MINOR CHANGE - Attachment 3 - Updated Ecology Advice Gondwana Ecology Group.pdf

5.0 Minor Change (2025) Proposal
I am aware 2 that despite support by Council’s environmental team, some Councillors have
concerns over the extent of development and coincidence with areas mapped as
“biodiversity”. More specifically, I understand the following was raised:

      a) The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of the
         natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation and Open
         Space zone.
      b) The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land,
         at the expense of its environmental values, as it proposed that an area of existing open
         space be developed.
      c) It results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important area
         and an environmentally sensitive area.

In my opinion, these concerns can be allayed as there is no ecological basis because:
      1. The natural values of the land are degraded or non-existent for the most part
      2. The development is centred on existing developed and or cleared land.
      3. The small area supporting native canopy species (with a weed understorey) is to be
         retained and rehabilitated.
      4. The mapping does not reflect the values of the land, and as such characterising the
         vegetation/area as being “ecologically important” or environmentally sensitive”.
      5. On ground site inspections confirms this to be the case (i.e. mapping is not correct or
         relevant). The on site inspections have been completed in association with Council’s
         environmental officers.
      6. The vegetation to be cleared is not of any significant or important value. As noted, the
         area of value has been retained.
I understand that GH Properties has decided, in an attempt to respond to the concerns of
Councillors, to reduce the development footprint where it interferes with the mapped Area of
Biodiversity 3. This causes the reduction in a building and a reduced overall footprint.
The amended layout is provided in ATTACHMENT C.


6.0 Changes (Ecological) to Plans
With reference to the Proposed Plan (ATTACHMENT B) and the Amended Plan
(ATTACHMENT C), the following is noted (refer comparison illustrated in ATTACHMENT D):


      •    The building in the east, between the existing tennis courts and Resort Drive has been
           removed.
      •    A total of 1562m2 of the mapped “Areas of Biodiversity” would be cleared under the
           Proposed Plan.



2
    General Committee Meeting 20 July 2023.
3
    I understand other changes are also made to address non-ecology concerns.


[OCR of page images]
SHI)
SM,

g
(3
ei

CES

5.0 Minor Change (2025) Proposal
| am aware? that despite support by Council’s environmental team, some Councillors have

 

concerns over the extent of development and coincidence with areas mapped as
“biodiversity”. More specifically, | understand the following was raised:

a) The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of the
natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation and Open
Space zone.

b) The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land,
at the expense of its environmental values, as it proposed that an area of existing open
space be developed.

c) It results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important area
and an environmentally sensitive area.

In my opinion, these concerns can be allayed as there is no ecological basis because:

1. The natural values of the land are degraded or non-existent for the most part

2. The development is centred on existing developed and or cleared land.

3. The small area supporting native canopy species (with a weed understorey) is to be
retained and rehabilitated.

4. The mapping does not reflect the values of the land, and as such characterising the
vegetation/area as being “ecologically important” or environmentally sensitive”.

5. On ground site inspections confirms this to be the case (i.e. mapping is not correct or
relevant). The on site inspections have been completed in association with Council’s
environmental officers.

6. The vegetation to be cleared is not of any significant or important value. As noted, the
area of value has been retained.

| understand that GH Properties has decided, in an attempt to respond to the concerns of
Councillors, to reduce the development footprint where it interferes with the mapped Area of
Biodiversity®. This causes the reduction in a building and a reduced overall footprint.

The amended layout is provided in ATTACHMENT C.

6.0 Changes (Ecological) to Plans
With reference to the Proposed Plan (ATTACHMENT B) and the Amended Plan

(ATTACHMENT C), the following is noted (refer comparison illustrated in ATTACHMENT D):

e The building in the east, between the existing tennis courts and Resort Drive has been
removed.

e A total of 1562m? of the mapped “Areas of Biodiversity” would be cleared under the
Proposed Plan.

? General Committee Meeting 20 July 2023.
3 | understand other changes are also made to address non-ecology concerns.