Supplementary Agenda of General Meeting - Wednesday, 12 August 2020

Planning and Compliance Division

Date of Meeting: 12/08/2020

ITEM 6

PL5/20 - Vegetation Mapping Options

Additional information with NO CHANGE to Recommendation

Since the finalisation of Director’s Report No. PL5/20, a number of queries have been received concerning some aspects of the matters discussed within the Report.

As a result of discussions with Councillors and staff, the following clarifications are provided.

Terminology

The report lists “local/common species” when referring to local and common vegetation communities on page 4, under Section 2.2 and on page 5 in the table in Section 2.3. The word “species” should read “communities”.

Numbering

The statement “(as listed above in 2.1 Current HLEP Terrestrial Biodiversity Map)” appears on pages 9 and 10 of the Director’s Report PL5/20. The numbering should read “(as listed above in 3.1 Current HLEP Terrestrial Biodiversity Map)”’ to reference to the correct section of the Report.

Summary Table

The table included on page 10 provides an overview of the proposed mapping options and the number of properties affected by these options. For further clarity, the table has been updated below to confirm that the statement “(Complying Development, LEP and DCP implications)” applies for each option, not only for Option 3.

The number of properties affected correlates with the number of properties that would not be able to undertake Complying Development on the part of the property where vegetation is mapped in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) due to being identified on the HLEP Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

The main difference between the options is the approximately 4,100 properties in Option 1 and the additional 8,050 properties in Option 2 which would be excluded from the application of Complying Development on the part of the property where vegetation is mapped. However, it is acknowledged that a number of these properties may currently be subject to other exemptions listed under the Codes SEPP which already do not permit Complying Development. Therefore, approximate calculations have been undertaken to determine the increased number of properties which are not already otherwise excluded from undertaking Complying Development.

These calculations identify that if Option 1 was implemented, approximately 1,100 additional properties would be excluded from the application of the Codes SEPP on the part of the property where vegetation is mapped, and any Section 10.7 Certificate issued for the properties would reflect the same. If Option 2 was implemented, approximately 5,000 additional properties would be excluded from the application of the Codes SEPP on the part of the property where vegetation is mapped, and any Section 10.7 Certificate issued for the properties would reflect the same.

These numbers are based on the exclusions listed in Clauses 1.17A, 1.18, 1.19 and 1.19A of the Codes SEPP. Further to this, there may be other properties which cannot undertake Complying Development depending on the type of development proposed and the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating of the property, as bushfire prone land with a BAL 40 or flame zone rating cannot carry out complying development other than for non-habitable detached development greater than 6m from a dwelling, landscaped areas, non-combustible fences and swimming pools (the number of properties cannot be determined as it requires case by case assessment).

Land identified as bushfire prone does not automatically exclude Complying Development from occurring. A separate assessment is required to accurately calculate the BAL rating. Properties with a rating of BAL-Low, BAL-12.5, BAL-19 or BAL-29 can still undertake Complying Development.

Map	Significant Communities (*plus ‘Bushland Protection’ from HSLEP 1994)*	Buffer	No. of properties affected (approx.)	Base Vegetation Map
Current LEP Map	National, State and Regional	Nil	1,750 (Complying Development, LEP and DCP implications)	Smith and Smith 2008
Option 1 (using existing rationale and maintain the same thresholds)	National, State and Regional	Nil	4,100 (Complying Development, LEP and DCP implications)	ELA 2017
Option 2 (update and expand the threshold to map all communities)	National State, Regional, local and common species	10m	12,150 (Complying Development, LEP and DCP implications)	ELA 2017
Option 3 (update to map all communities but distinguish to lessen implications for local and common species)	National State, Regional local and common species	10m	12,150 (8,050 DCP implications) (4,100 Complying Development, LEP and DCP implications)	ELA 2017

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Adopt (Council to nominate Option 1, 2 or 3) as outlined in Director’s Report No. PL5/20 as the basis for the preparation of a Planning Proposal to update the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map within the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013.

2. Undertake community consultation (Council to nominate before or after Gateway Determination) to seek public comment on the Planning Proposal as part of the Plan making process.

3. Consult the Hornsby Local Planning Panel in the preparation of the Planning Proposal and the comments of the Panel be addressed in a report to Council presenting the Proposal.

Katherine Vickery

Manager - Strategic Landuse Planning

Planning and Compliance Division

James Farrington

Director - Planning and Compliance

Planning and Compliance Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2013/00497#01

Document Number: D07971158