Transcript Threat to Middle Camp

Attachment 10 – Illustrated report on
the threat to conservation areas and townscape of
Catherine Hill Bay ‘Middle Camp’ area
by Barry Laing for CHBPA February 2008
Old mine railway bridge, between the development areas
The reality of C&A’s Plan
• “The company is pleased to be able to contribute to the
establishment and realisation of the long sought after
conservation corridor...the Wallarah Peninsula.”
(Concept Plan 1.2 Project Objectives, p.8)
• IN FACT, the company intends to use Part 3A to take its
land which is mostly already zoned for conservation and
is part of a national park, and cut it north-south and eastwest with new housing; six times the number of houses
that are in the adjacent heritage mining village.
Where this will happen
Tall regrowth on land of the old
E-pit area: C&A’s Area B
C&A’s Area C behind the village:
the first bush to go under housing
C&A’s Area C: the first to go
...and at night?
The plan omits the ecological and visual impacts
of the new housing’s night lights
C&A’s Area C: where backdrop to the popular
heritage festival would change
C&A’s Area C: where backdrop to the popular
heritage festival would change
Ecological assessment (EA)
• The EA repeats many times that the offsets are more
than ‘ traditional’ offsets, and that they preserve the
Wallarah Peninsula conservation areas.
• However it never values the offsets, nor considers the
change in shape of the national park as a threat.
• The Area B development will change the shape of the
park and cut the corridor by more than half, from about
900m wide to under 300m wide and maybe less.
The language of the EA distracts from
the real story
The EA has repeated key phrases as if they were
established fact, when they are mere assertions; eg in
pages 5-104, more than 50 times the phrase “[existing
flora/fauna] will be retained/conserved /protected/
reserved/ secured in the conservation lands” is used, as
if that protection is a given, which ignores issues that
mean protection cannot be guaranteed.
Contiguity of Wallarah National Park and
Munmorah SRA as it is now
Park
Park
Park
Park
Contiguity of Wallarah NP and Munmorah SRA
as it is now: roads and corridor
Park
About 900m
Park
Park
Reduction in contiguity of Wallarah National Park
by this development
Park
[Nords Wharf Plan]
Park
Park
Park
Roads also impact on contiguity of Wallarah NP
and Munmorah SRA
Park
Park
Park
The road effects on the remaining corridor
are not quantified in the EA
• “It is important to consider the contribution of roads to
the increasing fragmentation of habitats, particularly for
species that may react negatively to roads as physical,
behavioural or sociological barriers. The associated
possibility of genetic isolation of animal populations is
also important.” (Ecological Effects of Roads, Parks
Victoria 2004, p 25)
• “The road effect zone is defined by the distance to
which each different ecological road impact extends
outward (Forman 1999). These distances differ for each
impact, ranging from a few metres to over a kilometre...
the road”
• The road effects zone averages 600 m in width
(Ecological Effects of Roads, Parks Victoria 2004, p 47.
Other impact zones
• Additional to the road effect is the impact of humans,
weeds and pets on the corridor (see below)
• C&As concept plan does not address this possible
complete closing-off of the Wallarah NP corridor by its
development.
• Repeated assertion: eg EA Part 5.2.1 page 88 “As the
majority of the habitat will be conserved it is considered
unlikely that any impact will be significant.” which
completely obscures the issue of the geometric shape of
the habitats, and the road and development impact
haloes.
Impact of pets and feral animals
is not addressed in EA
• Pets are recognised as a serious problem in parks, eg
NPWS Press release, 19/7/05: “The NPWS has invested
considerable effort over the years into raising the
conservation message regarding the inappropriateness
of having dogs in national parks, however it is likely that
some neighbours are unaware that their pets are
roaming [into Ku-ring-gai Chase NP] at night.”
• Dogs and cats pose a threat to the conservation areas
which is not addressed in the EA even though feral cats
are a Key Threatening Process and the number of pets
from 300 dwellings will be considerable. (Laing, 2007,
Submission against MP 06-0330). The OFFSET VALUE
ascribed in the Plan to the conservation areas may be
significantly destroyed within a few years.
EA omits impacts of Roads, residents, pets, weeds
on shape and contiguity of conservation areas
Park
About 200 m left
Park
Park
Park
So what about the offset values??
• Concept plan does not value the conservation lands as
they are now, nor does it give estimates of the reduction
in value due to the impact of its development.
• This leaves the panel and minister in the dark about
whether the offset lands will actually be of benefit to the
state. The proposal is seriously deficient in this
fundamental issue and should be rejected.
• The area’s current conservation zonings guarantee
benefit to the state and should be maintained.
The unique Heritage village, its setting and community
are acknowledged in the concept plan.
It is already protected by LMCC controls
The unique Heritage village, its setting and
community are acknowledged in the concept plan.
It is already protected by LMCC heritage controls.
Historically significant
ribbon development
Heritage – a unique whole community,
swamped by new housing under this plan
Heritage ribbon village squashed
by overdevelopment
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
• Lake Macquarie LEP, Hunter REP and National Trust
heritage listing for village and specifics, but blandly
dismissed in the HIA with “heritage values will be
respected and conserved”
• National Trust is quoted: “A company town ...valuable as
...strong townscape character ... should respect this and
historic evidence it presents...” (p53, Heritage IA)
• The HIA simply says the view catchment of the
Conservation Area needs to be carefully considered,
while it finds no issue in the completely overpowering
development inconsistent with the company town ribbon
layout so valuable as our heritage.
HIA makes bald assertions
• HIA cumulative impacts statement (p108) acknowledges
this development (and the Rose one to the south) will
result in a change to the local area through an increase
in the built areas.
• Then it restricts itself to mainly considering the view
impact , neglecting the complete transformation of a
company town to a conglomeration of large blobs of new
houses surrounding the original ribbon of miners’ houses
and heritage items noted in the report, particularly the E
pit area.
• Baldly asserts with no reference to evidence that this will
be largely offset by the (unspecified) positive heritage
outcomes.
• In the EA significant issues of impact on
adjacent parks and of the true offset values
have not been addressed
• In the HIA significant aspects of overall impact
on the village have not been addressed
• These are sufficient to reject this plan.
[Wetlands below the development]
The DG’s requirements have not been met. Reject
the plan!
[Wetlands below the development]