08/2078 - Referral Agency Response - EPA [As Published] · 132008.2078

*

“aise

‘écoaccess

. having’a ‘substantia?’ risk should only, proceed. following the conduct of UXO:investigation and <x

* oe

eAvirénimental licences and:péemits i, ?
Notice

Concurrence Agency Response

 

Concurrence agency response
Sections 3.3.16 and 3.3.18 Integrated Planning Act 1997

Development Description

 

Oo Reconfiguration of a Lot

Material Change of Use

where:

wi ‘the land is NOT wholly or partly in an area for which an Area Management Advice for .

, unexploded 4, ordnance has beenissued. .
ake td teens te ately ty ee see weg ee tone nF pate oe wae ng ae ne
. "The concurrenée agency: response. is that eo oe a an Mo

opty ik yoy: ‘ Tats : >
The EPA ig NOT a chncurrertce” ageficy for’ the: application’ purstiant to the following, item/s oF
“Integrated Planning Regulation 1998:

0. - Item 21(b), Table 2 of Schedule 2 of the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998
Mi Item 12, Table 3 of Schedule 2 of the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998

 

bes Pee ae

 

The application has been assessed and it has been decided that: yo ar

QO conditions must attach to any development approval , i \ so “
i) ‘any approval must be for part only-of the development : Dey!
o any approval must be a preliminary approval only . a
there are no concurrence agency requirements “A
oO .

the application must be refused

Reasons for inclusion/non-inclusion of development condition/s or refusal

(in accordance with section 3.3.18 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 8 1.
1954, a concurrence response must include reasons for a refusal or for the inclusion of development conditions.) * “y 0

 

The site (the subject lot/s) is part of an area of land within which the Department of Defence /
(Defence) has assessed only a ‘slight’ risk of residual UXO contamination exists. Visit the Defence —
website http:/Avww.defence.gov.au/uxo/ for details. . tg A

Defence advises that development or land use rezoning proposals. for land it has categorised as‘ | *

”

~ clearance activities..Defence maintains. a list.of commercial UXO investigation and ‘remedial seare|

  

+ contractors that it accredits to carry out this work. Accordingly; the EPA i isa. coricurrence agency for". a a
, development: ‘applications concerning ‘substantial risk sites.” * _ . Lo ns

While Defence recommends that owners or occupiers of and workers and contractors ernployed on ,
either category of potentially UXO-affected land need to be aware of the procedure if a suspect ont
object i i$ found, it also advises that all land usage and developmient of sites within the ‘slight’ °
category should continué without further UXO ‘investigation or remediation.

Hence, the EPA has no requirement or recommendation further to Defence’s website advice in
regard to the land usage of this site. No statutory requirement exists for applications to develop
‘slight’ sités to be referred to the EPA for either concurrence or advice in regard to UXO.

{Note the highlighted and additional information on the attached copy of the response that would
be generated by any ‘search’ of the Environmental Management Register regarding this site].

es

git hae

 

ie a:

Page 3 0f4-AFO80109 ‘ so uo . : Environmental Protection Agency 4