The Sydney Zoo

I register my opposition to the abovementioned application. The proposal is not suitably located and fails the requirements of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects among other shortcomings.

Failure to satisfy NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects
The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects and Framework for Biodiversity Assessment are in a transitional period until May 2016.
The Policy retains the ability for flexibility when `technical issues, practical implementation issues or potential perverse outcomes' arise.
The EIS does not demonstrate or even suggest any `technical issues, practical implementation issues or potential perverse outcomes' from the use of the Policy. Instead it simply proposes to not offset the proposal as required. This is not acceptable.
If the proponent were permitted to breach the policy `because they want to' this would obviate the purpose of having an offsets policy at all.
The EIS claim for exemption is that the proposal `is not a standard type of development' and `proposes to deliver the ecological outcomes via substantial native plantings'. The first statement is axiomatic - there is no such thing as a standard development. The second statement fails the principles of offsetting. Landscaping is not ecological restoration; and preservation/restoration of natural areas must always prioritize revegetation as an offset mechanism.
A suitable offset must be secured in keeping with the interim Policy.
I note for the record my opposition to the offsetting policy in support of the elected NSW Scientific Committee.

Use of Grasses in landscaping
The proposed Landscape Plan does not include any grasses and is presumably incomplete. Introduced grasses pose an extremely high risk to adjoining natural assets.
A complete Landscaping plan including grasses (or their functional equivalent) must be required to ensure unsuitable species are not introduced.
I notice the reference to `African Grassland' areas. This appears to refer to the selection of mammals in these enclosures rather than the use of African grasses for landscaping. This distinction should be clarified as a priority.

Absence of satisfactory fauna survey
The EIS claims 'The surveys conducted considered the relevant survey guidelines for various threatened species.' This is directly contradicted by the almost complete lack of any fauna surveys. The EIS notes that (2.2.1) `fauna surveys undertaken by ELA consisted of opportunistic sightings whilst conducting other surveys' - i.e. targeted flora surveys, random meanders and transects.
A number of threatened and declining fauna species are likely to be present; in particular the site is known as one of the last locations of the Spotted Harrier in the region, due to the large area of grassland present.
The applicant should be required to undertake surveys for grassland & woodland fauna in keeping with relevant guidelines including the TBSA.

Derived Native & Exotic Grassland
The EIS does not clarify the extent of derived native grasslands and exotic grasslands on the site. The site constitutes some of the best remaining habitat for grassland fauna in western Sydney.
The EIS notes that 'small stands of CPW are also present at the site in the form of Derived Native Grassland' however these do not appear to have been mapped or included in the 1.65 hectares of direct impacts considered. The exception is `Vegetation zone 2' which has a site value of less than 17 and therefore does not require offsets in accordance with highly flawed FBA policy methodology.
The impacts of the proposal on this remarkable grassland ecosystem - including exotic grasslands of key significance to local fauna - must be suitably surveyed & assessed.

Errors in connectivity assessment
The EIS Flora & Fauna report section 3.8 (Connectivity width assessment) is grossly inaccurate.
The connectivity assessment is undertaken on the gross misunderstanding that fauna connectivity only occurs with canopy trees.
To the contrary the most significant biodiversity on the subject site are grassland and grassy-woodland specialist fauna. For these species the proposal constitutes one of the greatest breaks in connectivity for the Sydney region, severely and permanently dividing the largest regional grassland habitat into two pieces. This is not acceptable; it must also be properly assessed by a legitimate connectivity assessment.

Use of public greenspace for private enterprise
While it does not relate to the legality of the proposal, I note my objection to the use of this critical public green belt for private enterprise.
The proposal will clear vegetation which was planted on public land by a mixture of local volunteers and tax-funded restoration. In just a decade since the volunteers left this area is now to be bulldozed. This is gross misuse of public planning by the state government.

Summary
The proposed development does not respond to the opportunities & limitations of the site. The site should never have been leased for public enterprise. This is a `spit in the face' to the dedication of volunteers in restoring this site as one of the last remaining grasslands of western Sydney.
The proposal will completely disconnect the grassland and woodland ecosystems of the Western Sydney Parklands running north-to-south. The retention of part of the creekline vegetation is completely irrelevant to the interests of woodland and grassland fauna which do not use riparian habitats. It is very alarming that such basic ecology is ignored by the EIS.
This is (was) one of the last large grasslands supporting fauna in Western Sydney. It is yet another gross misuse of our public resources and a tragedy for our region.

Western Sydney Parklands are part of the green belt which was meant to ensure that some natural vegetation within the Sydney basin was preserved.
The proposed zoo does not achieve this objective and should only be considered for development on land currently built on.
If they approve this zoo in the Western Sydney Parklands I do not feel that the trust would be fulfilling its charter to preserve the land for Cumberland Plains' and other important native ecosystems.

I think it will be good for NSW and Western Sydney. Tourists will increase and with wet n wild near by in could become the new "Gold Coast". Bring it on!!

I strongly object to this proposal for 'The Sydney Zoo' for multiple reasons.
Firstly animals do not belong in Zoo's. Animals are not here for human entertainment. It is abhorrent that humans think that it is acceptable to take animals from their natural environment ship them across the globe then imprison them in a zoo and then call it conservation. This is not a conservation program this is a money making business. Big payments are made to animal trappers and to other zoos for the trade in these animals, while little to nothing is done to conserve the natural habitats of these animals so that they can live their natural lives in the wild.
Sydney does not need another zoo we already have Taronga Zoo and small parks like Featherdale Wildlife Park (which is already in the Blacktown area). There is also Dubbo Zoo and other small private zoos around the state.
I believe that the area this would be located on, was supposed to be turned into parkland areas for our recreational use. This is greatly needed in an area that continues to grow in population size; while green space is becoming smaller as more and more housing is built. I regularly visit the Western Sydney Parklands location in Abbotsbury as it is a great place to walk my dogs. It would be great if I could use this closer park for the same purpose.
If you are going to build anything it should be an amusement park with rollercoaster rides this would generate jobs and income for the area, in the same way as the zoo without having to exploit animals.
As a local resident I strongly object to the proposal for 'The Sydney Zoo'. Animals do not belong in zoos. Please do not approve this submission to imprison animals for the rest of their lives.

Sincerely,
Concerned local resident

I object strongly to the proposal for Sydney Zoo.
It is cruel to lock animals in zoos, they do not belong imprisoned so that humans can come and stare at them suffering from psychological distress due to being removed from their natural home and families. We already have Taronga Zoo and smaller animal parks we do not need more animals locked up for our amusement. Where do they buy the animals from?? paying money to poachers and big sum to other zoos this is not conservation.
I would rather that an amusement park was built with rollercoaster rides, this would still bring in economic benefit to the area and still provide a fun outing for people of all ages and interests and no animals get hurt.
There are better uses for this area, it would be better just let as a recreational park with walking and bike tracks and dog areas.
Please do not go ahead with this proposal.
Thankyou

I am opposed to this zoo, the exploitation of animals for commercial purposes is abhorrent.

Animals should not be for entertainment, confined with walls and fences so you can make money out of them.

This animal prison is the last thing Sydney needs. I officially object the proposa. We do not need another structure to hold wild animals captive in unnatural conditions. Do not go ahead. the money can be better spent elsewhere.

There is enough Zoos in Sydney already. Zoos are unjust. It's forcing an animal against it's will to live a life of captivity. There are more than enough zoos in Sydney for people to utilize. There is no just reason apart from profit to build another one and trap more animals who deserve to be free. Thanks for your consideration.

We do not need more zoos. Please leave Western Sydney zoo free. The proposed location between two motorways is far from ideal and animals should not be contained in small spaces.. they need 100s of acres or it is cruel.

I object to the forced containment of animals in cages/enclosures/grounds that are far smaller then their natural habitat and that prevent the animals from living a life of freedom where they can play out their role in the extremely complex food chain and biosphere of the earth. To remove animals from their homes, families and places of natural inhabitance is immoral. While I understand that zoos believe they provide education and rehabilitation for animals who are threatened by potential extinction, why not preserve the species by putting all this money into getting more protected national parks and for these animals and areas where hunting is prohibited

I believe the decision to locate a Zoo within the vicinity of the Bungarribee Super Park is a wrong one because of the following reasons
1. Would impact on local roads as no direct off or on ramps to M4 or M7 motorways.
2.If there is to be a proposed Super Park locating a Zoo smack bang in the middle of it will not create the atmosphere you would want.
3 The local area already has already been impacted by The Wet and Wild Water Park and Eastern Creek Raceway.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the: Sydney Zoo (SSD 7228) - Notice of Exhibition.

The New South Wales Geological Survey (GSNSW) previously provided advice on the request for SEARs for the above proposal in September 2015 (Ref OUT15/24029) where it was determined that the GSNSW had not identified and mineral or resource issues associated with the proposal. The GSNSW position remains unchanged with no resource issues to raise in regard to the proposal.

Queries regarding the above information, and future requests for advice in relation to this matter should be directed to the GSNSW Land Use team at [email protected].

Regards

I attended the " Have Your Say" display on 16/12/15, about the Sydney Zoo. What a disgusting Zoo this will be. Housing the large African animals { elephants, lions, tigers, hippos,rhinos, etc.}. This 16.5 ha. area is too small for these migrating animals to survive a healthy and natural life. Articles have already been written about the hippo farts and the effect on air pollution, but what about the noise?. Hippos feed at night and are very loud and vocal, as do the lions. Being located in the middle of suburbia, will create many sleepless nights.
The General Manager quoted that the area size is within government regulations. But really, after a car park and all the proposed pavilions are constructed, the animals enclosures will be dramatically reduced.
This is sounding like animal cruelty to me.
I can agree to housing small species at the Zoo, but honestly, why a Zoo in Blacktown? This area borders on the already congested Doonside Rd., Great Western Hwy., the M7 motorway and the new 750 home subdivision. Not the ideal use of this space. Small children and pets beware of escapes.
Addressing the tourist pitch. When I was a tourist to Australia and only having 2-3 days visiting Sydney, traveling for 1 hour to Blacktown, to see African animals , was not a priority. Why not visit Taronga Zoo , see African and native animals, along with the beautiful Harbour views? What happens, after a few years, if this venture financially collapses? Do they shoot the animals and lock the gates? These types of tourism parks , in our area, have come and gone repeatedly.
A more realistic move, would be to encourage Featherdale to occupy this area and to expand.

Really Blacktown, do we need these potential problems?
Iurge Council to consider these problems. These magnificient African animials deserve a better health life, then being on display is unsuitable confines.
Thank you for you time.

Western Sydney Parklands Trust has become noxious to Conservationists in Western Sydney.

When former Premier Bob Carr announced establishment of the 5,500ha area to be Western Sydney Parklands in 2004 he uttered the words "open space, never to be developed, a great part of our environment."

In the lead up to that announcement the NSW Government had been resuming land for the parkland. The 300ha former OTC site at Eastern Creek/Doonside (previously known as Bungarribee Estate) was included in the acquisitions.

Conservationists had high hopes the 300ha former OTC site would provide an important flora and fauna habitat near the centre of the City of Blacktown. Our hopes were quickly dashed when personnel within the Department of Planning soon told us that 90ha of the site (and another area near Cecil Hills) would be set aside for housing development to pay for Western Sydney Parklands.

Since then, the Board of Western Sydney Parklands Trust has developed a voracious appetite, cannibalising land which had earlier been said to be conserved, particularly in Blacktown LGA. To satisfy self interest, the Board of Western Sydney Parklands Trust has systematically sold off or leased land for financial gain which former Premier Carr said was "open space, never to be developed, a great part of our environment."

Also, what of those people who were forced off their land by the government under the pretence it was to become parkland yet today they see their former land holding sold off or leased for development - something previous land owners were denied?

The latest and by no means last act of self serving by the Board of Western Sydney Parklands Trust is the leasing of land for the Sydney Zoo enterprise.

The 16.5ha of land proposed for the Sydney Zoo enterprise forms part of an area free ranged by a mob of Eastern Grey Kangaroos - part of of natural heritage. It comprises an area in which Greening Australia (with the approval of the Department of Planning) brought in community volunteers to do native vegetation planting in past years. It is another excision of land from the former OTC site land for commercial gain and, when finished its parasiting, the Board of Western Sydney Parklands Trust will have set aside from the former 300ha only a skinny margin of Eastern Creek floodplain for flora and fauna conservation purposes.

Indeed, the question is asked just how much land is conserved for flora and fauna conservation in Blacktown LGA which is not associated with the riparian margins or floodplain of Eastern Creek? Exclude Prospect Nature Reserve from that consideration because it was already conserved before Western Sydney Parklands Trust could get its 'teeth' into it.

But not even that skinny margin of conserved land from the former OTC site will be protected from the 'dead hand' of Western Sydney Parklands Trust's self interest. The plan for Sydney Zoo includes removal of part of the riparian margin and, in other areas, landscaping with overseas plants and grasses e.g. African grasses. It is not enough that a wealth of NSW Government grants over decades have been expended through agencies and community volunteer groups to reduce the adverse effects of African Lovegrass in the Sydney Region and now Western Sydney Parklands Trust, with the intended approval of the Department of Planning, is proposing to accommodate a landscape of African grasses alongside Eastern Creek.

It is well known that creek lines are the most difficult and expensive areas to restore and maintain in natural state. Every rain inundation brings seeds from exotic plants and grasses into creek lines from surrounding development. After the 'wash-in' and depositing somewhere downstream the seeds germinate to produce weeds which are the bane of bush regenerators.

Yet here it is, the NSW Government backing the self interest of Western Sydney Parklands Trust, about to approve an expansive source of introduced seeds alongside the riparian margin of Eastern Creek. Whether wind borne or carried through drainage into Eastern Creek these introduced seeds will be carried into Eastern Creek, potentially downstream into South Creek and potentially the Hawkesbury River. Somewhere along that route they will be deposited and produce unwanted plant species. This is a disastrous regression in the administration of weed management in New South Wales.

Is not Eastern Creek at least a Class 4 stream in terms of the Water Management Act? How close is development permitted to such a stream? How close can a development which is the active progenitor of weed species be to such a significant stream that is Eastern Creek which feeds into major agricultural and conservation areas of Blacktown and Hawkesbury LGA's?

What an abominable monster the Western Sydney Parklands Trust has become to the natural environment of the City of Blacktown.

How could a semi-government agency become so far removed from the intention of the former Carr Government when announcing establishment of Western Sydney Parklands in year 2004?

This is an indictment on the exigencies of government today. Environmental protection was better a decade and half ago than it is today.

The Sydney Zoo proposal should not be permitted within the former OTC (Bungarribee) site, Doonside. The land should be conserved to honour the statement made to the public by former Premier Bob Carr when announcing establishment of Western Sydney Parklands he said this land was "open space, never to be developed, a great part of our environment".

Can government be trusted?

Please do not exploit exotic or wild animals for human entertainment.

Why is Sydney opening another zoo?
I'm guessing because it's a profit making exercise.
Animals don't belong in captivity.
The days of holding animals captive for display are thankfully coming to close due to public opinion.
Look at Seaworld.
#animalexploitation

"I am opposed to the destruction of the natural environment at Doonside caused by the construction and operation of Sydney Zoo." that will be sufficient.

I am opposed to the destruction of the natural environment at Doonside caused by the construction and operation of Sydney Zoo. Especially as it still foraged by a mob of Eastern Grey Kangaroos and harbours many bird species including the Buff-rumped Thornbill, Grey Fantail and Jacky Winter all of which are fast declining in western Sydney as their habitat disappears and competition by Noisy Miners and Indian Mynahs increases. More so, I am aware that Greening Australia organised for community volunteer to revegate the area with local species their is no point in destroying their hard work that may only now be coming to fruition.

In conclusion, I disagree that a Zoo is the best plan for the area. Why not a wildlife centre or something else that works best in with the native vegetation? Especially when you will be potentially introducing African Plants near Eastern Creek, when Sydney and indeed much of Australia already have problems with invasive african vegetation. This includes: African Boxthorn, African Love Grass and African Olive all of which pose serious threat to our Australian Flora and Fauna.

I urge you to reconsider this position.

I am opposed to the destruction of the natural environment at Doonside caused by the construction and operation of Sydney Zoo.
As the owner of a covenanted property, and as a Blacktown Bushcare volunteer, I am acutely aware of the problems we have in dealing with exotics and African Lovegrass and Rhodes Grass from Africa.
The seeds from these and other African plant species are carried by birds and wind, thus making their way into waterways. Having made their way into Eastern Creek, they can be deposited anywhere from there into the Hawkesbury River. This is of great concern to the environmentally responsible citizens within Western Sydney.
I am astounded that the planning of this site has not taken into consideration that:
1. The site is currently parkland with valuable ecosystems, above and below ground that can never, ever be replaced.
2. Contrary to Table 61 of the Environmental Impact Statement, a special area will be set aside to actually GROW noxious weeds.
3. Earthmoving, construction and maintenance activities at the site will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife and habitat of Western Sydney Parklands.