Huntlee New Town - Stage 2

With respect of the Tiraki Nature Reserve that has wildlife corridors either side of Hanwood Road, that no entry point into Stage 2, should be available via Hanwood Road, North Rothbury. The local surrounding area is already been heavily cleared of natural flora and fauna of the area with many animals impacted with displacement, loss of habitat and added risks of injury and death. Any access for additional traffic along this section (Hanwood Road) that this reserve crosses will have further more impact on these displaced animals. As a local for past 25 years and a previous wildlife carer I can vow that the area is full of fauna now at risk. Ranging from possums, sugar gliders, macropods, turtles, frogs and a huge variety of birds including migratory species.

In addition, all considerations must be made to the impact on black creek during close by construction and ongoing future. The waterway is extremely important to the diversity of fauna and flora of the area and also greater regions, as it leads into the Hunter River and subsequently the ocean. Ensuring this waterway will not be affected by the Stage 2/3 Huntlee development is paramount for multiple ecological systems survival.

Good evening,
I am writing to object to the proposed Huntlee stage 2 development.
The current proposal fails to provide adequate wildlife corridors between the existing residential properties in Hanwood estate and the proposed new properties. With many hectares of native bushland removed, there will be limited habitat for native wildlife including the swift parrot, a critically endangered species known to breed in the area during the winter months. There is also few mitigation measures in place to protect the north Rothbury persoonia. Additionally, a koala was identified in close proximity to the site in 2006 making this area core koala habitat.
The development also creates noise and light pollution to the current residents in Hanwood estate. Again, there is no buffer zone proposed between the two estates to alleviate this.
I am not opposed to further development, but believe that additional measures are required (mainly in the form of builder zones and additional wildlife corridors).

We were told that our little estate of properties that mostly are acreage would be protected by a buffer of land between us and any subdivision of Huntlee , we were told there would be a corridor of national park to protect some of the wildlife and bush around our estate.
Now we are told most of the bush and surrounding land , even a big dam nearby will be slated for housing , bringing properties directly back on to our estate with out any bush left between subdivisions. We have purchased our properties with intention of living away from the confines of a usual suburban subdivision to now be told we are going to be living right in the middle of further development. We have been told incorrect information that now has been changed making our little estate not what we originally purchased to live in .

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development in North Rothbury, NSW, due to the significant environmental and community impacts it presents. The proposed development threatens the survival of several endangered species, including the North Rothbury Persoonia (Persoonia pauciflora) and various endangered bird species, while also lacking adequate wildlife corridors. Furthermore, the development poses substantial negative consequences for the local residents.
Reasons for Objection
1. Endangered North Rothbury Persoonia: The North Rothbury Persoonia is an endangered plant species that is endemic to the North Rothbury area. Its limited distribution makes it highly vulnerable to habitat loss, and the proposed development site is a crucial habitat for this species. The destruction of its habitat would have irreversible effects, jeopardizing the survival of the species.
2. Threats to Endangered Bird Species: The area in and around North Rothbury is home to several endangered bird species, including the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor), and the Black-chinned Honeyeater (Melithreptus gularis). These species depend on the native woodland habitat for feeding, nesting, and breeding. The proposed development would result in the destruction of vital habitats, leading to further declines in these already critically endangered bird populations.
3. Lack of Wildlife Corridors: The proposed development plan fails to include adequate wildlife corridors that are essential for the movement and survival of native fauna. Wildlife corridors are crucial for maintaining ecological connectivity, allowing species to migrate, find food, and breed. Without these corridors, the development would isolate populations of native species, increasing the risk of local extinctions and reducing biodiversity. This fragmentation of habitats would have long-term ecological consequences that extend beyond the immediate area of development.
4. Impact on Local Residents: The development also raises significant concerns for local residents. Increased traffic, noise pollution, and the destruction of natural landscapes will diminish the quality of life for those who live in the area. The loss of green spaces and the alteration of the local environment could lead to a decrease in property values and a sense of community displacement. Residents have expressed concerns about the strain on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and healthcare services, which are not equipped to handle the expected increase in population density.
5. Inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment: I am concerned that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted for this development does not adequately address the cumulative impact on the endangered plant and bird species, the lack of wildlife corridors, and the broader environmental consequences. A more comprehensive and independent EIA is necessary to fully understand the potential impacts and to explore alternative solutions that could minimize harm.
Conclusion
In light of the critical importance of preserving the endangered North Rothbury Persoonia, protecting endangered bird species, ensuring the inclusion of wildlife corridors, and addressing the concerns of local residents, I strongly urge the Council to reject the proposed development in North Rothbury. The area’s ecological and community values are too significant to be compromised.
I respectfully request that the council considers alternative locations for the development that do not threaten endangered species or local habitats. Additionally, any development plan should incorporate comprehensive measures to protect and preserve wildlife corridors and address the concerns of local residents.
Thank you for considering my submission. I trust that the council will take the necessary steps to protect this unique environment and the well-being of the North Rothbury community.

Dear Sir/Madam, As a Resident of Hanwood Road, North Rothbury I was shocked to see the close proximity of housing in an area where Flora and fauna have flourished and created a buffer between the Huntlee Stage one Construction and the M15 Highway for ths small acre properties of current ratepayers. The proposed envelopment plan does not account for Wildlife corridors. We have a population of Kangaroo, Wallaby, Wombats, Lizards, Frogs, Yellow Tail Black Cockatoos, Rosella's and King Parrots just name a few. The green spaces outlined on the plan are new parkland after full clearing of the site and not allowing for aged/dying forest for habitat or safe travel.
I would also encourage hydrology reports checked and are deemed capable of managing large amounts of water during storm events as Stage one Huntlee has flooded between the estate and the shopping precinct in the recent past. The creek surrounding/running behind properties on Hanwood road is known to flood upon receiving 100ml over 24 to 72 hours. It cannot handle rain coming from the construction or any run off from the proposed new housing estate.
Has an environmental report been submitted with regard to any threatened species within the area?
Has an impact study been carried out on the demand for current medical and commercial shopping available to meet the needs of the incoming population and the impact to traffic and current population while construction/deforestation occurs.?
While I do understand the need to housing within reach of Newcaslte I do not feel this type of estate density is suitable for what has been a relaxed rural setting.
The lack of open green spaces in the plan is also against the climale of the area where reaching the high 40's is not uncommon in the summer months. Additional concrete and metal building will not benefit from this climate nor will the area in general.

We ask the developer to made aware of residents concerns and resubmit with a more viable and considerate plan for the region.

Kind regards
Rhonda Vine

I have noticed within the plan to develop the Huntlee area there is a noticeable lack of wildlife area/corridors that are being considered. The need to jam in as many houses as possible costing our native animals valuable bushland to live in and forcing them to have to interact with the increase of traffic often resulting in them being severely injured or killed.
The reduction of bush areas not only threatens our wildlife but puts at risk local residents as animals begin to encroach on property as they seek new homes when they are displaced.
The removal of bushland areas also takes away the charm that the area is known for. Between the increased development and vineyards towards Pokolbin there is less and less land that has not been cleared.
I believe changes to the plans to include wildlife corridors and untouched areas are bushland are essential to keep species of flora and fauna that are endemic to the area.

I wish to object to the large number and small size of the blocks proposed for Stage 2 as well as the lack of wildlife corridors & parks throughout. There seems to be blatant disregard of the threatened species originally identified in the Huntlee development. Apparently 20 species were identified & now only 4 species remain. More of the natural habitat would need to be kept for aesthetics as well as for these different plants & animals to survive & preferably thrive.

There is no decent buffer between Hanwood Road residents & the proposed development. No houses on Hanwood Road should be sharing a boundary with the new development. No new houses should be built on Hanwood as part of the Huntlee development.

If the development is to occur I hope more concern will be shown towards the future inhabitants, whether they be native plants, native animals or humans who need services provided, native bush left to be appreciated, and not just house blocks in a 'city-like' precinct.

I wish to express that an insufficient amount of impact assessment has been included for existing residents of North Rothbury in relation to the stage 2 development. Attached is a letter of concern.

See attached submission

See attached submission regarding access of the proposed Huntlee development to passenger train services

Please see attached submission detailing our objections to this project and suggested corrections

Lack of wildlife Corridors indicated on plan
• Lack of indicated Buffer Zones for existing Hanwood residents especially on Hanwood Road
• Habitat Conservation corridors and riparian areas relating to existing provenance vegetation and endangered species of birds using the area for migration.
• An Additional environmental report needs to be more current with identification of areas with threatened species of trees, shrubs and Persoonia and animals.
• Lack of open spaces

Hunter Wildlife Rescue's goal is to return all displaced, injured or ill native fauna back to its wildlife habitat when fit to fend for itself in order to preserve the integrity of our ecosystems and protect the unique diversity of species that call our area home.
Specific to the Huntlee Stage 2 Project, our goal is to minimise the displacement, injury and death of native wildlife from activities related to construction of Huntlee New Town Stage 2. This submission makes commentary on how this may be achieved based on 40 years of experience rescuing, rehabilitating and release native wildlife in the Hunter Valley, NSW.

I am strongly opposed to the Huntlee New Town - Stage 2 proposal. Our property is surrounded by native flora and fauna which are losing their habitat in the lower Hunter region at an alarming rate. Visitors and tree changers to the Hunter Valley come to enjoy the rural atmosphere and vast space which has disappeared to another urban sprawl, leaving it largely undesirable due to shoebox houses and very minimal services.

The Stage 2 proposal, largely impacts the Hanwood Estate area which has been here for over 20 years, existing as rural acreages which allow wildlife and humans to coexist in the same area. This new proposal will wipe out our surrounding bushland and impact on the creek area where we have colonies of black cockatoos, platypus, wombats, wallabies, echidnas, just to name a few. The people of Hanwood Estate did not move here to have their back fences lined with housing that allows no wildlife and habitat conservation corridors. We have experienced the worst flooding of Black Creek over the past 3 years which can be attributed to the large amount of hard surfaces that are now in the area creating run off with no ground for it to go into. No consultant or impact statement can account for true resident experiences and knowledge, and therefore I strongly recommend this Stage 2 proposal be reconsidered as the impact is too great.

I object to the project for the following reasons:
• Lack of wildlife Corridors indicated on plan
• Lack of indicated Buffer Zones for existing Hanwood residents especially on Hanwood Road
• Habitat Conservation corridors and riparian areas relating to existing provenance vegetation and endangered species of birds using the area for migration.
• An Additional environmental report needs to be more current with identification of areas with threatened species of trees, shrubs and Persoonia and animals.
• Lack of open spaces

I object to the project proposal for Huntlee New Town Stage 2. The development of the defined area will have a significant impact to the local environment and adequate considerations have not been made for the biodiversity of this area. This plan crams thousands of houses into an area that will be cleared of the natural habitat for colonies of black cockatoos, wallabies, kangaroos, wombats, echidna and multiple other native animals that make this area great. The lack of green spaces, wildlife corridors and amount of clearing of this area is unacceptable and should not be approved in its current state.

The impact to the Hanwood Estate diminishes the acreage and rural feel of this area. Areas such as Hanwood Estate where communities can co-exist with the native flora and fauna of the should be celebrated and conserved in their current state and there should be more of these large block areas being created.

As a resident of this area, we have experienced the significant flooding of Black Creek which can be attributed to the large amount of newly created hard surfaces across its catchment area. This has not been adequately investigated in the Environmental Impact Statement for this project.

This project should not be approved in its current state and need to further consider the impact to the flora and fauna of this area and the detriment to the Handwood Estate and North Rothbury regiion by implementing controls such as larger offsets, wildlife corridors and green spaces in the plan. The greed of developers and the local councils balance sheet should not be prioritised over our this natural habitat and great place to live.

Submission on the proposed Huntlee Stage 2 concept development

a. The DA Concept plan stage 2 does not detail or address the following as outlined in the Huntlee Development Control Plan below. How will these points be addressed in the concept plan.
3.3 Biodiversity
Controls
Riparian buffers are to be established through future applications for subdivision and infrastructure works in accordance with the Water Management Act and guidelines.
(2) Existing significant trees, in particular large hollow bearing trees, are to be retained wherever practicable within public and community parks, streetscapes and riparian corridors.
(3) Existing Persoonia pauciflora plants are to be conserved in situ with a 30m curtilage of existing native vegetation and incorporated into public open space networks and riparian corridors and not within private property.
(4) Native vegetation (canopy level) shall be provided, where appropriate for biodiversity outcomes, within pocket parks, riparian corridors and street verges to create a ‘stepping-stone corridor’ for terrestrial bio-diversity.
(5) Where development is located within or close to a known biodiversity corridor, fencing shall be sympathetic to that passage of native fauna.
(6) Ensure provision and maintenance of wildlife corridors and connectivity with adjoining Office for Environment and Heritage (OEH) managed conservation land (such as Persoonia Park and the proposed addition to the National Park).
(7) Development that adjoins conservation land managed by the OEH should address the relevant requirements within the ‘Guidelines for developments adjoining land and water managed by Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water’ (DECCW 2010).

3.5 Aboriginal Heritage
Controls
(1) Development shall not proceed within areas known to contain Aboriginal objects without appropriate investigation and consultation with the relevant local Aboriginal groups. The investigations are to identify, where required, conservation areas for the protection and management of archaeological deposits. (2) A Plan of Management is to be prepared to address the ongoing protection and management of the archaeological deposits. Any DA for development which affects Aboriginal objects is to be accompanied by an Aboriginal Archaeological Report that is supported by the comments of the local Aboriginal groups. (3) Where development impacts upon on Aboriginal sites previously not identified, Consent to Destroy Permits will need to be sought under Section 90 of the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974. (4) Interpretive signage, that provides information on the history and heritage significance of the sites, is to be provided within the public domain areas. Where possible, such signage should be provided in close proximity to the site of any relics or remains that have been uncovered.
b. The Additional Ecological Information report completed by MJD Environmental dated June 2024 did not address or incorporate the controls outlined in the Huntlee DCP into Section 7 Mitigation measures of the Additional Ecological information report. How will these control be incorporated into the concept plan?.

c. The additional ecological report dated June 2024, has not considered all federally, and state listed threatened species. Refer to BIONET records and associated map retrieved Friday 16 August 2024.
Acknowledging development under the Huntlee Concept Plan is the subject of a certification under clause 34A(4) of the Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017, the application relies upon the Ecological Assessment Report (EAR) prepared (RPS 2010). In order to supplement the EAR (RPS 2010), this report has undertaken a review of newly listed threatened species under the BC Act that have effect under the TSC Act. Where required, contemporary surveys have been undertaken to quantify presence or absence of threatened species and their distribution on the development lands

d. 7 Part test should be completed for additional listed species including
Regent Honeyeater - now listed as critically endangered under both BCA and EPBC Act
Swift Parrot – now listed as critically endangered under both BCA and EPBC Act
Koala – now listed as endangered under EPBC Act
Brown Tree Creeper now listed under EPBC Act
Glossy Black Cockatoos now listed under the EPBC Act
Pine Donkey orchid listed as Vulnerable under the BCA – not considered in the orginal 7-part test

e. Figure 3 Proposed Concept and Detailed Area layout on page 3 of the Additional ecological report is not consistent with the figure 6 on page e17-32 of the Huntlee DCP which ensures that natural wildlife corridors are maintained.