Kings Forest Stage 1 (Mod 4)

I oppose the proposal by LEDA to modify conditions of consent for Koala Management at Kings Forest development. I believe the proposed modifications are a step back for survival of Koalas on the Tweed Coast.
Proposed offset areas overlap with existing vegetation and as such are not true offsets. Any offsets should be primary food trees for Koalas and not secondary food trees. Traffic calming measures, fencing and underpasses to protect Koalas should should be retained. Proposed amendments to habitat offset activities should not be delayed.
I ask that the proposed modification be refused and instead let the developer move ahead with building a housing estate under the existing conditions of consent. A housing estate that truly protects, maintains and improves native habitat today and for the future.

Project Approval 45: Koala Plan of Management
Suggested modifications to the KPOM including removing offsite planting of 27ha of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature Reserve, revised timing of tree planting and areas of compensatory planting for koala habitat and both increasing the area of habitat to be lost and decreasing compensatory habitat planting are totally unacceptable as this does not meet the planning authorities requirements. These modifications are obviously an attempt to legitimize reducing koala habitat areas.
Project Approval 46: Koala Infrastructure
The proponent seeks to delete or adjust conditions in relation to fencing roads and providing fauna underpasses. Deleting/adjusting the conditions will expose koala to car strike, dog attack and stress. There is no valid reason provided.

MODIFICATION TO KINGS FOREST APPROVAL NO. 08_0194 (MOD4)
As a local resident, I was dismayed to read in a Council circular of the application to 'modify' the 'approval' of the Kings Forest development. Upon reading the item the application sought to change some of the environmental conditions upon which the initial application was approved. I am totally opposed to that concept. If the applicant is wanting to change the conditions for approval then I suggest that the applicant seeks to cancel the application, then reapply.
The application was granted on the basis of the conditions agreed to. If the applicant is no longer happy with those conditions, that is too bad. The minimal conditions imposed upon the applicant are in place for the community and environment much larger than the applicant. Safeguards are necessary to care for existing residents - human and animal.
The beauty of the area upon which the applicant agreed to the conditions needs to be retained as much as possible. It is why people WANT to live and visit here. It is currently an economic advantage to ALL of the community. Who will be responsible for the loss of that?

I object to the developers application to modify their approval. It is not acceptable that they seek to remove measures that would safeguard the Koala ie buffer against the development impacts, plant primary Koala trees, protect & offset lost habitat, create sufficient corridor & provide fencing etc.

The matter of protecting the Tweed Coast Koala population is not to be taken lightly as it appears to be treated by the proponent who now decides to remove important Koala protective measures, scientific consideration, reference or research. It has become apparent from this action that the developer has little in protecting the Koala & has now lost the trust of the community.

The land at Kings Forest is critical to the survival of the Koala & the Koala has now been listed as an Endangered Population in the Tweed coast region. It is no time to be playing games with the Koala's future but a time to ensure that we have the best up to date Koala management practices in place that will ensure their protection & best chance of survival.

Thank you

The developer should keep all including measures such as traffic calming devices and a 100 metre wildlife corridor and planting new trees. I strongly object to any changes to the plan.

I note in the Daily News of 26 July the executive chairman, Bob Ell of Leda Holdings (the developer) has the gall to complain about the planning process and the length of time it has taken for him to "put one house on the market". If he stopped moving the these houses could have been constructed a long time ago!

Leda Holdings, the developer, should keep all their including the need to plant primary food trees, have a 100m wildlife corridor and provide traffic calming devices. I object to any changes to the plan.

While I understand that people have their own reasons for submitting this application to modify I have to make this submission and I I do so as the past inaugural chair of the Tweed Coast Koala Advisory Group, former TSC councillor and resident.

Quite simply, given the history of this site, the reality of the Scientific Committee's determination regarding the listing of the Tweed/Byron Koala as an endangered population and the overarching TSC KPOM (regardless of the fact Kings Forest has a separate KPOM) and the importance of the site in relationship to other areas containing Koalas, I see the proposal as written a poor outcome for our Koalas, should it be approved as requested.
While the TSC report (as stakeholders) has not been before the governing body (due to be tabled 3/8/17 I fully endorse the report as written.
When one buys property it comes with assets and liabilities more often than not. I do not see the Koalas as a liability. We can strip away more land, reduce connectivity, reduce plantings, plant secondary food trees instead, reduce traffic calming measures, and to what end? As a country we have been left some awful legacies. Now is not the time to emulate them. This modification is not in the best interest of a thriving, continuing, koala population. When you know better you do better. I write this submission only in the long term interest of a fragile coastal Koala population. Thank you. D M Holdom

The developer of this project is seeking many changes to those agreed in the original planning process including a revised Koala Plan of Management. All these changes are to reduce environmental protection and more importantly reduce protection of and offsets to the koakas that now call this area home. The koalas, already listed as vulnerable and already declining in numbers need all the protections that were originally planned for and more, certainly not less.

The unnacceptable changes include less koala habitat offsets, less koala food trees, less koala fencing and fauna underpasses as were previously recommended and less traffic calming devices.

The revised Koala Plan of Management is inferior and ineffective in protecting the already vulnerable Koala. It does not provide for a second East/West wildlife corridor and the one corridor is fragmented and incomplete as it doesn't meet up with other corridors and is very narrow in sections.
There are unacceptable changes to the Koala Plan of Management including the removal of large scale offset planting ; revised areas of compensatorykoala habitat planting. This managemnt plan reduces koala habitat at the same time as reducing compensatory habitat. And half of the compensatory habitat is secondary rather than primary habitat.
Koala protection is also being diluted with less fencing, replacing fauna underpasses with untested cattle grids.
Mapping in the KPOM has roads crossing environmental areas without fencing. Planning to delete the use of calming devices during preliminary works will also cause more stress and possible disease/ death of koalas.
The proponent also seeks to undertake preliminary work before environmental management plans are in place.
All these changes spell disaster for the local koala population. I and many other citizens of the Tweed want to see koalas into the future not only for their own right but for tourism potential also.
Koalas need to be left alone and given the protection they deserve so they can increase in numbers and not dwindle out and die on our watch.

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

SUMMARY:
The developer is aiming to satisfy conditions of approval that it fails to meet under both NSW and Federal planning assessments

COMMENTS:
The developer seems to be attempting to modify the conditions of approval rather than modifying aspects of the project, as it should.
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 developer wants 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. They then ask that all such preliminary work be conducted before environmental management plans are in place. Seriously?

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

Both of these requests are totally 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 developer 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 we are unable to assess the merits of plans let alone modifications to them. We are also unable to assess how management strategies interact and if they complement or conflict with each other.

Concept Plan Approval B4: East-West Wildlife Corridor
The developer 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 revegetated east-west corridor generally 100metres wide (with a minimum of 50 metres at any one point)
However, the revised KPoM shows a Southern E-W corridor that is only 50metres wide at most and is not continuous. It does not link to the Environ Road koala corridor as it is supposed to. This is totally unacceptable and would be ineffective for its purpose.

Project Approval 45: Koala Plan of Management
The developer 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 KPoM 2014 &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. Again, totally unacceptable, given that we have endangered Tweed Coast koalas.

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 revisedKPoM2017 does not meet the requirements of planning authorities for reasons besides those described above. The developer's modifications attempt to legitimize this plan before it has been approved. In particular, these modifications attempt to legitimize 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 developer wishes to adjust this condition in relation to roads through environmental zones.
They wish to delete reference to roads "requiring fencing on both sides" and merely refer to "fencing"
They wish to adjust reference to fauna underpasses "installed at sufficient intervals to allow unimpeded movement by ...koalas across roads" by deleting reference to "across roads"
They wish 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 developer 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 developer's request is highly contradictory and confusing. They offer 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. They offer 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 developer wishes to delete the use of "calming devices" during preliminary works. This modification also seeks to legitimize 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.

All initial promises to preserve & offset destruction of invaluable koala habitat should be honoured.
I object to proposed amendments.
Developer should retain commitment to planting primary food trees & providing a 100m wildlife corridor with traffic calming devices.
I would also support a dog ban in this estate.

Developer should keep his promises and I object to changing the Koala EMP before the bulldozers start.

Developer needs to plant trees for the koalas

I object to any changes to plan . Developer needs to plant primary food trees

The developer needs to stick to the original plan and provide at least a large corridor of 100 metres for koalas and wildlife as per ordinal consent..

This incredibly developer is at the expense iof future generations. Stop the .

We all have a duty to protect our wildlife. Koalas can't speak and therefore we all have to do what is best for them.
The Developer should be made to keep all promises. This should a condition that can't be changed.
There should be no changes to the plan, any changes will never benefit the area.
The developer should be planting primary food trees and have at least a 100 metre wildlife corridor.
Traffic in a koala sensitive area should be slowed down to futher help protect them.

I object to any changes in the plan. The exception would be for the developer to allow more land for the koalas.
A condition should be for the developer to plant primary food trees for the koalas and have a least a 100 wide wildlife corridor.
Traffic should be slowed around this area to further protect them.
All developments should be conditioned to keep all the promises the developer stated to get the approval in the first place.
Protecting our wildlife is the responsibility of everyone, elected officials, the public and the developers.

I object to any changes in the plan. The exception would be for the developer to allow more land for the koalas.
A condition should be for the developer to plant primary food trees for the koalas and have a least a 100 wide wildlife corridor.
Traffic should be slowed around this area to further protect them.
All developments should be conditioned to keep all the promises the developer stated to get the approval in the first place.
Protecting our wildlife is the responsibility of everyone, elected officials, the public and the developers.

I am against this modification. The koalas on the Tweed Coast have been listed as an Endangered Population, so we should be doing everything to protect them. Here are my objections to the proposed modification:

1. The developer is proposing to make a substantial reduction in koala offsets, and many of the proposed offset areas include existing koala habitat. So the offsets are not real and will have very limited effects on the koalas in the area.

2. The proposed offsets include a lot of secondary koala habitat instead of primary koala habitat. Primary habitat, with food trees favoured by koalas, is what's needed.

3. What happened to the required east-west wildlife corridor? The proposal does not include this. Besides, the developer now wants to take away fencing and underpasses associated with the roads that will go through koala-sensitive areas. Koalas are much more likely to be injured or killed by vehicles if this modification is allowed.

4. How can the proposed new Koala Plan of Management avoid any mention of the developer's responsibility to manage existing koala habitat? Management of existing habitat by the developer is essential!

5. The proponent wants to put off surveying and maintaining environmental lands until major earthworks are done with even though there's a real need for environmental monitoring before any such earthworks are begun. The surveys and maintenance should not be removed from the plan.

6. The proponent needs to provide specific details of the Environmental Plans that are required by the current approvals. Without these details, authorities cannot tell how effective the plans will be for protecting key environmental elements.

7. Condition B4 of the approved Concept Plan requires a second east-west wildlife corridor. This has not been done and is missing from the modification.

8. Proposed changes to Conditions 45 and 46 and 147 of the Project Approval would seriously weaken the protection for the koalas who are in this area. That protection should not be removed!

The Department should reject these modifications and should keep to the original conditions of the Concept Plan Approval and Project Approval.

The developer needs to stick to the original plan and provide at least a large corridor of 100 metres for koalas and wildlife as per ordinal consent..

This incredibly developer is at the iof future generations. Stop the .

Better wildlife corridor should be retained.

The Developer is going against the original plan. I do not agree to any of the changes. Absolutely disgusting if this isn't stopped.