Mod 2

5 March 2014
To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I am objecting to this application for modifications to the development. I am a local ecologist and am very familiar with the Kings Forest site and its extremely high conservation significance. I have previously made submissions in relation to Kings Forest's significance..

I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".

5.1 Definitions.
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by theproponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.

5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is criticalthat the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogetherany reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs)on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct"and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until"3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks".At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact aprerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerningout of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them. If the proponent was truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible.Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "
Such a measure only lessens the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures.
5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it doesnot not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.
It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer. This is a site of the utmost ecological significance. Every attempt should be made to ensure that conditions are in place to limit and, where possible, to offset the extensive negative impacts this development is likely to have on local biodiversity.

Yours sincerely

Annette McKinley

Maya King-Prime
22 Riverside Drive
Tumbulgum NSW 2490
[email protected]

5 March 2014
To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I would like to object to the above application, "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". Approval of these proposed modifications would mean the proponent has power to circumvent and delay environmental protection on this highly sensitive land site after the granting of project approval.
These proposed modifications make a mockery of yourself as Planning Minister, the planning process, and the Objects of the EP&A Act (1979). They also disregard hundreds of hours of study and deliberation by highly trained experts from local and state governments.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document: "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2", section 5: "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".
5.1 Definitions
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
What will this "agreement with Council" consist of? Why should the proponent decide that dedication of land to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification, by defining it as "potential", negates the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement as a condition of development.
5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer.
Again, redefining this dedication as "future" negates the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement as a condition of development. This introduces uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition. However, it is critical that the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 months prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks.
By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around.
The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerning out of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them.
If truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible. Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "
Such a measure would lessen the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures. More worryingly, it shows disrespect for the planning process.
5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponent's consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner".
The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate. It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Sincerely yours,
Maya King-Prime

Mrs Marie Jack
356 Upper Burringbar Road
Burringbar. NSW 2483
[email protected]
7th March 2014
To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".

5.1 Definitions.
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.

5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerning out of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them. If the proponent was truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible. Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "
Such a measure only lessens the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures.


5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.
It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Sincerely yours,
Marie Jack

Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2



Dear Mr Lawlor,

I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.

Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".



5.1 Definitions.

The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".

I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.



5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH

In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.



5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods

The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??



5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands

This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.

It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.



5.11 Baseline Monitoring

As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.

Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.



5.12 Koala Plan Of Management

The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerning out of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.

Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them. If the proponent was truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible. Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.



5.14 Environmental Audit Reports

Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."

The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "

Such a measure only lessens the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures.





5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works

Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.

The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.



CONCLUSION

In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.

It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).

I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

My submission is based on that of Team Koala in the Tweed. I strongly agree with this submission and hope that your department can see through the attempts proponent to completely dismiss environmental obligations in undertaking the King's Forest development. This is an organisation with a dubious environmental track record at best. I strongly urge you to decline all these proposed modifications.

Regards

Clothiers Creek NSW 2484


8 March 2014


To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".

5.1 Definitions.
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.

5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerning out of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them. If the proponent was truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible. Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "
Such a measure only lessens the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures.

5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.
It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Sincerely yours,

Please lets leave some space for our wild life and natural vegetation!

I object to the development of King's Forest, Kingscliff as it fails to provide adequate community amenity and this will overload the entire community amenity from Pottsville up to Tweed heads.
An additional 11,000 residents will also overload all community and health infrastructure in the region as well as have a significant impact on all environmental and social aspects of the entire coastal community.

To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. I believe the proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".

5.1 Definitions.
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". I believe the aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? I believe the suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.

5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". I believe their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". I believe the proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. If so, such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve, for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of this significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
It is my understanding that the proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". I also understand they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". I believe this would negate their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This would be a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. I is my understanding that the proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. I believe the proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense).

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
It is my understanding that the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," I believe the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they will only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
It is my understanding that the proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
It is my understanding that the proponent has presented a request to delay koala tree planting. If so this is the most concerning of all the proposed modifications. The Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees. The proponent should be planting the trees as soon as possible. I believe postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is inappropriate.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
It is my understanding that the proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. I believe instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. " I believe such a measure will only lessen the incentives to comply with environmental plans.

5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
It is my understanding that the proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund".

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". It si my understansing that the proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.
I believe the proposed modifications largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here . I believe the conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Sincerely yours

To: [email protected]
Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2

Dear Mr Lawlor,
I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. I believe the proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".

5.1 Definitions.
The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". I believe the aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".
I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? I believe the suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.

5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH
In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". I believe their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". I believe the proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. If so, such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve, for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of this significant area remain protected.

5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
It is my understanding that the proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". I also understand they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". I believe this would negate their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This would be a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??

5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. I is my understanding that the proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. I believe the proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.
It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense).

5.11 Baseline Monitoring
It is my understanding that the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," I believe the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they will only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.
It is my understanding that the proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.

5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
It is my understanding that the proponent has presented a request to delay koala tree planting. If so this is the most concerning of all the proposed modifications. The Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.
Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees. The proponent should be planting the trees as soon as possible. I believe postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is inappropriate.

5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."
It is my understanding that the proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. I believe instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. " I believe such a measure will only lessen the incentives to comply with environmental plans.

.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
It is my understanding that the proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund".

CONCLUSION
In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". It si my understansing that the proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.
I believe the proposed modifications largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here . I believe the conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Yours Faithfully

The design of this proposal does not allow for workable wildlife corridors. Also the few entries into this proposal do not allow for safe entry and exist in the event of bush fire or other large scale emergency.

40 Lagoon Road
Fingal Head
NSW 2487
[email protected]

Wednesday March 12, 2014

To: [email protected]
Re: Modification Request - Concept Plan (MP06_0318MOD 4) and Stage 1 Project Approval (MP08_ 0194 MOD 2). Residential Development, Kings Forest, Kingscliff

Dear Sir,
The Kings Forest area should not be further marginalised by these proposed changes to the already approved development. This residential development is already disastrous for our natural environment and these proposed changes are designed to allow for even great destruction and is another example of death to the environment by a thousand cuts.
Our natural environment and unique animals underpin our North Coast Tourism which is very important for our economy and this development with these changes will impact on the environment and so also our tourism. Furthermore these constant attritions do not consider the impact on future generations.
Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".
5.12 Koala Plan Of Management
I object to the proponent's request to delay planting of koala trees. Planting koala food trees will not compensate for the loss of feed trees as a result of this development but it will help. It will be many years before these trees mature and can be useful as Koala feed trees and so these trees should be planted as soon as possible
5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works
I object to the proponent's suggestion that the developers should not be required to lodge a bond to ensure environmental protection measures are met.
Condition 50 currently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Tweed Shire Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.
The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not provide for a refund. However section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.
5.1 Definitions.
I object to the proponent's wishes to replace the definition Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The proponent's aim of this change is obviously to allow them to change their mind about this in the future - probably in yet another application for modification of the DA. . This dedication of land to the TSC was obviously designed to protect environmentally significant areas and there is no reason to change this.
5.4 Land to be Dedicated to Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)
I object to the proponent's wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land ". This offset area is designed to compensate and was a condition of the original approval and should not be changed
5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods
I object to the proponent's wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period" which would abrogate them of this responsibility for ongoing agreed maintenance. Who then will maintain these environmental works?
5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands
I object to the proponents attempt to delay the start of environmental management works. The current approval requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available.
The environmental management should start as soon as the relevant plans are ready as this will help to reduce the long term impact of this development on habitat and ecosystems.
5.11 Baseline Monitoring
I object to the request to delay baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". It is obvious that baseline monitoring and reporting should start when the EMP begin to be implemented. If the EPM works and baseline monitoring is satisfactory then earthworks can be considered for approval - not before then.
5.14 Environmental Audit Reports
I object to the proponent's requests that approval for further stages does not depend on compliance with environment requirements are not met. It seems obvious to me that if environmental conditions are not met further stages should not be approved. By removing this requirement the developer has more opportunity to not comply and get away with it.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated and it appears failure to keep to a legal agreement is encouraged and condoned by this proposal.
These modifications obviously negate many of the environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013) and so should not be accepted. As you are aware the conditions in this 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site and so it would be expected that these established conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

Yours sincerely,
Fran Rabbitts
Journalist - Tweed Daily Newss
Resident of the Tweed for 30 years.

I object to these proposed changes to the current DA for the Kings Forest Residential development. I can not see that changes to an already approved DA should be even considered as the DA has been passed on these conditions and now to apply for changes which suite the developer's agenda is unacceptable. This application for changes obviously erodes the original conditions which have been set in place to protect this significant environment. These conditions were designed by professional working at both state and local government levels and acknowledged in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2031) and so should not be modified.
In 2013 I receive an O.A.M for my environmental works and I am obviously very concerned about the destruction of the Tweed natural environment. This Kings Forest residential development is disastrous for the environment and these changes are designed to allow the developer to increase by stealth their capacity to cause even more environmental damage for their own personal gain.
Let this developer pack up his tent and move on.

I object to these proposed changes to the current DA for the Kings Forest Residential development. I can not see that changes to an already approved DA should be even considered as the DA has been passed on these conditions and now to apply for changes which suite the developer's agenda is unacceptable. This application for changes obviously erodes the original conditions which have been set in place to protect this significant environment. These conditions were designed by professional working at both state and local government levels and acknowledged in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2031) and so should not be modified.
In 2013 I receive an O.A.M for my environmental works and I am obviously very concerned about the destruction of the Tweed natural environment. This Kings Forest residential development is disastrous for the environment and these changes are designed to allow the developer to increase by stealth their capacity to cause even more environmental damage for their own personal gain.
Let this developer pack up his tent and move on.

To Ray Lawler
Please do what you can to help save the remaining Tweed Coast koalas. Once they're gone, they're gone for ever. I realise this is a very simple submission but when I look at the pitiful state of these beautiful and unique creatures and one of Australia's most famous icons, my heart goes out to them.

Thankyou

I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation. These proffered modifications negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013). The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.

All the conditions imposed by The Planning Assessment Commission and Tweed Shire council must be implemented. The developer must comply with all conditions and must protect the environment, pay a cash bond for the environmental audit, follow recommended dust mitigation measures, plant koala trees now and lay infrastructure for fiber optic cable. These are legal conditions that must be implemented. These conditions in no way negatively effect the approved development. This development was approved because of these conditions being implemented. Without these conditions being implemented the approval will not be legal.

Mount Burrell NSW 2484



11/3/2014


To: [email protected]

Re: Application Number 08_0194 MOD 2


Dear Mr Lawlor,

I would like to object to this application for modifications to the development. I question the proponent's justification for modifying the conditions placed on this highly sensitive land site. The proposed modifications are in effect a dilution of environmental protections designed by highly trained experts in various fields from both local and state governments after hundreds of hours of study and deliberation.

Following are my objections to the suggested modifications in the document entitled "Modification of Major Project Approval Number 08_0194 MOD 2". I refer to section 5 entitled "PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS".



5.1 Definitions.

The proponent wishes to replace the definition "Land to be dedicated to Council as identified on the Council Dedicated Land Plan" with the wording "Potential Council Land as identified on the Potential Council Land Plan". The aim as described by the proponent is to take away the certainty that such land "must be" dedicated to council and to make this dedication instead subject to "reaching an appropriate agreement with Council".

I ask what this "agreement with Council" is to consist of? What aspect of the condition of approval that certain land be given to Council needs further "agreement"? This suggested modification creates considerable uncertainty and vagueness around the proponent's fulfilment of this requirement.



5.4 Land to be Dedicated to OEH

In a similar vein, the proponent wishes to amend the definition of land to be dedicated to NPWS. Currently entitled "Offset area" they would prefer to refer to it as "Future OEH land". Their reasoning is to stress that such land was not compensation for development approval but something they offered "voluntarily". The proponent is in effect claiming that development approval would have been granted without the dedication of such land to NPWS. Such a claim is highly dubious given the very high environmental value of the adjacent Cudgen nature reserve for which this dedicated land will serve as a protective buffer. Furthermore, redefining this dedication as "voluntary" introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of this condition which is highly worrying as it is critical that the environmental values of such a significant area remain protected.



5.2 and 5.3 Establishment & Maintenance Periods

The proponent wishes to define the "establishment period" of works specified in environmental management plans as a period of time "necessary to carry out initial environmental repair, restoration and monitoring prior to ongoing maintenance". However, they wish to delete altogether any reference to an ongoing "Maintenance Period". In doing so, they are negating their responsibility for ongoing maintenance standards and criteria as set out in the approved environmental management plans. This is a serious omission and leaves us with the question of who is to be responsible for the maintenance of these plans??



5.6 - Management & Maintenance of Environmental Lands

This condition presently requires the proponent to implement management and maintenance in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) on lands to be dedicated to both Council and NWPS and to do so as soon as those plans are available. The proponent claims that compliance cannot be achieved because the EMPs are still being revised and because they are also still waiting EPBC approval and because of commercial considerations. The proponent is requesting instead that the trigger for implementation be "From the commencement of any bulk earthworks in a precinct" and that only the area of land "immediately adjacent to that precinct" is to be environmentally managed.

It must be questioned why environmental management cannot begin as soon as the relevant plans are ready. Any EPBC decisions are likely to require more not less work. Giving "commercial considerations" as the other reason to delay is also questionable. The proponent has accepted responsibility to manage these lands using particular criteria to a certain standard - surely the sooner they start the easier this is to achieve (and at less expense). Requesting such significant delays on implementing these EMPs does not show a sense of commitment to the spirit and intent of environmental management. This is especially unacceptable given the high value of the site and the very great responsibility that sits with anyone who is planning to develop it.



5.11 Baseline Monitoring

As with the delays to implementation, the proponent wishes also to delay the baseline reporting on the relevant EMPs until "3 month prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks". At present, this condition aligns baseline monitoring with the prompt commencement of EPMs. Satisfaction of this condition is in fact a prerequisite for issuing the construction certificate for bulk earthworks. By deleting the reference to "issuing of a construction certificate," the proponent is presuming they will be issued a certificate regardless of the standard of their environmental reporting and that they only be asked to satisfy this condition when they are ready to commence earth works.

Such suggestions show considerable reluctance to taking up the role of environmental custodian. The proponent is saying that mitigation of their very significant impact on the Cudgen NR and surrounds should only begin when they actually start moving soil around. The impact of this residential development on the natural environment will be enduring and permanent. Rather than delay augmentation strategies, I would expect the proponent to willingly accept them as designed by experts in their respective fields.



5.12 Koala Plan Of Management

The proponent's request to delay koala tree planting is the most concerning out of all the proposed modifications. It should not need repeating that the Tweed Coast koala population is at dire levels and the Kings Forest colony is a vital part of their survival. It should also not need reiterating how harmful the building an urban township in the midst of their range will be.

Planting koala food trees is the minimum of mitigation measures in offsetting the many destructive impacts of urban incursion including traffic strikes and dog attacks. It will be many years before the trees mature and meanwhile the local koalas must suffer the loss of some of their trees which is a particularly distressing and deleterious thing for them. If the proponent was truly serious about koala survival, the proponent would be planting the trees as soon as possible. Postponing this to coincide with certain earthworks (potentially years ahead) is simply irresponsible and the proponent has offered no valid justification for it.



5.14 Environmental Audit Reports

Condition 49.3 at present states that if an environmental audit: "indicates non compliance with any of the relevant environmental management plans, approval for further stages of the development will not be granted."

The proponent requests that approval for further stages no longer be contingent on compliance of environmental audits. Instead, they propose to: "review and if necessary revise the relevant management plans and undertake additional mitigation measures as required under this approval. "

Such a measure only lessens the incentive to comply with environmental plans. It calls into question once again the proponent's commitment to environmental measures.





5.15 Bond for Environmental Restoration Works

Condition 50 presently calls for a financial bond to be lodged with Council to ensure that all environmental management plans are implemented.

The proponent wants this entire condition deleted on the grounds that it does not not provide for a refund. Section (b) of the condition clearly outlines the provision of a "refund". This refutes the proponents consequent argument that this bond would somehow be illegal and once again calls into question their genuine commitment to environmental outcomes.



CONCLUSION

In concluding the proponent justifies the modifications with a general reference to the projects proceeding "in an efficient, viable and timely manner". The proponent suggests that the Environmental Assessment accompanying their original concept plan approval is adequate.

It is glaringly evident to myself and I would hope to your department also, that these proffered modifications do in fact largely negate the list of environmental measures called for in the document "Modification of Ministers Approval" (2013).

I strongly object to all of the modifications outlined here for the reasons already stated. The conditions in the 2013 document are fair, expertly researched and justified considering the highly sensitive nature of the development site. It would be expected that these conditions be accepted and implemented by the developer.



Sincerely yours,

The Kings Forest development site is located on and adjacent to extremely significant and sensitive sites.
The proposal has been through a very extensive/lengthy process with the input of NSW government agencies, our local council, independent review and community consultation which resulted in recommendations and Conditions of Approval to allow for an orderly/sustainable development and avoidance of risk reflective of and in accordance with this significant/sensitive coastal lowland ecosystem.
I have reviewed the proposed Modifications and do not support any of them for the above reasons and will save you the time by not itemising them all. Also, I believe the provisions that are currently in place are in the best interests of all stakeholders and am of the view this highly significant ecosystem and those that will be left with the responsibilities long after have compromised more than enough.

These precious cretures NEED to be protected. Why doesn't the government protect them ?