Mod 3

I contend this proposed development is not appropriate for the once pristine (and still potentially recoverable) natural environment in the vicinity of Saltwater Lagoon. It still contains rare and threatened species and certainly the lagoon itself does not need further contamination pressure from the residents of 269 new homes around it.

I also contend that the proposed development would not be in the interests of the residents themselves nor would it be in the interests of the other citizens of the town for the very important reason that the it would be situated on a known floodplain that has a long history of major flooding. Add the high likelihood of sea level rise over the life of homes built on the site and it's hard to imagine a worse idea than building anything permanent there.

Finally, I see no difference between this proposal and the proposal, "Saltwater" (Reference 2015NTH002DA/T6-14-62 South West Rocks)" that was refused by the JRPP last year on so many grounds I can't begin to recall them all. But I'm sure all the details are in your files.

It seems this proposal is very much under the radar. I don't know why that is, but it's certainly reducing the number of objections you will be receiving.

Please let me know what happens next with it so I/we can be ready to do whatever we can to stop it going ahead.

Friends of South West Rocks is a small community organisation set up to oppose, what we believe to be unsustainable development in South West Rocks.
I, as president, believe this development to be unsustainable for the following reasons;

1. the land on which this proposal lies is a wetland and given heavy rainfall is prone to flooding due, in part, to a high water table. The high water table is due to, but not entirely, its close proximity to Saltwater Lagoon. The Saltwater Lagoon is fed saltwater from the sea, together with rainfall and is subject also to the ebbs and flows of the sea tides.
If this proposal were to go ahead it will flood from time to time and residents are highly unlikely to be able to afford the insurance premiums that will apply together with the damage to their homes a flood would cause. We have kept a watching brief over this land, on which this proposal applies, and have seen many a flood over the past few years.
2. This area in question was pristine beautiful bushland and has been systematically destroyed over the past 10 years or so. There have been a number of proposals by the developer, including a Melaleuca farm. The loss of habitat for native plants and animals, including Koalas, would be a great shame.
3.The number of blocks proposed will only add pressure on this already degraded wetland. Septic/sewerage run off together with lawn fertilisers and domestic animal manure will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the area including the Saltwater Lagoon.
We as a group strongly believe this proposal should be rejected in its entirety and the land subsumed under National Parks responsibility.
4. A proposal recently, situated on the eastern side of the Saltwater Lagoon, by one of these developers has been rejected by Kempsey Shire Council (KSC) and the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) on a number of grounds which I also believe has similar application if not the same profile as this proposal. I will attempt to attach that KSC report to this submission or I will forward it separately.


I would urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Jane Oborn
President Friends of South West Rocks

1. The original proposal that was presented to the public and gained approval was for a low to medium density development of 270 residential lots of 500-900 sq m each. This new proposal is to turn the eastern half of the site into a relatively higher density "gated community" of 235 lots of between (reports vary) 215 and 371 or 425 sq m. This has the net result of adding about 100 lots to the total development by our rough calculation, while reducing lot sizes. This is at odds with what was originally proposed and with the Director General's Approval Determination - which was for "269 residential lots of between 500m2 and 900m2 in size" (Director-General's Environmental Assessment Report, page 3).

2. This `Seniors Living' proposal has a completely different road layout to the original proposal, and seems to be a separate enclave within the development as whole. Again, not what was presented to the public and approved.

3. The Bushfire Hazard Assessment is not particularly convincing. This development will be full of aged / infirm / disabled people, packed in cheek-by-jowl. The internal network of roads is fairly complex. The SEE mentions there will be a gate to the development limiting access. We're not convinced that residents could be evacuated quickly in case of a fire. We note also APZs are at their minimum recommended distances, often touching properties or even covering some structures. The whole northern perimeter of the site adjoins the E2 Zone, containing dense bushland - presumably this is to be left in its natural state. To my knowledge no vegetation management plan has been presented for the E2 Zone.

4. The proponent, Teebee Holdings, proposed a similar chock-a-block development nearby (DA T6-14-62) which was unanimously refused by both Kempsey Shire Council and the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel - due largely to lack of detail in the application. We feel this application also lacks detail in terms of:
- Flood risk
- Fire risk
- Ecological impacts
- Threatened species impacts
- Groundwater / Stormwater / Acid Sulphate Soils management

5. The Statement of Environmental Effects has scant information on environmental issues - stating simply: "Given that the works are contained within the developable area as approved by the Part 3A consent, further review of the ecological is not considered warranted. No further impacts are likely as a result of the modification." This is clearly nonsense, a larger number of people in the same area means greater fringe effects on the nearby E2 Zone and Lagoon system. More pets, more weeds from gardens, more clearing and destruction of habitat, more rubbish and pollution.

6. The proponent is siting all of the open space to the north of the site, including recreational facilities. The concern is that this will extend into the adjoining E2 Zone - including illegal clearing & destruction of habitat by human activity.

7. There is a substantial coastal inundation & flood hazard impacting on Saltwater that has not been addressed. The Kempsey Coastal Processes and Hazard Study 2013 identifies extensive areas of coastal hazard throughout the Saltwater Precinct (including the subject site), and the Kempsey Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) 2015 recommendation is to:
"* Conduct a Flood Study assessment for the combined impact of catchment flooding and oceanic water level events and sea level (i.e. benchmarks adopted by Council);
* Use the outcomes of the combined flood modelling to amend the Floodplain Risk Management Plan mapping and flood planning levels for development in the LEP and DCP; and
* Apply development controls to the Flood Planning Area based upon existing Flood Risk Precinct development controls, or new controls prepared for the individual catchment (i.e. through the Floodplain Risk Management Plan process).
In the interim, consider coastal inundation impacts for development applications made within the immediate coastal inundation risk zone, as identified in this CZMP."
(CZMP, Actions for Implementation, p21)
These Actions have not yet been taken as far as we are aware.

8. The original proposal provided misleading detail about ecological impacts of this development, particularly with regard to the Wallum Froglet. Teebee Holdings also misrepresented the ecological impact for the rejected DA T6-14-62, prompting council to peer review the proponent's ecological assessments for that DA, finding that "the applicant has failed to adequately address the potential ecological impacts for the overall concept plan." (Council_Assessment_Report_2015NTH002, page 52). We note that Mr F Dominic Fanning authored both the Whelan Insites Ecological Assessment for the original Malbec proposal, as well as the Flametree Ecological Consulting Flora & Fauna Assessment prepared for T6-14-62 that was peer reviewed by council and found wanting. No doubt the same author made the same inaccurate conclusions in both reports.
The proponent is yet again ignoring the environmental effects of this development. The proponent's sole statement regarding flora & fauna impacts is:
"5.8 Flora and Fauna
There is no significant vegetation on the site, as confirmed by the Ecological Report accompanying this application. It is proposed that all trees be removed from the site and new planting proposed."
This fails to recognise the additional impacts more people will have on surrounding bushland as per point 5 above. The only reason there is no significant vegetation on the site is that the proponent has stripped it of everything, including wallum habitat. However, it has been shown that the natural vegetation would quickly grow back if left alone.

We feel this is hardly a modification to the original plans it's more like a new application. With only one access road in from Burrawong Drive via Belle O'Connor Street the amount of dwellings proposed with this seniors' development together with the residential sub-division is going to cause major traffic congestion to our quiet neighborhood. Also we consider this to be environmental vandalism as what we understood was wetlands. We strongly object to this and any part of this development being allowed to proceed.

Objection to MP 08_0167

I believe this proposal should be rejected on the following grounds:

This land is totally unsuited for development for ANY kind of housing. The original subdivision was provided through the now discredited Part 3A provisions. It should never have been approved. To now propose that a "Seniors Housing" development be located in such a hazardous area is ludicrous.

Some of the reasons for its unsuitability are that:

* This land floods; I have sited signed eyewitness reports that this land flooded to a depth of 2.4M, in the 1949-50 floods. I have personally witnessed the entire site under water during moderate to heavy rainfall events.

* The ground water studies used to justify the subdivision approval were flawed. The figures derived from the study significantly underestimate the hazard presented by ground water. The generally high ground water levels, combined with no ability to provide adequate drainage make it almost impossible to create any form of sustainable development on this site.

* The effect of sea level rise, due to climate change, have not been adequately addressed. The combination of increased sea level, an increase in berm height at the mouth of Saltwater Creek and constantly high groundwater levels all combine to present an inevitable risk for flooding on this site.

* Contrary to the assertion from the proponent the site is a SIGNIFICANT habitat for the endangered Wallum Froglet. Studies exist which show that Wallum Froglets were located across a significant portion of this site.
* The land is located adjacent to bushland and will be subject to high risk due to bushfire. To propose a development aimed to attract seniors and people with less mobility, in an area of high risk from both fire and flood, is irresponsible. To allow such a development would be negligent from any consent authority.

* A similar development proposal (DA T6-14-62) for land a few hundred metres to the north from this site, on land with the same or similar site constraints was unanimously refused by both Kempsey Shire Council and the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel. The hazards and constraints have not changed, if anything the predicted impact due to climate change appears to be more severe.

This proposal should also be refused.

Yours sincerely Alan Hill

I am very concerned about rezoning this land to allow for Seniors Living development.

This land is very low lying, and I believe at risk of flooding.

It is also habitat for threatened species including green and golden Bell Frog, and I understand is a Koala corridor.

The area also has a high bushfire risk, so not very suitable for frail, elderly residents

I find it strange that the Statement of Environmental Effects makes no mention of the endangered wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula). There is no plan to ensure its survival and habitat retention, nor any proposal to stop resident seniors from having cats or dogs on their premises. There is only the mention that the vegetation type on the north of the development is tall heath. The term wallum refers to a natural heath landscape type that occurs next to the coastal dunes, and it is worth mentioning that there are not a lot of places along the coast where this landscape occurs in as good condition as it does along Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon at South West Rocks.
At the meeting that was held at the surf club about the previous development application on the same site, there was a frog expert who travelled from Sydney to speak for the survival of wallum froglet habitat. It is not hard to imagine the damage that would result if this proposal were to go ahead.

We moved to this street as it is quiet, our children can ride their bikes safely. If this planning proposal is approved it will be a very busy street. Our road will fall apart with all the heavy machinery and trucks as well heavy traffic. currently the site does not get watered down and our house is always dusty. there is also not enough doctors in swr for local residence and when you add another 500+ elderly residence how will we get medical attention without a hospital. the development will not employ locals as the little houses will be shipped in on trucks. insufficient space for full objection here.

Please see attachment

MY submission is attached in PDF format below. I object to this development for all the reasons contained in this PDF.