URGENT SUBMISSION DEADLINE ALSO 5pm 24th JUNE.
Summary:
The State is proposing another, whole new development pathway, called Targeted Assessments. This would be for virtually all other residential developments that still doesn’t fit the Complying Development criteria.
The State’s cookie cutter building codes would again replace Tweeds building codes for these Targeted Assessments, and Tweed’s other planning and environmental controls would be weakened so much as to be virtually ineffective except in the most extreme cases.
Tweed has the highest number of threatened species in Australia, is a fragile, steep, wet, active, erosion caldera, and has an urban population within the midst of this stunning ‘National Iconic Landscape’. We have an obligation to protect this region in Australia’s public interest.
Please feel free to copy the following submission for your use.
———-
Submission Objecting to the NSW Low-Rise Housing Reforms and Targeted Assessment Pathways Discussion Paper
I do not support the proposals outlined in the NSW Low-Rise Housing and Targeted Assessment Pathways discussion paper proposals.
At a minimum I request that Tweed Shire be excluded to ensure the values of the Tweed Caldera National Iconic Landscape are protected.
The Tweed Shire needs urgent recognition by the State that this is a region of international significance. It should not be treated like just anywhere else.
The Tweed Caldera is the largest erosion caldera in the southern hemisphere.
Tweed Shire is recognised as a ‘National Iconic Landscape’ for the outstanding geological, scenic, cultural and biodiversity values of the Tweed Caldera.
Tweed’s National Iconic Landscape extends across urban, coastal, rural, hinterland and marine areas, and requires the most careful consideration to accommodate an urban population in its midst.
The Tweed region is a highly vulnerable natural asset that urgently needs special planning status before these values are lost.
Council has planning controls to protect the Shire to a large extent, but State reforms such as this proposal are seriously jeopardising all this.
Without specially tailored State planning controls for Tweed it will be impossible to protect this internationally significant landscape. It needs to be treated with kid gloves and preserved, not fast tracked.
Tweed Council really doesn’t need fast tracking. Development assessment times are now at 92 days and improving. That’s not bad for what must be one of the most complex, fragile and hazardous planning landscapes in Australia.
The main problem affecting the Tweed is the lack of significant social housing investment Tweed Heads and the 10,000 undeveloped lots sitting at Kings Forest and Cobaki. This has totally undermined Tweeds housing strategy and created the housing crisis.
Fast tracking by the State of these massive, languishing greenfield developments would make an enormous impact to Tweed’s housing, rather than this proposed fast tracking of housing applications.
The Targeted Assessment pathway proposed would provide another way to avoid a full merit development assessment if Complying Development standards cannot be met.
The Targeted Assessment reforms suggest starting with single dwellings, dual occupancies, terraces, townhouses, manor houses and multi-dwelling housing but to include other developments in the future.
Community consultation would be 14 days and Councils would be required to determine applications within 50 days.
Only developments on highly constrained land are intended for full merit Development Assessments.
Statewide, tick-box building codes would be mandated for both Targeted Assessments and Complying Development, instead of using the building codes in Council’s Development Control Plan. The State building codes generally allow a 10% greater footprint and far less responsiveness to the site or surrounds.
Tweed’s building codes have been developed over decades in good faith with enormous time and effort put in by Council and the community to specifically protect the things that are special about Tweed.
The community made the purposeful decision decades ago, with State Government and Council, to concentrate population and high rise development in Tweed Heads, so that the remaining areas of this fragile erosion Caldera could have the very highest protections and the most sympathetic, low scale development.
If this pact is not honoured it would seriously undermine trust in the planning process and jeopardise community input into future consultation efforts.
Tweed’s Development Control Plan contains fine grained building controls, developed over decades with the community, that would be cast aside with this State proposal. One of the many key mechanisms that preserve the character and visual amenity is the 2 storey height limits for certain areas such as Fingal Head and Hastings Point. If the State code allowed buildings up to 9m, which easily accommodate 3 storeys, it would totally destroy Tweed’s low scale village planning objectives.
The proposed Targeted Assessments would still have to consider the other parts of Tweed’s Development Control Plan that don’t relate to the building codes. But, due to other recent State reforms, consideration of Tweed’s Development Control Plan will be restricted to what is deemed “Significant likely impacts” only – death by a thousand ‘moderate impacts’ would be allowable!? This would be totally inappropriate in Tweed.
Targeted Assessments would also prohibit Councils from assessing other matters considered in normal development applications, being ‘the suitability of the site’, ‘cumulative impacts’ or whether the development is ‘in the public interest’. This seems unwise – Councils should at least have discretion to query applicants if these fundamental aspects are in question.
The integrity of Tweed’s National Iconic Landscape must be preserved so that it can remain a precious place as a public asset for all Australians. To remove the ‘public interest’ test is contrary to preserving this national public asset.
The loss of the ‘cumulative impacts’ test would be devastating for Tweed Shire’s highly fragile environment and scenic qualities. “The characteristics that give the Tweed landscapes their high scenic quality and prominence in the Shire identity are, also, amongst the major reasons it has a high sensitivity to change of its visual character and a loss of scenic qualities”, Tweed Shire Scenic Landscape Evaluation, Catherine Brouwer, 1995.
The cumulative impacts test is also critical for biodiversity. Tweed Shire’s has the third highest biodiversity in Australia, but also the highest number of threatened species. “ Ongoing pressures on biodiversity arising from indirect and or cumulative impacts of development must be minimised and effectively mitigated”, Tweed Shire A19 Biodiversity And Habitat Management, 2017. With the State prohibition on considering anything but “Significant likely impacts”, and this new proposal to prohibit consideration of cumulative impacts, the prospects for biodiversity seem grim.
Without the ability to consider the ‘suitability of the site’ there is also serious risk of adverse outcomes for both proponents and the community. For example Tweed’s landscapes are virtually covered in waterways. We have the highest rainfall in NSW and with the steep slopes of the Caldera this results in extremely dangerous flash flooding. Local small flow paths or ephemeral creeks can quickly turn into raging rapids, but are not always mapped, especially in the rural areas, and even mapped flow paths can change over time. Changes to flow paths from unsuitable development also can cause devastation to the safety of downstream properties and to ecosystems. These things take time to diligently assess as property and lives are at stake.
Bushfire is of serious concern in Tweed due to the heavily forested areas of both the urban and rural environment. The steep slopes of the Caldera create an added risk for the speed and severity of bushfires. With an ageing population Tweed has struggled to maintain emergency services volunteers at the levels required.
In rural areas Targeted Assessments would exacerbate serious and well recognised land-use conflicts between farming and residential activities. When rural planning is not sensitively managed it can threaten agricultural viability and cause fragmentation of rural land. Tweed Shire’s agricultural areas are recognised by the State as important for food security in part due to our high rainfalls.
Tick box housing codes, that can be similarly applied to Tweed or Paramatta, and this fast tracked assessment system are not appropriate for this Shire’s internationally significance.
Without the ability to fully assess potential impacts Tweed’s precarious balance between development and the environment is at grave risk.
Increased housing intensity and fast track assessments will prevent comprehensive consideration of critical environmental and urban planning factors.
A one-size-fits-all planning approach is inappropriate for a region containing a National Iconic Landscape, World Heritage values, remnant ancient Gondwana rainforests, geological and scientific values, irreplaceable biodiversity assets, sensitive coastal environments, and significant natural hazards.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Low-Rise Housing and Targeted Assessment Pathways reforms, request that Tweed Shire be exempted from these provisions, and request that urgent consideration be given to creating a special code for Tweed Shire to protect this national asset for future generations before it’s too late.
Yours faithfully, [Name]
———
Please lodge your submission to the NSW Planning Portal
