Kings Forest Stage 1 (Mod 4)

The developer of Kings Forest is seeking to change the approval conditions and their commitments by:
* Removing the requirement to plant koala food trees in 27ha of Cudgen Nature Reserve
* Reduce the requirements for fencing, underpasses and traffic calming devices
* Change the definition of "commencement of works" and "preparatory works" to match the, generally less onerous, Commonwealth definitions
* Reduce the width of koala corridors by half
* Include reference to the newly revised (and yet to be approved) Koala Plan of Management (KPOM) instead of the approved 2012 KPOM.

These changes, if approved, would put the survival of coastal koalas in the Kings Forest area seriously at risk.

The developer welcomed the approval of Stage 1 of this development in 2013. This approval included these conditions.

If the developer is now not happy about the conditions then the entire approval should be overturned and they should have to start the entire process again from the beginning.

I make this point because the conditions attached to the original approval do not exist in isolation from each other.

The entire approval, with conditions, needs to be considered as a coherent whole. Changing bits and pieces has implications for other sections of the approval and associated conditions.

I urge that the developer's requested changes be rejected in their entirety.

I oppose the application to modify the consent conditions as lodged by the developer of the Kings Forest development.

In its own words, the applicant is, "in summary", seeking "approval to implement a revised Koala Plan of Management (KPOM).

The revised KPOM seeks to amend the location and quantity of Koala offset habitat within development Precincts 1 to 14 by decreasing the total area of the Koala offset habitat from 71.12 ha of land (planted with 10,294 Koala food trees and 10,294 non- Koala food trees) to 56.71 ha of land (to be planted with 21,864 Koala food trees only). This includes planting of Koala food trees within a 50 metre wide portion of the east-west wildlife corridor required under Term B4 of the Kings Forest Concept Plan Approval."

The modification request also seeks approval to "amend Conditions A13, 3, 45, 46 and 147 and Statement of Commitment 18 to:
* revise the `commencement of works' definition to provide consistency with the approval issued under Sections 130 and 133 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Approval 2012/6328);
* remove the requirement to plant Koala food trees on a 27 ha parcel of land within the Cudgen Nature Reserve;
* revise the locations of the Koala fencing and fauna underpasses, and amend the timing for the construction of this infrastructure;
* remove the requirement to provide traffic calming devices to manage potential Koala movements across the site; and
* remove references to the KPOM dated August 2012 and insert references to the revised KPOM prepared by JWA Pty Ltd, Version 9, dated 19 May 2017. "

The rationale put forward by the applicant is to reduce or remove inconsistencies between the approvals under the Commonwealth's Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act and the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP&A) Act (Part 3a).

In general, the applicant seeks to remove these inconsistencies by implementing the, generally less onerous, Commonwealth requirements or conditions within the construct of a "revised" KPOM.

It is my contention that, where an option occurs, the more stringent of the requirements should be applied.

The Kings Forest development has been, and continues to be, contentious in the local community.

Approval of the applicant's proposed modifications would convey the wrong message to the local community and to this and other developers.

The conditions in the original approval were put in place because they were seen to be appropriate and should be retained.

There is no possible problem with the Commonwealth approval under the EPBC Act if the developer meets more stringent standards than those required by that approval. The Commonwealth requirements should be seen as minimum requirements. Accordingly, it seems to me to be in the best interests of the koala population and the local community to retain the more stringent NSW requirements. It might actually also be seen as good corporate citizenship by the developer if they were to adopt the more stringent requirements.

Coastal koala populations are already under extreme threat in Northern NSW. Everything possible must be done to protect them and enhance their chances of survival, even if at times it means that developers have to do a bit more than might otherwise be required.

The general tenor of the application seems to be "putting the cart before the horse" by seeking to give de-facto approval to the revised KPOM by incorporating reference to it in the approval conditions and Commitments. The proposed changes are integral features of the revised KPOM but they have not yet been approved. Therefore, it seems logically inconsistent to incorporate references to the revised KPOM as requested by the developer.

The requested changes will see a serious diminution of the protection afforded to the local koala population and should be rejected in their entirety.

In particular:
* The requirement to plant trees on 27ha of Cudgen Nature Reserve was included in the original approval as a strategic measure. This proposal by the OEH was accepted in the approval process. In my view, it remains valid today. This approval was welcomed in local media at the time by the developer's spokesperson. There is no valid reason given to remove this requirement. This request should be rejected.
* The width of the corridor and the provision of an additional corridor were both measures put in place to enhance the possibility of survival of the local koala population. The developer has not provided any valid reason for reducing either the width or the number of corridors. To halve the width of the corridor and not provide the additional required corridor seems more like a land grab by the developer than a reasoned response to the needs of local koalas. This request should be rejected.
* Regardless of any "inconsistencies" between the commonwealth and state definitions relating to commencement of works, changing the provisions of the approval conditions will have a deleterious effect on measures aimed at protecting local koalas. Meeting the more stringent NSW requirements and definitions, and the existing conditions, will more than satisfy the commonwealth requirements. The request should be rejected.
* Reducing the provisions for fencing and other strategies, such as fauna underpasses and traffic calming devices, would seriously reduce the protection afforded to the local koala population. Delaying the construction of these measures would impact negatively on the local koala population. The internal inconsistencies in the revised KPOM relating to these strategies shows how specious the arguments are. These requests should be rejected.
* To change the references to the KPOM would pre-empt approval of both the proposed changes and of the KPOM itself. This request should be rejected. It represents a bureaucratic sleight of hand which would imply de-facto approval and make it more difficult to reject the other provisions requested. The internal inconsistencies in the revised KPOM and the lack of consultation with Tweed Shire Council and the local community provide additional reasons to reject this request.


For all the reasons listed above I urge rejection of all of the developer's requested changes.

Submission against
Kings Forest Residential Subdivision Project Modification
Application No MP08 0194 MOD 4

On the grounds listed below:
Like all proposals put before Government and Councils once the previous proposal to get this Subdivision approved and conditions were applied. The proponent just submits modification requests that the conditions are erroneous and to hard to comply with and would make the project non-viable. Yet when they took on the project with the understanding of it being a forest and important habitat for Koala and other species. To now ask for further modification is laughable but normal commercial practice and on making this submission we know its already a done deal. If the project is unworkable then they should walk away no more to pay. But once again modification is sort, we get sick and tired of the greed and lack of empathy regarding Flora and Fauna by developers and Government / Councils charged with looking after the natural environment for the betterment of all.
Each Council that has Koalas habitats and bush settings all croak about the tourism dollar spin off's and actively promote then in publications and advertisements regarding the area. Yet pay token management to the well being and protection of the asset. Just down the road in Port Macquarie Local Council area Koalas were once prevalent and revered by all. Local Council had statues painted and placed around town, a Koala Hospital was formed and various committees chaired to look after the Koalas. Yet developer after developer saw a profit to be made and the local Koala population is now down to unviable numbers to maintain a health population. Each new subdivision had stricter conditions than the last but the population became fragmented, loss of habitat, road kill, and ultimately dog food. Very soon all they will have is the painted statues outside Coffee shops to remember a National icon that was indigenous to the area. Now Tweed Council is to go the same way through poor management policy and practices. We all go on and on about reconciliation with the first nations yet the native Fauna population pre-dates the first nations arrival. Yet like the blacks which just get in our way of progress so we shove them out west or in the case of Koalas to unliveable habitats in the name of developers dollars. So go ahead Tweed Council approve this modification and send another species towards the endangered list and extinction and get your 30 pieces of silver for it. Many efforts have been tried before to catch and relocate Koalas with limited success by developers and those charged with the removal of Koalas. The developer must assure Council and the community that no harm will occur to the Koalas both in the short and long term. Fines and stop and desist orders implemented by Council if harm is detected without the need of Community to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that harm is being done. It is on the onus of the developer to prove no harm exists now and in the future.
No to revised Koala Plan of Management for this will only fragment natural feeding areas and introduce pest domestic animals into Koala foraging traversing zones. If this subdivision is approved there should be a clause of no domestic pets allowed for the damage they cause is well documented at the Koala Hospitals in all areas. Plus fines imposed for breaching this clause.
The requirement to plant Koala food trees within Cudgen Nature Reserve is laughable, as it already has trees and plant stocks. To try to introduce another type of tree will only cause crowding out of the current viable tree stocks. Plus the time taken for these new planted food tree to be of a size and quality to support Koalas is many years away. The developer would have to plant them now and hold off the subdivision for 15 years to allow food trees to grow them shift Koalas over before work started. Can you see that happening, NO WAY.
There has to be no removal of the traffic calming devices or management of traffic volumes and speed for Koalas are slow and need time to react to danger. Greater effort must be placed on management of traffic by the proponent.
No to removal of references to the KPOM dated 12 August 2012 and then inserting reference to the revised KPOM. For the developer has to work in the best interest of the outcomes of the KPOM and a revised plan is con-try to effective management plans of Koala populations and habitat conservation.


Geoff Pettett
1339 Gloucester Rd Wingham 2429 NSW 0427478189 15/07/17

That Leda Developments adhere to the original Koala Plan of Management and that their current and any future proposals to alter those management plans be denied.
Their proposal to modify the agreement will result in no benefit for koala conservation. It appears that their original agreement was made to placate concerns but now they have approvals in place clearly think they can modify to the point of uselessness. The KPoM was agreed and needs to be adhered to, and in fact improved in light of their attempt to get out of the management plan. What is the point of specifying these things and then walking away? There are no grounds whatsoever to do so and very many more to increase protections for koalas in the area.

As someone who grew up in the area I encourage the Government to maintain existing protection measures for Koala Habitat in this development.

I also encourage the government to review the other changes to this development. In particular the inclusion of a petrol station adjacent to Cudgen Creek. This will have a detrimental effect on the creek and the wildlife that rely on it remaining clean.

I want the developer to KEEP to the current agreement

Keep the Koala's Habitat.

Developer should keep the current agreement.

I am disappointed and disgusted by the changes. Save the Koalas. Leave King's Forest alone.

I am disappointed and disgusted by the changes. Save the Koalas. Leave King's Forest alone.

Surely it is to get approval for a development with the most controversial aspects then run through at a later date! LEDA have done this already with their very Service Station on Tweed Coast Rd and now they are trying the same with this application. We would have rejected the entire application if we the community knew about these two 'modifications'. There needs to be an into this development and the with the former . We are sick of this. 99% recently rejected another amendment for the Casuarina Town Centre modification. We are sick of the developers in our Shire and their councillor !

The whole development is a disaster to the environment. To lessen the impact on the koala population in the area is tragedy. Koalas won't be the only fauna effected by this development.

This s a very sensitive area and any changes to the application must improve the chances of Koala survival. I believe that the adjustments to the application (made by LED) will be hugely detramental to our Koalas.

I reject this modification based on the plans to disrupt koala habitat These animals are already under significant threat in the area.

I object

I object to all modifications made this residential subdivision. I strongly object to any and all changes posed to drastically reduce the protection of native Koala habitats.

I wish to protest against changes the Koalas should be protected.

It's unbelievable that after having application approved changes in conditions put there to protect the flora and fauna that were agreed to in order to have application approved by the developer are now requesting to be changed in regard to Koala protection and preservation.

I strongly oppose the relaxation of any changes to the commitment to protect the habitat of our local flora and fauna. The reason we choose to live in this region is because of this rich resource, NOT to destroy it. I understand progress however we must make it our priority to preserve our natural habitat and our scarce Koala population, or we run the risk of killing what makes our neighbourhoods so special.

I urge all involved to REJECT the proposed amendments to LEDA's DA in favour f preserving our local flora and fauna, especially the endangered koala.