Objection_Nov18 · MCU18/0015

Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Response to Items (Geotechnical, Slope Stability, Ecological, Constraints Analysis)
cont


Item 15 Response – Provide a rehabilitation plan which documents the management of
the land to ecologically restore areas outside the development footprint.

>> Objection: No vegetation rehabilitation plan provided, no public comment
possible.
Applicant defers to Operational Works.


Item 17, Page 7 Response to “Provide an amended layout which demonstrates the
development maintains a wildlife corridor of a minimum vegetated width of 50m

>> Objection: Wildlife corridor width is mis-stated and incorporates a road and
possibly excludes setbacks for bushfire Asset Protection Zones7

a. Wildlife corridor measurements in the Environmental Connectivity Plan include a
road – Alma Way. Wildlife corridors separate animals and fauna from human activities and
structures such as roads, then the building edges should measure to closest road kerb edge.
When proposed building edge is measured to closest road kerb then 8 of the dwellings –
more than half, 57% - do not maintain minimum 50m.
New measurements would be shorter than those stated and fall within 50 m minimum
requirement. Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, maximum distance to kerb is from approx 20m to 48
mLot 2 creates the tightest pinchpoint at approx 20 m from building edge to Alma Way
kerb.

b. Multiple measurements provided are not measured between the two closest building
edge points - refer Lot 2, Unit 3

c. No reference or solution is made to how this wildlife corridor also functions or is
replaced by an ‘environment reserve’. the tightest point is 41m.




7
    Bushfire Hazard Assessment, pg 20