Kings Forest Stage 1 (Mod 4)

I object to Kings Forest Approval # 08_0194 (MOD4).

First of all, Tweed Coastal Koalas have been officially listed as Endangered and this is one of the last remaining koala habitat areas on the coast for them so it's critically important for the developer to do the utmost in his power to protect resident koalas.

Yet it appears that the developer is once again trying to renege on conditions of approval. His suggested modifications fail to meet the conditions of NSW Planning 2017 or the EPBC Act determination 2015 and put our koalas at even more threat of extinction than they already are.

Project Approval A13 - Environmental Lands' Management and maintenance
The developer asks to be able to conduct certain work prior to environmental management plans being in place. He wants to delay surveying, marking and maintenance of environmental lands till bulk earthworks are begun. This is unacceptable as any work conducted could negatively impact sensitive lands which are unmarked. Work such as vegetation clearing, earth works with heavy machinery and so on. He is trying to broaden the definition of preliminary works and asks that all preliminary work be conducted prior to environmental management plans.

Concept Plan Approval C2 - Management Plans
The developer has been unable to provide information on the Environmental Plans including timing. How are we, the public, supposed to comment on plans or modifications without such information?

Concept Plan Approval 84 - East-West Corridor
The developer was required to provide another east-west corridor besides the existing central east-west corridor which was to be 100m wide and fully vegetated. Instead the revised KPoM shows a southern east-west corridor that is only 50m wide and does not even link to Environ Road koala corridor. How can this even be considered a viable corridor for koalas?

Project Approval 45 - Koala Plan of Management
The developer wishes to remove offsite planting of 27 ha in the Cudgen Nature Reserve. This is required in order to counteract the lack of planting space within the Kings Forest site and address conflicting vegetation areas that overlap.

He also wants to revise the timing of koala tree planting along with compensatory koala habitat planting. More koala habitat will be lost while decreasing compensatory koala habitat planting. In a nutshell he is shortchanging the koalas. Since the KPoM 2017 has not yet been approved or assessed therefore using it as a guide to planting koala trees and the timing of planting is unacceptable.

Additionally the revised KPoM required the developer to consult with Tweed Shire council regarding compensatory koala habitat planting areas and timing yet this has not been done.

Compensatory habitat was meant to be `primary habitat' yet the developer has changed it to `secondary habitat' which further reduces the koalas' chance of survival.

Project Approval 46 - Koala Infrastructure
The developer wishes to delete reference to roads requiring fencing on both sides to merely `fencing.'

He also wishes to change ` fauna underpasses installed at sufficient intervals to allow unimpeded movement by koalas across roads' by deleting reference to `across roads'

He also wishes to replace several fauna underpasses with cattle grids. We know very well from youtube videos that cattle grids do NOT stop dogs from crossing. The requirement here is `underpass' to protect from cars. How will a cattle grid protect koalas from cars?

Mapping in the revised KPoM shows roads with no fencing going through environmental areas! Koala exclusion fencing needs to be on both sides of these roads. Yet the developer said:

`to exclude koalas from urban areas .... Fencing on both sides of the road are not required nor are koala underpasses.'

This puts koalas in direct contact with vehicles on busy roads and with pedestrians walking their dogs on the footpath and therefore should be rejected outright.

Project Approval 147 - Koala Plan of Management
The developer wishes to delete `use of calming devices' during preliminary works. Yet koalas are at risk during construction just as much as when the housing estate is fully developed. Many construction workers drive at high speeds and in wet weather conditions have less control of their vehicles on muddy soil therefore calming devices are absolutely necessary.

I am constantly baffled as to why the Concept Plan was even approved as this developer appears not to be putting koala protection ahead of profit, which is incumbent upon him as a major developer of housing for new residents in Tweed Shire. The developer could have made this a totally koala-friendly development yet it appears that at every turn he continues to take away concessions and water them down.

Please reject this Approval Modification.

MODIFICATION TO KINGS FOREST APPROVAL NO. 08_0194 (MOD4)

SUMMARY:
Proponent is attempting to satisfy conditions of approval that it fails to meet under both NSW and Federal planning assessments.

COMMENTS:
The proponent appears to be attempting to modify the conditions of approval rather than modifying aspects of the project. The modifications sought do not satisfy approval conditions of NSW Planning 2017 or the EPBC Act determination 2015

Project Approval A13: Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands

The Proponent wishes to be allowed to broaden the definition of "preliminary works" including clearing vegetation, using heavy-duty equipment to break ground, creating access tracks, moving heavy machinery and personnel and maintenance and rehabilitation works. The Proponent then ask that all such preliminary work be conducted before environmental management plans are in place.

Project Approval 3: Environmental Offset Areas
The Proponent wishes to delay the surveying, pegging and maintenance of environmental lands until they begin bulk earthworks in an area.

Both requests are unacceptable as they create a significant time lag in which considerable work is conducted which could seriously impact environmental protection areas and sensitive lands. Such areas will be unmarked making it difficult to avoid impact. These areas will also be without environmental management, monitoring and maintenance for an unacceptable period of time whilst work is conducted.

Concept Plan Approval C2: Management Plan

The Proponent has been asked for details about all necessary Environmental Plans. Details of actions to be taken and the timing for doing so have not yet been provided. This remains problematic, as it is not possible to assess the merits of plans nor modifications to them. It is not possible to assess how management strategies interact and if they complement or conflict with each other.

Concept Plan Approval B4: East-West Wildlife Corridor

The Proponent was required to provide a second E-W wildlife corridor in addition to the existing central E-W corridor.
The condition describes it as:
"A fully re-vegetated east-west corridor generally 100 metres wide with a minimum of 50 metres at any one point.
However the revised KPoM shows a Southern E-W corridor that is only 50 metres wide at most and is not continuous. It does not link to the Eviron Road koala corridor as must be undertaken under the approval. This is unacceptable and would be ineffective for its purpose.

Project Approval 45: Koala Plan of Management

The Proponent wishes to make several modifications to this condition;
* Remove offsite planting of 27 ha of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature Reserve.
* Revise timing of koala tree planting in accordance with JWC KPoM2014 &2017.
* Revise areas of compensatory koala habitat planting in accordance with JWC KPoM 2017.
* Increase the area of koala habitat that will be lost whilst decreasing the area of compensatory koala habitat planting. The net balance is significantly reduced from original estimates to 42 ha.

These modifications are unacceptable for the following reasons:

* 27 ha of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature Reserve was a strategic measure to counter the lack of planting space within the site and the problems of overlapping with conflicting vegetation areas.
* The KPoM 2017 is yet to be assessed and approved so using it to guide koala tree planting areas and the timing of such cannot be acceptable.
* The revised KPoM was supposed to consult council on the detail of compensatory koala habitat planting areas and schedules - this has not been done.
* Half of the compensatory habitat is planned to be "Secondary habitat" when it should be "Primary Habitat" which is far more valuable to koala survival.

The revised KPoM2017 does not meet the requirements of planning authorities for reasons besides those described above. The proponent's modifications attempt to legitimise this plan before it has been approved. In particular these modifications attempt to legitimise significantly reduced koala habitat areas and numbers of koala food trees to be planted which is highly unlikely to satisfy conditions of approval.

Project Approval 46: Koala Infrastructure

The Proponent wishes to adjust this condition in relation to roads through environmental zones.
* The Proponent wishes to: Delete reference to roads "requiring fencing on both sides" and merely refer to "fencing".
* The Proponent wishes to adjust reference to fauna underpasses "installed at sufficient intervals to allow unimpeded movement by ...koalas across roads" by deleting reference to "across roads".
* The Proponent wishes to replace several fauna underpasses with "cattle grids". The mapping in the revised KPoM shows roads traversing major environmental areas to be without any fencing whatsoever. However the body of the KPoM refers to "Koala exclusion fencing...on both sides of (these) roads"
(Pg46 KPoM 2017).

The Proponent stated reason for changing this wording is because:
"to exclude Koalas from urban areas...fencing on both sides of the road is not required nor are Koala underpasses".

The Proponents request is highly contradictory and threatens the survival of a listed threatened population of koalas. The Proponent offers no valid explanation for putting koalas in direct contact with vehicle strike on busy roads and with people and their pets on foot on these roads.
The Proponent offers no valid reason for relying heavily on untested cattle grids that would not be effective in keeping dogs out of koala habitat areas.
This request completely contravenes Project Approval conditions and should be rejected.

Project Approval 147: Koala Plan of Management
The Proponent wishes to delete the use of "calming devices" during preliminary works. This modification also seeks to legitimise the Revised KPoM 2017 as a document of guidance.

These requests should be rejected as traffic calming measures are an extra precaution during preliminary works. The Revised KPoM, such as it is, has not been developed to the satisfaction of other consulting authorities nor is it likely to satisfy the Departmental Planning Authorities.

MODIFICATION TO KINGS FOREST APPROVAL NO. 08_0194 (MOD4)

SUMMARY:
Proponent is attempting to satisfy conditions of approval that it fails to meet under both NSW and Federal planning assessments.

COMMENTS:
The proponent appears to be attempting to modify the conditions of approval rather than modifying aspects of the project. The modifications sought do not satisfy approval conditions of NSW Planning 2017 or the EPBC Act determination 2015

Project Approval A13: Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands

The Proponent wishes to be allowed to broaden the definition of "preliminary works" including clearing vegetation, using heavy-duty equipment to break ground, creating access tracks, moving heavy machinery and personnel and maintenance and rehabilitation works. The Proponent then ask that all such preliminary work be conducted before environmental management plans are in place.

Project Approval 3: Environmental Offset Areas
The Proponent wishes to delay the surveying, pegging and maintenance of environmental lands until they begin bulk earthworks in an area.

Both requests are unacceptable as they create a significant time lag in which considerable work is conducted which could seriously impact environmental protection areas and sensitive lands. Such areas will be unmarked making it difficult to avoid impact. These areas will also be without environmental management, monitoring and maintenance for an unacceptable period of time whilst work is conducted.

Concept Plan Approval C2: Management Plan

The Proponent has been asked for details about all necessary Environmental Plans. Details of actions to be taken and the timing for doing so have not yet been provided. This remains problematic, as it is not possible to assess the merits of plans nor modifications to them. It is not possible to assess how management strategies interact and if they complement or conflict with each other.

Concept Plan Approval B4: East-West Wildlife Corridor

The Proponent was required to provide a second E-W wildlife corridor in addition to the existing central E-W corridor.
The condition describes it as:
"A fully re-vegetated east-west corridor generally 100 metres wide with a minimum of 50 metres at any one point.
However the revised KPoM shows a Southern E-W corridor that is only 50 metres wide at most and is not continuous. It does not link to the Eviron Road koala corridor as must be undertaken under the approval. This is unacceptable and would be ineffective for its purpose.

Project Approval 45: Koala Plan of Management

The Proponent wishes to make several modifications to this condition;
* Remove offsite planting of 27 ha of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature Reserve.
* Revise timing of koala tree planting in accordance with JWC KPoM2014 &2017.
* Revise areas of compensatory koala habitat planting in accordance with JWC KPoM 2017.
* Increase the area of koala habitat that will be lost whilst decreasing the area of compensatory koala habitat planting. The net balance is significantly reduced from original estimates to 42 ha.

These modifications are unacceptable for the following reasons:

* 27 ha of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature Reserve was a strategic measure to counter the lack of planting space within the site and the problems of overlapping with conflicting vegetation areas.
* The KPoM 2017 is yet to be assessed and approved so using it to guide koala tree planting areas and the timing of such cannot be acceptable.
* The revised KPoM was supposed to consult council on the detail of compensatory koala habitat planting areas and schedules - this has not been done.
* Half of the compensatory habitat is planned to be "Secondary habitat" when it should be "Primary Habitat" which is far more valuable to koala survival.

The revised KPoM2017 does not meet the requirements of planning authorities for reasons besides those described above. The proponent's modifications attempt to legitimise this plan before it has been approved. In particular these modifications attempt to legitimise significantly reduced koala habitat areas and numbers of koala food trees to be planted which is highly unlikely to satisfy conditions of approval.

Project Approval 46: Koala Infrastructure

The Proponent wishes to adjust this condition in relation to roads through environmental zones.
* The Proponent wishes to: Delete reference to roads "requiring fencing on both sides" and merely refer to "fencing".
* The Proponent wishes to adjust reference to fauna underpasses "installed at sufficient intervals to allow unimpeded movement by ...koalas across roads" by deleting reference to "across roads".
* The Proponent wishes to replace several fauna underpasses with "cattle grids". The mapping in the revised KPoM shows roads traversing major environmental areas to be without any fencing whatsoever. However the body of the KPoM refers to "Koala exclusion fencing...on both sides of (these) roads"
(Pg46 KPoM 2017).

The Proponent stated reason for changing this wording is because:
"to exclude Koalas from urban areas...fencing on both sides of the road is not required nor are Koala underpasses".

The Proponents request is highly contradictory and threatens the survival of a listed threatened population of koalas. The Proponent offers no valid explanation for putting koalas in direct contact with vehicle strike on busy roads and with people and their pets on foot on these roads.
The Proponent offers no valid reason for relying heavily on untested cattle grids that would not be effective in keeping dogs out of koala habitat areas.
This request completely contravenes Project Approval conditions and should be rejected.

Project Approval 147: Koala Plan of Management
The Proponent wishes to delete the use of "calming devices" during preliminary works. This modification also seeks to legitimise the Revised KPoM 2017 as a document of guidance.

These requests should be rejected as traffic calming measures are an extra precaution during preliminary works. The Revised KPoM, such as it is, has not been developed to the satisfaction of other consulting authorities nor is it likely to satisfy the Departmental Planning Authorities.

The proposed development by Leda for Kings Forest area needs to adhere to the environmental protection laws and follow the correct guidelines in relation to sustaining the existing koala habitat, travel corridors and feeding areas. With a diminishing population of around 100 in the Tweed shire if these areas are not protected it will devastate the koala population even further pushing them to the brink of extinction unnecessarily.

I object to any changes to the plan. the koala corridors must be maintained to the optimum benefit of the native animals, not to the benefit of the developer.

Original DA should be held or withdrawn.
Endless submissions reducing environmental protections are a drain on council and should not be allowed

I think it should be illegal to modify an approved DA. If they want to change it they should cancel original approval and start again.
The proposed changes are damaging to the already fragile ecosystem that pertains to this land. It saddens me that they have so little regard for the environment, especially the endangered Koala bear.

I strongly support the refusal of the submission to modify the Subdivision project. The agreement between the developer, the Council and the community was long and hard fought and needs to remain as previously agreed.

Wildlife corridors:
These corridors are not just for koalas and need to remain 100metres wide. The corridors also provide corridors for other mammals, birds, reptiles and insects. The areas available to the local wallabies is rapidly diminishing in this area. The older trees are very important to the glossy black cockatoos, (and other birds including owls and other night feeding birds and animals) for both feed trees and nesting sites. There is a worldwide reduction in the numbers of bees for both honey and pollination. The forested areas in Kings Forest provide sites for the native bees which are necessary for pollination of some of the crops on the State Significant Cudgen Farmland plateau.

Tree planting:
I can see no reason for the developer to plant secondary koala food trees instead of primary food trees.
The new trees need to be large enough and firmly established as a food resourse for our vunerable koalas prior to the removal of the trees they are currently using.

Underpasses:
These are essential for the safety of all the animals transiting between areas and need to remain as planned.

Fencing:
The suggest modification will further reduce the protection for not just the koalas but for other animals as well
e.g. wallabies.

Calming devices:
The preliminary works area will still be used by animals day and night. The animals need to be protected from the equipment being used.

I believe that the suggested modifications should be refused and the current approvals be upheld.




The environment management plan needs to be upheld.

The proposed development is a major incursion into a valuable coastal ecosystem, which has so far been relatively undeveloped and supports a diversity of native flora and fauna including populations of endangered coastal Koalas. The development will invade a region all the way from the M1 motorway out to the Tweed Coast road, a corridor which is essential for the safe movement and survival of endangered native Koalas. The provisions for fauna underpasses, traffic calming devices and food trees are an established precondition of the approval which the developer is now seeking to remove. It would be preferable that the development not continue at all, but if it is to go ahead then there is no reason why the established preconditions for protection of native animals should not continue to be enforced.

This development by Leda Holdings is in koala habitat and I have had personal experience with this koala population since 1994. This population is under extreme stress and any watering down by allowing these changes will reduce their habitat even more. Note the buffers and tree planting are supposed to mitigate destroying other existing habitat.
Leda has had many years to have done this and I ask, what don't they understand about the development conditions?
Risking a koala population over what looks like saving some money on such a large project is unnecessary and the opposite to how they portrayed themselves when promoting this development. The current approvals are compromised enough.

I think Developers should keep their promises and must not be allowed to make changes. In this case they should plant primary food trees and have a 100metre wildlife corridor and have traffic calming devices.

I strongly object to this application by the Developer of Kings Forest. The original plan for koala habitat and corridors, traffic calming devices etc. should be adhered to.

I object to any planning changes from this developer, who should comply with the promises required in the first place, to secure the DA in this environmentally sensitive location. There should be no reduction in the number of trees needed to be planted as primary food trees for Koalas. The reduction in underpass construction should not be allowed to decrease in number, nor requirements of the original DA. Also wildlife corridor and traffic control calming should remain without change or reduction. Most importantly is that the department should remain NON POLITICAL in its decision and have the ENVIRONMENT as PRIORITY. The Koala Environmental Management Plan must be in place BEFORE Bulldozers arrive. Please do not allow any amendments to the approved DA in place, unless it provides for sensible Koala friendly highway access in the long term amenity for this development.

I object to the proposed modifications to the Koala Plan of Management

Reducing the amount of space originally allocated for the koala demonstrates a desire to diminish that space no matter how it is viewed or the excuses given. Assessment and approval of this issue is still to occur so there is difficulty in assuming that a smaller space is required in this modification. Furthermore, consultation with council regarding how to find replacement areas for planting specifically for koala habitat has not been attended. Some of the replacement habitat has shifted from primary to secondary habitat which further diminishes the value of the allocated space for the koala.

Regarding koala infrastructure fencing, it would seem imperative to provide fencing on both sides of the road and underpasses to give safe passage to the koala or other fauna for that matter. The road kill is heavy in this area. It would be unjustified not to comply with this reasonable request. Koalas are disturbed both in early or late stages of land development therefore I believe that any traffic calming devices will be necessary. Travelers are accustomed to such care and use of road signs when traveling in this area.

I oppose this proposed modification on the following grounds:

1. The proponent wants to be allowed to do extensive works on the site before any environmental management plans are in place. The clearing, ground-breaking, track-making, and use of heavy machinery that is proposed is unacceptable in such an environmentally sensitive area.

2. The proponent also wants to delay surveying, pegging, and maintaining environmental lands until they do major earthworks. This, too, is unacceptable, given the significant need for environmental monitoring in the area that will result from this development being approved.

3. The proponent has not yet provided details of required Environmental Plans, details that are essential to determining how effective the plans are (and will be) for protecting important aspects of the environment.

4. The proponent has not provided a second east-west wildlife corridor that meets condition B4 of the approved Concept Plan.

5. The proponent wants to make significant changes in Conditions 45 and 46 and 147 of the Project Approval, changes that would seriously weaken the protection for koalas that is essential in this area.

I urge the department to reject these modifications and insist that the original conditions of the Concept Plan Approval and Project Approval remain intact.

The developer has promised to plant primary food trees & have a 100 metre wildlife corridor as well as providing traffic calming devices. The developer has an obligation to keep these promises & not go back on his word. I am writing to object to any changes to plans.

Greatly concerned that developer's promises may not be kept. Vital that koalas are able to access a wide variety of food safely to maintain health & wellbeing. If the development goes ahead, at least a 100metre wide wildlife corridor with traffic calming devices must be provided & in place before the existing environment is disturbed by the developer.

I believe the developers should be required to keep to the original agreements with regard to environmental management and rehabilitation. I object to any reduction to or modification to the original approval. The developer needs to ensure that primary Koala food trees are planted . In addition the 100 metre wildlife corridor needs to be created to protect any remaining wildlife and sufficient traffic calming devices need to be installed.

I object any changes to plan. Developer should be bound to plant primary food trees and provide no less than a 100 metre wildlife corridor. There should be traffic calming devices put in place and above all ensure a safe habitat for our native wildlife.

Developer should keep all promises, I object to any changes to plan, Developer needs to plan primary food trees/have a 100 metre wildlife corridor/have traffic calming devices