 4.6 47.5 9 -24.9 107.4 4.6 46.3 10 -32.4 119.9 4.6 46.6 11 -43 134.3 4.6 46.4 12 -52.5 152.1 4.6 46.4 13 -16.1 188.1 4.6 52.3 14 -72.4 176.3 4.6 45.1 15 -122 155.3 4.6 41.7 16 -113.2 125.1 4.6 41.4 17 -103.1 106.8 4.6 41.4 18 -88.8 89.8 4.6 41.7 19 -72.9 71.1 4.6 42.1 20 -54.2 54.8 4.6 42.8 21 -31.7 35.1 4.6 43.5 22 -25 9.4 4.6 44.4 23 -24.2 -11.1 4.6 45.5 24 -22.1 -30.7 4.6 46.8 25 -11.1 -44.1 4.6 48.4 26 2.4 -59.9 4.6 50.1 27 22.5 -69 4.6 52.8 28 45.5 -72.5 4.6 61.6

Page 30

OFFS ITE ACTIVITY NOIS E IMPACTING THE FAÇADES OF: Nearest Lots Dropping metal fab shed 87 dB(A) @ 1m Distance source to receiver 135 m Distance attenuation -42.6 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 34.1 dB(A)

S etback Lots Dropping metal fab shed 87 dB(A) @ 1m Distance source to receiver 200 m Distance attenuation -46.0 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 30.7 dB(A)

Drop saw inside 89 dB(A) @ 2m Distance source to receiver 135 m Distance attenuation -36.6 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 42.1 dB(A)

Drop saw inside 89 dB(A) @ 2m Distance source to receiver 200 m Distance attenuation -40.0 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 38.7 dB(A)

Grinder inside 91 dB(A) @ 1m Distance source to receiver 135 m Distance attenuation -42.6 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 38.1 dB(A)

Grinder inside 91 dB(A) @ 1m Distance source to receiver 200 m Distance attenuation -46.0 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 34.7 dB(A)

Welding inside 73 dB(A) @ 6m Distance source to receiver 135 m Distance attenuation -27.0 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 35.7 dB(A)

Welding inside 73 dB(A) @ 6m Distance source to receiver 200 m Distance attenuation -30.5 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Internal sound decay -3 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 32.3 dB(A)

Dropping metal inside shed Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Internal sound decay Façade reflection Impact at façade

Dropping metal inside shed Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Internal sound decay Façade reflection Impact at façade

82 135 -42.6 -10 -3 2.5 29.3

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

82 200 -46.0 -10 -3 2.5 25.9

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Spray gun 81 dB(A) @ 2m Distance source to receiver 135 m Distance attenuation -36.6 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 36.9 dB(A)

Spray gun 81 dB(A) @ 2m Distance source to receiver 200 m Distance attenuation -40.0 dB(A) Inside to outside attenuation -10 dB(A) Façade reflection 2.5 dB(A) Impact at façade 33.5 dB(A)

Waste collection Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

82 60 -35.6 0 2.5 49.2

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Waste collection Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

82 125 -41.9 0 2.5 42.8

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Truck pass Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

77 60 -35.6 0 2.5 44.2

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Truck pass Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

77 125 -41.9 0 2.5 37.8

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Page 31

OFFS ITE ACTIVITY NOIS E IMPACTING THE FAÇADES OF: Nearest Lots Truck airbrakes Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

72 60 -35.6 0 2.5 39.4

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

S etback Lots Truck airbrakes Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

72 125 -41.9 0 2.5 33.0

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Forklift Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

77 60 -35.6 0 2.5 43.9

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Forklift Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

77 125 -41.9 0 2.5 37.6

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Car door closure Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Building screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

63 60 -35.6 0 2.5 30.4

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Car door closure Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Building screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

63 125 -41.9 0 2.5 24.0

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Car bypass Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

68 60 -35.6 0 2.5 35.2

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Car bypass Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

68 125 -41.9 0 2.5 28.8

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Children normal play Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

70 125 -41.9 0 2.5 30.6

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Children normal play Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

70 145 -43.2 0 2.5 29.3

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Children boisterous play Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

80 125 -41.9 0 2.5 40.6

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Children boisterous play Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Barrier screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

80 145 -43.2 0 2.5 39.3

dB(A) @ 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Commercial A/C unit Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Plant room attenuation Façade reflection Impact at façade

65 45 -33.1 0 2.5 34.4

dB(A) at 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Commercial A/C unit Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Plant room attenuation Façade reflection Impact at façade

65 110 -40.8 0 2.5 26.7

dB(A) at 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Air compressor Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Building screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

80 130 -42.3 0 2.5 40.2

dB(A) at 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Air compressor Distance source to receiver Distance attenuation Building screening Façade reflection Impact at façade

80 195 -45.8 -10 2.5 26.7

dB(A) at 1m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Combined façade impact

41.2 dB(A)

Combined façade impact

Page 32

29.7 dB(A)

ATTACHMENT 4 Contaminated Land Assessment Environmental Analysis Laboratory

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

CONTAMINATED LAND ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED 28 LOT SUBDIVISION AT LOT 2 DP 1021834 20 HOLLAND STREET, GOONELLABAH

A preliminary assessment of possible soil contamination as required for State Environmental Planning Policy 55

PREPARED BY: GRAHAM LANCASTER AND LEE O'CONNOR SOUTHERN CROSS U NIVERSITY A.B.N. 41 995 651 524 SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY

Military Road , East Lismore , NSW, 2480 Ph: 02 6620 3678 Fax: 02 6620 3957 Email: glancast @ scu.edu.au FOR: NDC (PLACE ENVIRONMENTAL) REPORT NO .: E7786

DATE: August 2007

Southern Cross UNIVERSITY A lieu' way to think E-1..ineni „1A.Mysk LnAorxtory

Holland Street Assessment

1 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratofy -Contaminated Land Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 6 4.0 SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................6 4.1 ZONING .............................................................................................................................................................6 4.2 LAND USE ........................................................................................................................................................6 4.3 BUILDING APPROVALS ....................................................................................................................................6 4.4 SITE USAGES ....................................................................................................................................................6 4.5 SITE AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................................................................................6 4.6 INVENTORY OF KNOWN CHEMICALS AND WASTES AND LOCATION .............................................................6 4.7 POSSIBLE CONTAMINANT SOURCES ................................................................................................................6 4.8 SITE LAYOUT PLANS ........................................................................................................................................6 4.9 SEWER AND SERVICE PLANS ...........................................................................................................................6 4.10 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ......................................................................................................................................6 4.11 HISTORIC USE OF ADJACENT LAND ..............................................................................................................6 4.12 LOCAL USAGE OF GROUND/SURFACE WATERS ...........................................................................................6 4.13 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................................................6

5.0 SITE CONDITION AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................7 5.1 TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................7 5.2 CONDITIONS AT SITE BOUNDARY ...................................................................................................................7 5.3 VISIBLE SIGNS OF CONTAMINATION ...............................................................................................................7 5.4 VISIBLE SIGNS OF PLANT STRESS ...................................................................................................................7 5.5 PRESENCE OF DRUMS, WASTES AND FILL MATERIALS .................................................................................7 5.6 ODOURS ............................................................................................................................................................7 5.7 FLOOD POTENTIAL ...........................................................................................................................................7 5.8 LOCAL SENSITIVITY ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................7

6.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .........................................................................................................7 6.1 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................7 6.2 LOCATION AND EXTENT OF IMPORTED AND LOCALLY DERIVED FILL ..........................................................7 6.3 SITE BORE HOLE TESTS ...................................................................................................................................7 6.4 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER TABLE ..................................................................................................................7 6.5 SUMMARY OF LOCAL METEOROLOGY ............................................................................................................7

7.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ...................................... 8 7.1 SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOS) ............................................................... 8 7.2 RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 7.3 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................9

8.0 BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 11 BACKGROUND LEVELS ........................................................................................................................................... 11

9.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 10.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION .................................................................................................................. 14 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 15 12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 16 DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Holland Street Assessment

2 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1: SITE LOCALITY .............................................................................................................................. 18 EXHIBIT 2: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE ................................................................................................... 19 EXHIBIT 3: COC AND SUBCONTRACTED RESULTS WITH QC/QA INFO ......................................... 22

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: MINIMUM SAMPLING POINTS REQUIRED FOR SITE CHARACTERISATION BASED ON DETECTING CIRCULAR HOT SPOTS BY USING A SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING PATTERN (NSW EPA, (1995)- CONTAMINATED SITES - SAMPLING DESIGN GUIDELINES ) .....................9 TABLE 2: GPS CO-ORDINATES OF SEVERAL SAMPLING SITES ......................................................... 10 TABLE 3: SOIL INVESTIGATION LEVELS FOR URBAN REDEVELOPMENT SITES IN NSW: COLUMN 1 "RESIDENTIAL WITH GARDENS AND ACCESSIBLE SOIL INCLUDING CHILDREN'S DAYCARE CENTRES, PRESCHOOLS, PRIMARY SCHOOLS, TOWN HOUSES OR VILLAS" (NSW EPA 1998 ) ..................................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 4: BACKGROUND RANGES FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS .......................................... 11 TABLE 5: ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SOIL ANALYSIS FOR HOLLAND STREET ......................... 12 TABLE 6: RANGES FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS AT HOLLAND STREET AND COMPARISON TO RELEVANT GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 14

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE STUDY SITE DISPLAYING THE LOCATION OF SOIL SAMPLING POINTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 2: GRAPH OF AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS AT HOLLAND STREET AND COMPARISON TO RELEVANT GUIDELINES .......................................................... 15 FIGURE 3: LOCATION OF THE STUDY SITE. SOURCE OF BASE MAP:WWW.WHERIS.COM.AU. FIGURE 4: WESTERN VIEW FROM SITE 5 ................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 5: WEST FACING PHOTO FROM SAMPLING SITE 8 ............................................................... 19 FIGURE 6: SOUTH VIEW FROM SAMPLING SITE 10 ................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 7: SOUTHERN VIEW OF THE STUDY SITE FROM SITE 11 .................................................... 20 FIGURE 8: SOUTHERN VIEW FROM SITE 22 .............................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 9: NORTHWEST VIEW FROM SITE 30 ........................................................................................... 21

Holland Street Assessment

3 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the investigation is to determine if land contamination has occurred from past land usage. To determine the type of contaminants that may be present in the soil profile, a basic history search was undertaken.

The site has been used in the past as vacant land with some minor grazing.

A site-sampling regime has been undertaken of the surface soils to determine if the site has been contaminated from heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides . The sampling regime involved the systematic collection of 48 individual soil samples ; these were composited into 12 samples for analysis.

The results of the soil analysis were compared with Column 1 of the NSW EPA (1998) `Contaminated Sites Guidelines ,for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme'. Column I presented Human - Based Investigation Levels (HBIL) for developments being `Residential with gardens and accessible soil including children's daycare centres , preschools , primary schools, town houses or villas'.

It is considered that the site can be classified as uncontaminated for the proposed residential subdivision.

All analysis results had contaminant levels well below Column I HBIL and therefore a detailed investigation or site remediation is not required.

Holland Street Assessment

4 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Analysis Laboratory has been commissioned by Newton Denny Chapelle to undertake a preliminary investigation for Contaminated Lands for proposed 28 lot subdivision 20 Holland Street Goonellabah. The area of land for development is approximately 4.26ha and each dwelling site is considered <2000m2. One of the concessional lots present on the site is to be left as a public reserve and hence a contamination assessment of this lot site is not required at this time.

The purpose of this report is to determine if the site has been contaminated from current or past land usage. To determine if a site has been contaminated, soil samples have been collected and analysed for a range of contaminants. To assess contamination, the results of the analysis are compared to the relevant EPA acceptable levels. As the proposed development is to be residential, the soil analysis results are compared with the NSW EPA (1998) Column 1 of the Table "Soil Investigation Levels for Urban Redevelopment Sites in NSW" page 30 and ANZECC and National Health and Medical Research Council (1992) Table 2 "Environmental Soil Quality Guidelines" page 40.

This investigation is Stage I of the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines (DUAP and EPA, 1998). If contamination levels exceed the EPA acceptable levels, a detailed investigation is then required in accordance with DUAP and EPA (1998), being Stage 2. If the contamination levels are below the relevant acceptable levels and information gathered as part of the investigation also supports that contamination was unlikely to have occurred, Stage I only would be required.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK This investigation is a preliminary investigation, forming Stage 1 of a contaminated land assessment of the subject site in accordance with Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines (DUAP and EPA, 1998).

This preliminary investigation is used to identify the following: • Past and present potentially contaminating activities, • Potential contamination types.

The investigation will also: Discuss the site condition, Provide a preliminary assessment of the site contamination and Assess the need for further investigations.

The relevant guidelines used for the investigation are as follows: ANZECC and NHMRC ( 1992) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites Council of Standards Australia (1997) AS 4482.1-1997 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil - Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds NSW EPA (1998) Contaminated Sites - Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme NSW EPA (1995) Contaminated Sites - Sampling Design Guidelines NSW EPA (1997) Guidelines for Consultants Reporting Contaminated Sites Methodology used in this investigation included: • Soil analysis, where soil samples were collected and tested to determine the presence and extent of metals and organochlorine pesticides. Surface samples (0 - 200mm depth) were collected from.

• Mark Rosicky of the Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) undertook all soil sampling.

• All samples were collected using a stainless steel auger and spade, placed in plastic bags and hexane-rinsed glass bottles. Metals analysis was conducted by EAL whilst analysis of pesticides was subcontracted to Labmark.

• All results were combined at the EAL for the completion of the report.

• Results were compared with the NSW EPA (1998) Column 1 of the Table "Soil Investigation Levels for Urban Redevelopment Sites in NSW" page 30 and ANZECC and NHMRC (1992) Table 2 "Environmental Soil Quality Guidelines" page 40.

• The report is written in accordance with NSW EPA (1997) Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contain incited Sites.

Holland Street Assessment

5 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

3.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION The site is formally known as lot 2 DP 1021834, 20 Holland Street Goonellabah. The area of land for development is approximately 4.26ha.

A copy of the subject site location is presented as Figure 1 and Exhibit 1.

4.0 SITE HISTORY

4.1 Zoning The site is zoned rural/ residential- non-urban I a.

4.2 Land Use Current land use is vacant land with historically some minor grazing.

4.3 Building Approvals Not applicable to this study.

4.4 Site Usages Documentation on the past usages of the site has shown that it has mainly been used for grazing agriculture.

4.5 Site and Aerial Photographs Site photos are presented in Exhibit 2 however aerial photos were not considered necessary.

4.6 Inventory of Known Chemicals and Wastes and Location Not applicable to this study.

4.7 Possible Contaminant Sources Agriculture/ horticultural activities are considered to have been restricted to grazing.

4.8 Site Layout Plans Exhibit 2 indicates that presently there are no buildings or roads located on the site.

4.9 Sewer and Service Plans Not applicable to this study.

4.10 Local Knowledge Not applicable to this study.

4.11 Historic Use of Adjacent Land Believed to be principally grazing.

4.12 Local Usage of Ground/ Surface Waters The local usage of ground and surface waters does not apply to this study as only contaminated land is being investigated.

4.13 Integrity Assessment The information provided seems to be accurate as site inspections and soil analysis results have indicated so.

Holland Street Assessment

6 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

5.0 SITE CONDITION AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT 5.1 Topography The site is relatively flat with some undulation. Elevation is approximately 140-160m AHD. 5.2 Conditions at Site Boundary The site is surrounded by residential development or vacant land.

5.3 Visible Signs of Contamination The subject site was investigated on foot in order to examine any signs of contamination. No signs of contamination were evident.

There were no clearly-visible signs of contamination on the neighbouring property.

5.4 Visible Signs of Plant Stress There were no visible signs of plant stress.

5.5 Presence of Drums, Wastes and Fill Materials No waste disposal was evident, and no site fill was evident.

5.6 Odours There were no odours present on the site or when excavating soils.

5.7 Flood Potential Not applicable to this study.

5.8 Local Sensitivity Environment No local sensitive environment (i.e. SEPP) is present or adjacent to the site.

6.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 6.1 Soil Stratigraphy The soils are generally clay to clay loam in texture.

6.2 Location and Extent of Imported and Locally Derived Fill No fill is identified.

6.3 Site Bore Hole Tests Not applicable to this study.

6.4 Depth to Groundwater Table No groundwater investigation is required in this study.

6.5 Summary of Local Meteorology The average annual rainfall in Lismore is 1343mm, with the highest volume of rainfall falling in December through to March. The driest months are August and September.

Holland Street Assessment

7 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

7.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 7.1 Sampling, Analysis and Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) The objective of this investigation is to gather information with regard to the type, location, level and extent of contaminants to determine if the site is contaminated from past usage. To determine this, soil sampling and laboratory analysis has been undertaken of the soil on site.

7.2 Rationale A systematic sampling grid of approximately 21m has been used with 48 individual samples being taken and composited into 12 samples for analysis. Figure 1 below indicates the sampling grid used in this study. Refer to Table 1 below for relevant sampling density.

Samples were analysed for a full range of heavy metals and organochlorine (OC) pesticides (includes Aldrin, Cis-chlordane, Trans-chlordane, HCB, DDD, DDE, DDT, Alpha-BHC, Beta-BHC, Delta-BHC, Lindane, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptachor epoxide, Alpha-endosulfan, Beta-endosulfan, Endosulfan sulfate, Methoxychlor). Selected composite samples only were tested for the pesticides due to the unlikely presence of pesticides. Other samples were stored awaiting additional testing if either elevated arsenic was detected in any of these samples or any pesticides were detected above detection limits for samples tested.

Organophosphate (OP) pesticides (includes Dichlorvos, Phosdrin, Demeton (total), Ethoprop, Monocrotophos, Phorate, Dimethoate, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Methyl parathion, Chloropyrifos, Ronne], Parathion, Stirofos, Prothiofos, Azinophos methyl, Coumaphos, Fenitrothion, Fenthion, Malathion) were only analysed if historical site history identified any likelihood of these pesticides occurring or if elevated levels of OC or arsenic were identified at the site (ie. samples are stored for OP analysis if required). The bacterial decomposition of OP pesticide is very rapid and the occurrence of elevated levels of OP's in the environment is rare (ie. based on over 1000 soils analysed in soils of Northern NSW by EAL).

The metals manganese and chromium were not analysed in the soil as potential site contaminants as no sources of manganese or chromium contamination for the site are evident. These two metals are also in significant background concentrations in the volcanic basalt derived soils in this region. Data can be provided on request

by EAL showing the high background manganese (i.e. 1780ppm Mn average of 800 soils) and chromium (i.e.

55ppm Cr average of 800 soils) concentrations in the region and correlation with each other and with iron and aluminium (i.e. dominant metals in clay minerals). The NSW EPA 1995 guidelines allows the option of removing background concentrations from site assessment levels hence in many cases reducing potentially elevated levels to negligible levels of no concern.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) were not analysed, as a source of PCB contamination was not identified (i.e.

PCB sources identified from electrical supply industry or mining). Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile TPH (i.e. BTEX), and Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) were not analysed on the soils as these organic analytes are only typically analysed for service station sites, industrial sites or at sites with above or under ground onsite hydrocarbon storage.

The broad analysis undertaken on the soil samples was to determine the presence of contaminants on the site from known potentially contaminating activities and also covers possible contaminating activities such as intensive agriculture and horticulture.

Holland Street Assessment

8 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Table 1 : Minimum Sampling Points Required for Site Characterisation Based on Detecting Circular Hot Spots by Using a Systematic Sampling Pattern (NSW EPA, ( 1995)- Contaminated Sites - Sampling Design Guidelines) Size of Site Size of Site Number of Equivalent Diameter of the hot (hectare) ( m) Sampling Points Sampling Density spot that can be (1 hectare = recommended ( points per hectare) detected with 95% 10,000m) confidence (metre) 0.1 1000 6 60.0 15.2 0.2

2000

7

35.0

19.9

0.5

5000

13

26.0

23.1

1

10,000

21

21.0

25.7

1.5

15,000

25

16.7

28.9

2.0

20,000

30

15.0

30.5

3.0

30,000

40

13.3

32.4

4.0

40,000

50

12.5

33.4

5.0

50,000

55

11.0

35.6

7.3 Sampling Methodology Samples were collected using a hand auger and stainless steel spade, with soil being placed in snap lock plastic sample bags and hexane-rinsed glass bottles for pesticides.

All soil samples were placed into an esky with ice bricks, and delivered to the Environmental Analysis Laboratory at Southern Cross University, Lismore. Metals analysis was conducted by the Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) and quality control included blanks, duplicates and traceable certified NIST (National Institute of Standards Technology) reference soil in every sample batch. Analysis is conducted using a Perkin Elmer DV4300 ICPOES (Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry) with confirmation and level analysis of all samples using a Perkin Elmer ELAN6000 ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry). Chain of custody forms, laboratory quality assurance and laboratory quality control documentation are available on request.

The analysis of pesticides was subcontracted to the NATA-registered Labmark laboratory (refer to Exhibit 3 for subcontracted results with all QA/QC results).

Holland Street Assessment

9 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmenta l Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Legend: 1 Soil sampling point Sampling sites are approximately 25.5m apart

Figure 1: Map of the study site displaying the location of soil sampling points.

Table 2: GPS Co-ordinates of several samnlinE sites.

Co-ordinates Site 1 56J0533625E/UTM6812282N Site 4 56J0533701 E/UTM6812260N Site 8 56J0533594E/UTM6812229N Site 12 56J0533567E/UTM6812183N Site 16 56J0533657E/UTM6812186N 56J0533623E/UTM6812161N Site 18 Site 23 56J0533629E/UTM6812126N

Holland Street Assessment

Site 27 Site 28 Site 33 Site 38 Site 43 Site 44 Site 47

Co-ordinates 56J0533708E/UTM6812134N 56J0533652E/UTM6812106N 56JO533671 E/UTM6812090N 56J0533703E/UTM6812053N 56J0533724E/UTM6812029N 56J0533672E/UTM681201IN 56J0533697E/UTM6811985N

10 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

8.0 BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The acceptable limits of the parameters tested are based on the NSW EPA (1998) Contaminated Sites Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme. In particular Column 1 of Table "Soil Investigation Levels for Urban Redevelopment Sites in NSW" page 30. Column 1 relates to "Residential with gardens and accessible soil including children's daycare centres, preschools, primary schools, town houses or villas". The tested parameters are presented in Table 3 Table 3: Soil Investigation Levels for Urban Redevelopment Sites in NSW: Column 1 "Residential with gardens and accessible soil including children 's daycare centres, preschools , primary schools, town houses or villas" (NSW EPA 1998) Substance Acceptable Limit Modified Acceptable Column 1 (mg/kg) Limit Column 1 (mg/kg)

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium (VI) Copper Manganese Nickel Lead Zinc Mercury OC's (aldrin and dieldrin) OC's (DDT)

(divided by 4 for composites of 4 samples) 25 5 25 250 375 150 75 1750 3.75 2.5 50

100 20 100 1000 1500 600 300 7000 15 10 200

Background Levels Metals occur naturally within soils and are a natural constituent of geological materials that erode and assist in the formation of soils. The background levels of metals analysed, obtained from ANZECC and NHMRC (1992) Table 3 "Environmental Soil Quality Guidelines" page 40, are presented in Table 4 Table 4: Background Ranges for Potential Contaminants Pollutant Background Range ( mg/kg) Arsenic

0.2 - 30

Lead

<2 - 200

Cadmium

0.04-2

Copper

1-190

Nickel

2-400

Zinc

2-180

Manganese

4- 12,600

Chromium

0.5 - 1 10 (possible underestimate)

Mercury

0.001-0.1

9.0 RESULTS The results from the soil testing regime are shown on the following pages. The soil sampling numbers correlate with the soil sampling locations as shown on Figure 1.

Holland Street Assessment

11 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Table 5 : Analytical Results of Soil Analysis for Holland Street RESULTS OF SOIL ANALYSIS (Page 1 of 2) 48 sal samples collected by EAL for NDC on 14th August 2037 - Lab Job No. E 6686 Sal samples supplied were ccmposited by EAL into 12 composite samples hr analysis Analysis requested by Damien Chapelle YourJob : Holland Street Goonellabah

ANALYTE

METHOD

REFERENCE Job No.

Composite Sample 1 (1 ,2.3 4)

Composite Sample 2 78

Composite Sample 3 , 1 c 11 , 12)

Composite Sample4 (1 3 14. 1 5. 1

Composite Sample 5 171 1 20

Composite Sample 6 (2 1 ., 24)

Composite Acceptable Limit Column 1

Background Ran e

E7/86/1

E77862

E77863

E7786r4

E778&S

E7786'

Seenoe l

Seerae2

MOISTURE %

c

..

24

..

26

..

26

SILVER (mgA(g DW) ARSENIC (mg, g DW) LEAD (mgA(g DW) CADMIUM (mgA(g DW) COPPER (mgA(g DW)

a a a a a

0.4

22 11.8 0.2 19.9

0.4 29 11.9 0.2 17.2

0.3 24 23.9 0.1 17.9

0.3 26 16.6 0.1 16.1

3.0 25 21.9 0.2 16.5

0.3 23 20.2 0.1 19.1

na <25 <75 eS 050

na 0.230 0200 Q0420 1-190

NICKEL (mgA(g DW) SELENIUM (mgA(g DW)

a a

38.1 0.6

31.6 0.4

36.0 0.5

36.1 <0. 1

40.3 <0.1

38.0 0.3

<150 na

2-400 na

ZINC (mgA(g DW)

a

134.0

111.9

1187

110.4

110.8

114.4

<1750

2-180

MERCURY (mgA(g DW)

a

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.5

e3.75

Q001L11

IRON (5 6 DW) ALUMINIUM ()6 DW)

b b

11.04 7.35

11.36 6.10

10.08 6.73

1077 7.13

10. 14 E90

9.85 7.43

na na

na na

C C C

.. .. ..

<Q2 412 4105

.. .. ..

<0.2 <0.2 4105

.. .. ..

<0.2 <0.2 4105

<50 Q.5 19-5

41.2 412 4105

PESTICIDE ANALYSIS SCREEN 4, 4DDT (mgA(g )

Methoxychlor (mgArg ) Other Organochlorine Pesticides (mgA(g ) METHODS REFERENCE a. ':'NitricMCl cigest - APHA 3120 ICPMS b. ':' NitiicMCI cigest - APHA 31201CPOES c. Analysis sub-contracted - results attached NOTES

1. Column 1 'Residential with gardens and accessible scil including chillers daycare centres, preschools, primary schools, town houses or 1as' (NSW EPA 1998) a Endrenmental Sol Quality G ubelines, Page 40, ANZECC, 1992 Additional NOTES DW = Dry Weight Orgarxechlcrine pesticide (OC's) screen: (Alchn, Cis-chlordane, Trans-chlordane, HCB, DDD, DDE, DDT, Alpha-BHC, Beta-BHC, Delta-BHC, Lindane, Dieldin, Endin, Heptachlor, Heptachor epoxide, Alpha-endosdbn, Beta-endmdbn, E ndosulfan sulfate, Metho ychlor) na = no guidelirxs available

Holland Street Assessment

12 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

RESULTS OF SOIL ANALYSIS (Page 2of 2) 48 soil samples collected by EAL br NDC on 14th August 2007- Lab Job No. E6686 Soil samples supplied were composited by EAL into 12 composite samples br analysis Analysis requested by Damien Chapelle

YourJob: Holland Street Goonellabah

ANALYTE

Composite Sample 8 3132

Composite Sample 9 34

Composite Sample 10 40

Composite Sample 11 (41 .42. 43.44)

Composite Sample 12 (45.4 47. 48)

Composite Acceptable Limit Column 1

Background Ran e

E77 /7

E77L7v8

E77Ldv9

E77 /70

E77%41

E77 /72

SeenoE7

See not- 2

Composite METHOD Sample 7 REFERENCE M2R2428) Job No.

MOISTURE %

c

..

26

..

21

..

28

SILVER (mgA(g DW) ARSENIC (mgA(g DW) LEAD (mgA(g DW) CADMIUM (mgA(g DW) COPPER (mgA(g DW)

a a a a a

Q3 21 24.0 0.1 20.1

0.3 1.8 25.1 0.2 222

0.3 22 21.5 0.2 34.8

0.3 1.8 221

0.3 1.6 28.1 0.1 18.8

0.2 1.3 26.7 0.1 19.2

na Q5 <75 .5 <250

X200 Q0420 1-190

NICKEL (mg)Kg DW) SELENIUM (mgA(g DW) ZINC (mg)Kg DW) MERCURY (mgA(g DW)

a a a a

37.4 10.1 125.6 0.4

33.4 10.1 131.4 0.4

36.9 <0.1 129.4

30.3

0.4

115.0 0.4

26.8 <0.1 118.8 0.4

21.1 <0.1 110.6 0.3

<150 na <1750 13.75

2-400 na 2-180 0.001.11

IRON (% DW) ALUMINIUM (V6 DW)

b b

9.90 7.77

10.23 7.16

9.97 6.90

10.41 6.56

10.35 6.10

10.76 5.51

na na

na na

c C C

.. .. ..

10.2 <0.2 10.05

.. .. ..

<0.2 <0.2

.. .. ..

4.2 <0.2 10.05

<50 ^915 Q.5

d12 412 -405

PESTICIDE ANALYSIS SCREEN 4,4 DDT (mgA(g )

Methoxychlor (mgA(g) Other Organochlorine Pesticides (mgA(g )

0.1

19.5

4.1

10.05

METHODS REFERENCE a. r3NitricMCl digest-APHA 31201CPMS b. 1.3 NitricMCl digest -APHA 31201CP O E S c . Analysis subcontracted - results attached NOTES 1. Column 1 ' Residential with gardens and accessible soil including children daycare centres, preschools, primary schools, torn houses or ullas' (NSW EPA 1998) 2 E nuronmental Soil Quality G uidelines, Page 4Q ANZECC, 1992, Additional NOTES DW = Dry Weight 0rganochlonne pesticide (OC's) screen: (Aldrin, Cischlordane, Trans-chlordane, HCB, DDD, DDE, DDT, Alpha-BHC, Beta-BHC, Delta-BHC, Lirdane, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptachor epoxide, Alpha-endosulfan, Beta-erdosulfan, Enclosullan sullte, Methoxychbr) na = no guidelines a\ailable

Holland Street Assessment

13 SEPTEMBER 2007

na

a230

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

10.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION The only potential source of contamination identified at the subject site is from grazing agricultural activities.

Other possible sources are from the adjacent residential development and subsequent runoff and waste/rubbish disposal.

The results indicate no soil contamination of the site by any of the broad range of metals and pesticides. Refer to Table 6 and Figure 2 below for summary of all results and direct comparison to guidelines.

Table 6 : Ranges for Potential Contaminants at Holland Street and comparison to relevant guidelines Composite Acceptable Average concentration Concentration Range Limit ( mg/kg) ( mg/kg) ( mg/kg) for Residential with Pollutant Accessible Gardens Arsenic

2.1

1.3-2.9

<25

Lead

21.1

11.8-28.1

<75

Cadmium

0.2

0.1-0.2

<5

Copper

20.1

16.1 -34.8

<250

Nickel

33.8

21.1 -40.3

<150

Zinc

119.2

110.4 - 134.0

<1750

Mercury

0.4

0.3-0.6

<3.75

Organochlorines

<0.5

<0.5

<2.5

The mercury concentrations in the soils are marginally above expected background levels for this region but well within guidelines for assessment of contamination. Copper is often associated with fungicides and horticultural landuse but the levels at this site are very low and well within expected background levels. Arsenic is extremely low and well below background levels. No pesticides were present above analytical detection limits in the samples analysed.

Holland Street Assessment 14 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Contamination Averages compared to Guidelii 1

ZINC (Guideline ppm)

4 750

ZINC (average ppm)

NICKEL ( Guideline ppm)

150

NICKEL ( average ppm)

34

COPPER ( Guideline ppm)

1250

COPPER ( average ppm)

j20 1

CADMIUM

(Guideline ppm)

gs 0.2

CADMIUM ( average ppm)

LEAD ( Guideline ppm)

75

LEAD ( average ppm) J21

ARSENIC ( Guideline ppm) I W25 ARSENIC ( average ppm ) I+112.1

0.0

100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

Figure 2 : Graph of Average Concentration of Contaminants at Holland Street and comparison to relevant guidelines The results of the soil analysis, comparing the laboratory results with Table 3 above (the acceptable level for each parameter), indicate that the areas tested are not contaminated, in accordance with NSW EPA (1994 and 1998).

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The soil-sampling regime was based on a systematic sampling pattern. The soil analysis confirmed the background site history of no metal or pesticide contamination of the soil.

It is considered that the site can be classified as uncontaminated for the proposed residential subdivision.

All composite analysis results had contaminant levels well below the modified Column 1 HBIL and therefore no individual soil analysis was required and a detailed investigation or site remediation is not required.

Holland Street Assessment

15 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

12.0 REFERENCES Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (1992).

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, 57p.

Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology (2004). Averages for Major Cites and Towns [Online], Available: http://www.bom.aov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw 058009.shtml.

Council of Standards Australia (1997). AS 4482.1-1997 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil - Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds. Council of Standards Australia, 50p.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Environment Protection Authority (1998). Managing Land Contamination, Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land.

Lancaster , GJ (2006 ). Assessment of Total Soil Manganese and Chromium in Basaltic Soils of the North Coast, NSW. Unpublished Report, EAL, SCU, Lismore, NSW. NEPC ( 1999). Schedule B (1) Guidelines on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater . National Environmental Protection , Assessment of Site Contamination.

NSW EPA (1993) Environmental Guidelines for Cattle Tick Dip Sites. NSW EPA, Chatswood.

NSW EPA (1994). Service Station Guidelines for Sensitive Landuse - Soils NSW EPA (1995). Contaminated Sites - Sampling Design Guidelines. NSW EPA, Chatswood, 35p.

NSW EPA (1997) Guidelines for째 Consultants Reporting Contaminated Sites. NSW EPA, Chatswood, 22p.

NSW EPA (1997) Guidelines for Assessing Banana Plantation Sites. NSW EPA, Chatswood.

NSW EPA (1998) Contaminated Sites - Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme. NSW EPA, Sydney South, 57p.

Holland Street Assessment

16 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Summary of Experience and Qualifications.

The Environmental Analysis Laboratory, which is part of Southern Cross University, consists of a large range of analysts, chemists, environmental managers and scientists. The qualifications, contained by the persons of the company, include: • Doctorate of Applied Science (Environmental Management) • Bachelor of Applied Science (Coastal Management) • Honours in Applied Science • Diploma in Chemistry We have a wide range of experience and worked on a number of varied projects, which include: • Contamination Assessment Reports for Residential, Industrial and Commercial Sites • Acid Sulfate soil assessment and management • Petrochemical assessment and rehabilitation • Analysis and Rehabilitation of dipsites • Assessment of former banana plantations • Assessment of disposal and reuse of Biosolids • Assessment of general agricultural and residential sites.

Southern Cross University has the following Public/ Professional Liability:

UNIMUTUAL Agent : ANZU MUTUAL ASSOCIATION LTD Certificate of Entry No : UL SCU 07

DISCLAIMER The Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) as part of Southern Cross University has conducted work concerning the environmental status of the property, which is the subject of this report, and has prepared this report on the basis of that assessment.

The work was conducted, and the report has been prepared, in response to specific instructions from the client or a representative of the client to whom this report is addressed, within the time and budgetary requirements of the client, and in reliance on certain data and information made available to EAL. The analysis, evaluations, opinions and conclusions presented in this report are based on that information, and they could change if the information is in fact inaccurate or incomplete.

EAL has made no allowance to update this report and has not taken into account events occurring after the time its assessment was conducted.

This report is intended for the sole use of the client and only for the purpose for which it was prepared. Any representation contained in the report is made only to the client unless otherwise noted in the report. Any third party who relies on this report or on any representation contained in it does so at their own risk.

Holland Street Assessment

17 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

EXHIBIT 1: SITE LOCALITY

I0

c^^â&#x153;&#x201C;^ ono ^ c^;6G,o

PINE"vi Elo

u p acv

,f

C

^:^'suAp T^ c ti.

0

r

^.f'v =R PJ

800 m 7

Figure 3: Location of the study site. Source of base map:www.wheris .com.au.

Holland Street Assessment

18 SEPTEMBER 2007

@200-

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

EXHIBIT 2: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE

YR'101^9ffi4 SN{Yf'1^]1^61ER ^3SiLU1:tl.VA^i1[1N速Li^rt^Yl.}ia^i^NL^S

Figure 4: Western view from Site 5.

Figure 5: West facing photo from sampling Site 8.

Holland Street Assessment

19 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory - Contaminated Land Assessment

WAM

Figure 6: South view from sampling site 10.

Figure 7: Southern view of the study site from Site 11.

Holland Street Assessment

20 SEPTEMBER 2007

Environmental Analysis Laboratory -Contaminated Land Assessment

Figure 8 : Southern view from Site 22.

MAIM

Figure 9: Northwest view from Site 30.

Holland Street Assessment

21 SEPTEMBER 2007

97%

77%

--

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 91%

--0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 92% <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 94%

99% X8%

-17'8/07 20/8/07

QC

108096d

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <(1.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2

-14/8/07 17/8/07 23/8/07

E7786/12

108101

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 .--0.2 <0.2

-14/8/07 17/8/07 20/8/07

E7786/10

E7786/8 -14/8/07 17/8/07 20/8/07

108100

108099

-------------------20%

Ics

108%

108%

99%

120% 106% 110% 108% 109% 113% 116% 110% 110% 112% 113% 116% 114%

113%

120%

-17/8/07 20/8/07

QC

108% 110% 111% 108% 108% 107% 108% 113 째16 109% 110% 110% 109% 109% 110째/1, 111% 107% 111% 107% 111% 116% 118% 113%

-17/8.!07 23/8/07

QC

QC

----

108097s

108096r

11 17A LabMark Pty Ltd ABN 27 079 798 397 SYDNEY : Unit 1, 8 Leighton Place Asquith NSW 2077 Telephone: (02) 9476 6533 Fax: (02 ) 9476 8219 MELBOURNE : 116 Moray Street , South Melbourne VIC 3205 Telephone: (03) 9686 8344 Fax: (03) 9686 7344

00132: 8-log soil extracted with 20nil hexane!acctone (1:1). Analysis by GC/dual ECD.

Conmlents.

<0.05 <0.05 <0.2

<0.05

<0.2

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <=0.05

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2

EQL 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 .05 0.2 0.2

Result, c\pressed in mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise specified

Method : E013.2 Organochlorine Pesticides (OC) a-131 1C Hexachlorobenzenc b-B1IC g-1311C (Lindane) d-BHC Heptachlor Aldrin Heptachlor epoxide trans-chlordane Endosulfan I cis-chlordane Dieldrin 4,4-DDE Endrin Endosulfan 11 4,4-DDD Endosulfan sulphate 4,4-DDT Methoxvchlor DBC'Sta-r'ii, 0.27ng/k,)

-14/8.07 17/8/07 20/8/07

Depth (in) Sampling Date recorded on COC Laboratory Extraction (Preparation) Date Laboratory Analysis Date -14/8/07 17/8/07 20/8/07

117786/6

E7786/4

E7786/2

Sample Identification -14/8/07 17/8/07 20/8/07

108098

108097

E7786

Client Reference: 108096

Date : 24/08/07 'I his report supercede, reports issued on NM

Graham Lancaster

Contact Name:

Laboratory Identification

Certificate

Environmental Analysis Laboratory of Analvsis

Final

Page: 1 of 3 plus cover page

E033570

Laboratory Report No:

Client Name:

11

0.05 0-05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2

0.2 --

a-BHC Hexachlorobenzene b-BI-IC g-BFIC (Lindane) d-BI IC Heptachlor Aldrin Heptachlor epoxide trans-chlordane Endosulfan 1 cis-chlordane Dieldrin 4,4-DDE Endrin Endosulfan II 4,4-DDD Endosulfan sulphate

4,4-DDT

Methoxychlor

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 105%

17/8/07 20/8/07

LabMark Pty Ltd ABN 27 079 798 397 SYDNEY : Unit 1 , 8 Leighton Place Asquith NSW 2077 Telephone: (02) 9476 6533 Fax: (02) 9476 8219 MELBOURNE : 116 Moray Street, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Telephone: (03) 9686 8344 Fax : (03) 9686 7344

['013.2: 8-IOg soil extracted with 20m1 hexane,/acetone (1:1). Analysis by GC/dual LCD.

Comments:

Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise specified

DBC (.Surr a, 0?ml/kg)

EQL

Organochlorine Pesticides (OC)

Method : E013.2

Laboratory Extraction (Preparation) Date Laboratory Analysis Date

---

Depth (m)

Sampling Date recorded on COC

nil QC

Laboratory Identification

E7786

Client Reference:

Sample Identification

Graham Lancaster

Contact Name: This report supercedes reports issued on WA

Date: 24 /08/07 of Analysis _

Certificate

plus cover page

Environmental Analysis Laboratory

Page: 2 of 3 Final

E033570

Laboratory Report No: Client Name:

11

-26

-14/8/07 17/8/07 18/8/07

E7786/4

26

-14/8/07 17/8107 18/8/07

E7786/6

26

21

14/8/07 17/8/07 18/8/07

E7736/10

E7786/8

14/8/07 17/8/07 18/8/07

108100

108099

28

14/8/07 17/8/07 18/8/07

E7786/12

108101

23

17/8/07 18/8/07

--

QC

108096d

4%

---

QC

108096r

of Analysis Y'.

LabMark Pty Ltd ABN 27 079 798 397 SYDNEY: Unit 1, 8 Leighton Place Asquith NSW 2077 Telephone: (02) 9476 6533 Fax: (02) 9476 8219 MELBOURNE: 116 Moray Street, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Telephone: (03) 9686 8344 Fax: (03) 9686 7344

E0052: Moisture by gravimetric analysis. Results are in % w/w.

Comments:

Results expressed in % w/w unless otherwise specified

EQL

Moisture

Moisture

24

-14/8/07 17/8/07 18/8/07

Depth (m) Sampling Date recorded on COC Laboratory Extraction (Preparation) Date Laboratory Analysis Date

Method : E005.2

E7786/2

Sample Identification

108098

This report superecdes reports issued on, N/A

108097

E7786 108096

Client Reference:

LaboratoryIdentitication

Date: 24/08/07

Contact Name:

Certificate

plus cover page

Environmental Analysis Laboratory Graham Lancaster

Client Name:

Final

Page: 3 of 3

E033570

Laboratory Report No:

ATTACHMENT 5 Bushfire Threat Assessment Report Bushfire Certifiers

TM

BUSHFIRE THREAT ASSESSMENT REPORT 100B

Proposed 28-Lot Subdivision and Public Reserve Lot 2 DP 1021834 Holland Street, Goonellabah

Peter Thornton BPAD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Certified Practitioner 25 November 2013

Prepared by:

BCA Check Pty Ltd t/a Bushfire Certifiers TM Bushfire and Building Consultants 4/57 Ballina Street Lennox Head NSW 2478 Australia (PO Box 375 LENNOX HEAD NSW 2478) ABN 95104451210 T: 02 66877461 F: 02 66876295 E: peter@bushfirecertifiers.com.au

Peter Thornton BCA Check Pty Ltd BPAD-A Certified Practitioner No. 14867 MFireSafeEng Building Surveyor MAIBS

DOCUMENT CONTROL Revision No.

Date

A

25.11.2013

Description Final

Prepared

Checked

Scott Sewell

PJT

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

Authorised Peter Thornton

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................

Introduction ..........................................................................................................

2.1 General 2.2 Significant Environmental Features 2.3 Report Details Proposed Development .........................................................................................

Bushfire Threat Assessment ..................................................................................

Asset Protection Zones and Construction Standards ............................................

Water and Utility Services .....................................................................................

6.1 Water Services 6.2 Gas Services 6.3 Electricity Services Access ....................................................................................................................

Alternate Solution – Access ...................................................................................

Landscaping ...........................................................................................................

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................

15 15 20 20

References ......................................................................................................................

Appendices .....................................................................................................................

21 22

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

4 5

7 9 12 14

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1

Bushfire Threat Assessment ......................................................................

10

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6

Location of Lot 2 DP 1021834 ....................................................................

Proposed 28-lot residential subdivision and 1 public reserve ...................

Bushfire threat analysis .............................................................................

Tree removal plan ......................................................................................

Lismore City Council bushfire prone land map ……………………………………….

Asset Protection Zones onsite and offsite .................................................

8 9 10 11 12 13

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

3

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report has assessed the proposed 28-lot subdivision and public reserve of Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street, Goonellabah with the requirements clause 44 of the Rural Fires Regulation for an application for a Bush Fire Safety Authority.

The report has demonstrated compliance with each of the heads of consideration appropriate to the acceptable solutions criteria of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

The following table is a summary of the recommendations and method of assessment for each of the heads of consideration.

MEASURE APZ Required

Water Supply

Electricity Supply Gas Supply Construction Standards Landscape Access

RECOMMENDATION An Inner Protection Area (IPA) is provided partially on the residual land and the new private allotments to allow future buildings to comply with AS 3959-2009.

Water supply is capable of being compliant with PBP2006. Street hydrants to provide coverage to AS 2419-2005 Electricity supply to be located below ground level Gas supply to comply with PBP2006 The future dwellings are capable of complying with BAL 29 AS 3959-2009.

Landscaping is to comply with Appendix 5 of PBP2006.

Public roads are to comply with section 4.1.3(1) of PBP2006 except where varied by this report.

ASSESSMENT Acceptable Solution

Acceptable Solution

Acceptable Solution Acceptable Solution Acceptable Solution Acceptable Solution Alternate Solution

It is recommended that a Bush Fire Safety Authority be granted subject to the following conditions.

1. Any future dwellings on the proposed lots are to be assessed in accordance with s79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

2. Each allotment is to be maintained as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document Standards for Asset Protection Zones.

3. A 9 metre wide strip to the northwest of proposed Lots 14 and 16 is to be maintained as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document Standards for Asset Protection Zones. In this regard a vegetation management plan (VMP) is to be prepared for the 9m APZ on the public reserve.

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

4

4. The public road is to comply with s4.1.3(1) of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 with exception to the requirement for a perimeter road and the dead-end to be less than 200 metres in length. The turning circle is to have a minimum 10 metre outer radius.

5. Water, electricity and gas services shall comply with s4.1.3 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

2.0

INTRODUCTION

2.1

GENERAL

The applicant is proposing to subdivide existing Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street, Goonellabah to create 28 allotments and a public reserve. The subdivision is for residential purposes and in this regard will not be identified as a special fire protection purpose. Under the provisions of section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 as amended, a Bush Fire Safety Authority (BFSA) is required from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service.

The report has been prepared to address the requirements of clause 44 of the Rural Fires Regulation, application for Bush Fire Safety Authority and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and addresses the following:

description (including the address) of the property on which the development the subject of the application is to be carried out,

classification of the vegetation on and surrounding the property (out to a distance of 140 metres from the boundaries of the property) in accordance with the system for classification of vegetation contained in Planning for Bush Fire Protection,

an assessment of the slope of the land on and surrounding the property (out to a distance of 100 metres from the boundaries of the property),

a bush fire assessment for the proposed development (including the methodology used in the assessment) that addresses the following matters:

the extent to which the development is to provide for setbacks, including asset protection zones,

the siting and adequacy of water supplies for fire fighting,

the capacity of public roads in the vicinity to handle increased volumes of traffic in the event of a bush fire emergency,

whether or not public roads in the vicinity that link with the fire trail network have two-way access,

the adequacy of arrangements for access to and egress from the development site for the purposes of an emergency response,

the adequacy of bush fire maintenance plans and fire emergency procedures for the development site,

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

5

the construction standards to be used for building elements in the development,

the adequacy of sprinkler systems and other fire protection measures to be incorporated into the development,

an assessment of the extent to which the proposed development conforms with or deviates from the standards, specific objectives and performance criteria set out in Chapter 4 (Performance Based Controls) of Planning for Bush Fire Protection.

The recommendations within this report address the aim and objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 to reduce the risk of ignition of the dwellings in a bushfire event.

It is noted however that bushfire is a natural phenomenon and there can never be any guarantee that a building or occupants will not be adversely affected by bushfire.

2.2

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

An assessment is to be undertaken with regard to: •

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (Koala Habitat Protection).

•

Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).

•

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

•

National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 (Wildlife Atlas)

•

Native Vegetation Act 2003

This report does not consider the above legislation and in this regard this report should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application.

2.3

REPORT DETAILS

Report Reference No.:

13/259

Property Address:

Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street, Goonellabah

Client:

P. & R. Kirkland

Local Government Area:

Lismore City Council

Proposal:

28-lot subdivision + public reserve

Drawings:

Newton Denny Chapelle, dated 14.11.2013

Report Prepared By:

Peter Thornton MFireSafeEng Building Surveyor (MAIBS) BPAD – A Certified Practitioner

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

6

3.0

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is for a 28-lot subdivision and public reserve of Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street, Goonellabah as detailed in Figure 2.

The allotment sizes are as follows: Lot No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Area (m2) 1003 1049 1046 1026 1191 1093 1264 930.5 858.9 948.1

Lot No. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Area (m2) 962.1 1050 2837 1300 1.137h.a 1111 1005 945.8 875.6 958.7

Lot No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Area (m2) 1288 1273 1191 1308 1316 1058 1071 1551

The land was previously zoned 1(d) Investigation and was identified in the Lismore Urban Strategy (2005) as an ‘infill’ release area potentially suitable for future urban development.

A rezoning submission was lodged with Lismore City Council as part of the comprehensive review of the Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2000. The rezoning submission sought to rezone the land to R1 – General Residential and RE1 – Public Recreation to permit the development of an urban subdivision. Lismore City Council concurred with the rezoning request, subject to the deletion of the proposed road crossing of Tucki Tucki Creek. With the gazettal of the Lismore Local Environmental Plan 2012, the aforementioned land zonings have been applied to the land, thus permitting the proposed subdivision.

The site is located within the eastern parts of Goonellabah located directly north of Hepburn Park with Holland Street forming the eastern boundary. The Tucki Tucki Creek defines the northern and western boundaries of the land.

Residential land is located further west of the site with a Council reserve (classified as operational land) located between the residential dwellings and the study area.

Development comprising of storage sheds (north), child care facility, vet, bulky good showrooms and general light industrial activities are located east of Holland Street within the Centenary Industrial Estate.

The site is located approximately 3km to the east of the Goonellabah Village Shopping Centre, Goonellabah Sports & Aquatic Centre and the Lismore City Council Chambers Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

7

Consent is sought for a subdivision to create twenty-eight (28) residential lots and one (1) public reserve. In association with the subdivision, the project also encompasses the dedication of land for road, completion of civil works (roads, water, sewer, drainage & earthworks), tree removal and construction of an acoustic wall.

Holland Street road reserve is included within the project due to the undertaking or road works and the removal of the Pine trees which straddle the boundary with Lot 2 DP 1021834.

Figure 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Location of Lot 2 DP 1021834

Location of proposed subdivision

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

8

Figure 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed 28-lot residential subdivision and 1 public reserve (larger image in Appendix A)

4.0

BUSHFIRE THREAT ASSESSMENT

The bushfire prone mapping identifies the subject site as being bushfire prone (see Figure 5).

Aerial mapping and inspection of the site reveals that the bushfire prone land map is reasonably accurate in respect to the current bushfire hazard associated with the proposed development however the site is mostly cleared of vegetation.

To the north is located grassland on a moderately steep downslope of 15 to 20 degrees and within the allotment as shown in Figure 3 on a slight downslope of zero to five degrees.

To the southwest and south is located rainforest vegetation on terrain of zero to five degrees downslope and upslope respectively (see Figure 3).

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

9

Grassland, o 15-20 downslope

Grassland o 0-5 downslope

Rainforest o 0-5 downslope

Residential Rainforest upslope

Figure 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire threat analysis

Table 1: Bushfire Threat Assessment Aspect

Slope

Vegetation Class (Table A2.1 PBP2006) Grassland

BAL 29 AS 3959 2009

Asset Protection Zone Table A2.5 PBP2006

14 metres

n/a

Residential Rainforest

n/a 9 metres

n/a 10 metres

East South

15-20o d/s n/a upslope

West

0-5o d/s

Grassland

9 metres

n/a

o d/s

Rainforest

11 metres

10 metres

North

Southwest

0-5

*d/s = downslope

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

10

Rainforest vegetation on an upslope to the south

Grassland to the west

Figure 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tree removal plan (larger image in Appendix A) Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

11

Figure 5 – Lismore City Council bushfire prone land map

5.0 ASSET PROTECTION ZONES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Asset Protection Zones are areas established and maintained to ensure that bushfire fuels are progressively reduced between the development and the bushfire hazard. The asset protection zone incorporates an Inner Protection Area (IPA) having reduced fuel loadings of approximately 3t/ha.

Acceptable Solution

Comment

Complies

An APZ is provided in accordance with the relevant tables/figures in Appendix 2 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Asset protection zones have been established in accordance with Appendix 2 of PBP2006.

Yes

APZ’s will be located on the subject property and/or within maintained reserve to the northwest in accordance with the approved vegetation management plan

Yes – VMP required

The APZ is wholly within the boundaries of the development site.

Exceptional circumstances may apply (see section 3.3) APZ’s are managed and maintained to prevent the spread of a fire towards the building in accordance with the requirements of Standards for Asset Protection Zones (RFS 2005) The APZ is located on lands with a slope less than 18 degrees.

Development to comply. A copy of Standards for Asset Protection Zones (RFS 2005) has been included in Appendix B.

Yes

Complies

Yes

The following Asset Protection Zones are recommended to apply as a minimum to the subdivision to demonstrate that a dwelling can be construction to BAL 29 - AS 3959-2009.

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

12

14 metre APZ within the property 9 metre APZ outside property boundary

9 metre APZ within the property

11 metre APZ within the property

10 metre APZ within the property

Figure 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Asset Protection Zones onsite and offsite (not to scale, for illustrative purposes)

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

13

6.0

WATER AND UTILITY SERVICES

6.1

WATER SERVICES

Reticulated water (including dual water reticulation) and sewerage will be provided to each lot. The subdivision shall be serviced with street hydrants in accordance with Australian Standard 2419.1 and delineated by yellow triangular markings and blue reflective markers on the sealed road.

The following conditions are to be complied with in order to meet the objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

6.2

•

Fire hydrant spacing, sizing and pressures comply with AS 2419.1-2005 and to be designed by a hydraulic engineer.

•

Hydrants not located within the road carriageway

•

Parking on public roads complies with PBP2006 provisions.

•

The hydrant location is to be approved by the consent authority and must not be located in parking bays.

GAS SERVICES

Acceptable Solution Reticulated or bottled gas installed and maintained in accordance with AS 1596 with metal piping used.

Fixed gas cylinders to be kept clear of flammable material by a distance of 10m and shielded on the hazard side of the installation Gas cylinders close to the dwelling are to have the release valves directed away from the building and at least 2m from flammable material with connections to and from the gas cylinder being of metal.

Polymer sheathed flexible gas supply lines to gas meters adjacent to the buildings are not used.

6.3

Comment To be assessed with the DA for the dwelling.

To be assessed with the DA for the dwelling.

To be assessed with the DA for the dwelling.

To be assessed with the DA for the dwelling.

ELECTRICITY SERVICES

Electricity will be provided via underground reticulation as required by the local authority and installed in accordance with their requirements. Electrical transmission lines shall be placed underground and is to be confirmed in the civil design to be conditioned with the development consent.

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

14

7.0

ACCESS

The new public road is to be provided by way of a new road from Holland Street providing access from the public road system directly to the private land giving fire fighters access to the habitable dwellings.

The new public road will be a dead-end road that terminates approximately 260 metres from Holland Street. The new road will have a turning circle. However instead of a 12 metre radius turning circle a 10 metre radius turning circle is proposed with an alternate solution.

The public road will comply with s4.1.3(1) Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 except for the turning circle and being greater than 200 metres from Holland Road, for which an alternate solution has been provided below.

8.0

ALTERNATE SOLUTION - ACCESS

The alternate solution is to be carried out for the proposed public road which is greater than 200m from Holland Road and instead of a 12 metre radius turning circle a 10 metre radius turning circle is proposed.

8.1

ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION RELATING TO ACCESS

The application departs from the acceptable solutions relating to access specified in s4.1.3(2) PBP in the following ways which states; 1. “Dead end roads incorporate a minimum 12 metre outer radius turning circle”.

2. “Dead ends are not more than 200 metres in length”.

The access road is approximately 260 metres in length. The turning circle will have a 10 metre outer radius turning circle. All other aspects of the access will be complied with.

8.2

SCOPE

The scope of the alternate solution is limited to the departure from the acceptable solution requirements identified in this report regarding the turning circle and the road length.

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

15

8.3

LIMITATIONS

The report provides recommendations that will reduce the risk of ignition to future buildings while the fire front passes: “The goal of absolute safety during a bush fire event is not attainable and despite best effort there is the ever-present risk of personal injury or damage to property. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the owner/occupier to comply with conditions of consent and to maintain systems designed to mitigate the impacts of bush fire.”

Should a change in use or building alterations or additions occur in the future, a reassessment of the development will be needed to verify consistency with the analysis contained within this report.

The alternate solution relies on the owner/occupier to comply with the recommendations in this report and the consent conditions and to maintain in perpetuity systems designed to mitigate the impacts of bush fire. The report is not considered to be a compliance report for any other aspects other than that specified in the scope.

8.4

ASSUMPTIONS

The new building works once constructed is compliant with the acceptable solutions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the recommendations within this report relating to the performance criteria.

The buildings and asset protection zones, water, access and landscaping will be managed and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

8.5

METHODOLOGY

General The building works need to comply with the performance requirement of P2.3.4 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Part 1.0.5 of the Housing Provisions identifies how you would satisfy the performance requirements and provides as follows: 1.0.5 Meeting the Performance Requirements Compliance with the Performance Requirements can only be achieved by(a) complying with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions; or (b) formulating an Alternative Solution which(i) complies with the Performance Requirements; or (ii) is shown to be at least equivalent to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions; or (c) a combination of (a) and (b).

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

16

This report will outline compliance by meeting the performance requirement pursuant to 1.0.5(c) of the Housing Provisions of the BCA. The assessment method for the alternate solution is identified in Part 1.0.9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assessment Methods in the Housing Provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2013. The report will be assessed in accordance with Part 1.0.9(b)(ii) by using a qualitative and quantitative analysis consistent with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

The methodology adopted in formulating the Alternate Solution is based on that described in the International Fire Engineering Guidelines 2005, RFS Practice Note 03/06 and AS 39592009. The Guidelines provide guidance for the design of alternate solutions for the BCA in order to establish an acceptable level of compliance with the relevant performance requirement.

8.6

ALTERNATE SOLUTION FOR TURNING CIRCLE

The alternate solution is in the form of the following MRV truck turning template to show that a 10 metre radius allows a medium rigid vehicle to turn.

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

17

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

18

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

19

8.7

ALTERNATE SOLUTION FOR PUBLIC ROAD DEAD END GREATER THAN 200 METRES

The Public road although slightly greater than 200 metres in length (260 metres) will traverse through the new residential area and is not expected to be cut-off by fire or fallen trees. The grassland hazard will be more than 40 metres from the road and is expected to receive very low levels of radiant heat should a fire occur.

9.0

LANDSCAPING

The majority of buildings adversely impacted upon in a bushfire event happen through ember attack and in this regard combustible material surrounding the building e.g. landscaping can play a significant part during the event. Adequate management of landscaping is critical to the survivability of an asset and for occupant safety during a bushfire.

It is recommended that landscaping is undertaken in accordance Appendix 5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and managed and maintained for the life of the development.

10.0

CONCLUSION

This assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will be compliant with all aspects (except as mentioned) of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 based on the recommendations contained in Section 1 of this report, and other considerations contained within the report.

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

20

Disclaimer This report was prepared for the purposes and exclusive use of the stated client to accompany an application to Lismore City Council specifically relating to a proposed 28-Lot subdivision and public reserve, and is not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person or Corporation. BCA Check Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever arising to any person or Corporation who may use or rely on this report in contravention of the terms of this clause. The report is not to be used as an assessment tool for individual dwellings and is only to be used for the purpose of this subdivision of 24 lots.

As identified in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the Building Code of Australia the report is to provide recommendations to reduce the risk of ignition and does not guarantee the complete protection of the building in the event of bush fire or that the building will not be adversely impacted upon.

Reporting has been based on the relevant Council and Rural Fire Service Guidelines however recommendations or suggestions given in this report are based on our site investigation at the time of reporting. In some cases site conditions may change dramatically within a few years due to rapid vegetation re-growth and invading weed species.

References: NSW Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW (2006), Planning for bushfire protection, A guide for councils planners fire authorities developers and homeowners. Rural Fire Service NSW Australia.

Standards Australia, (2009), AS3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas, Australian Standards, Sydney.

Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations 2000. New South Wales.

Parliamentary Counsel’s Office, NSW Government Information Service.

Rural Fires Act 1997. New South Wales. Parliamentary Counsel’s Office, NSW Government Information Service.

Rural Fires Regulation. New South Wales. Parliamentary Counsel’s Office, NSW Government Information Service.

Bushfire Certifiers TM – Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

21

APPENDIX A

-

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

Site Plan

Tree Removal Plan

22

-

-

APPENDIX B

Standards for Asset Protection Zones (RFS 2005)

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

26

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

27

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

28

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

29

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

30

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

31

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

32

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

33

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

34

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

35

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

36

Bushfire Certifiers TM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bushfire Report - Lot 2 DP 1021834, Holland Street Goonellabah

37