13

4.2 Indicative Layout Plan

The design philosophy behind the ILP is to enhance and build on the existing social, environmental, landscape and cultural values of the Precinct. The current street and subdivision pattern, surrounding land uses and development area, the existing rural character and land ownership patterns have all influenced the urban design outcomes.

In reviewing the ILP as part of the post-exhibition work for the Precinct, all issues raised in submissions were investigated. Amendments are proposed, taking into consideration the issues raised by individual land owners, however due to conflicting outcomes, it was not always possible to directly address and resolve individual issues. Where possible, changes respond to individual issues in the context of all competing priorities.

The final ILP (refer to Appendix A) maintains the general structure and arrangement of land uses and infrastructure as the exhibited draft. However, within the context of the overall ILP structure, changes have been made to some key elements of the ILP and associated planning documents, and these are described below.

An overview of the impact of the changes made to the final ILP as it applies to Camden and Campbelltown, on the development potential of land within these LGAs is considered overall to be positive. This is particularly so in terms of the provision of housing and efficient use of land.

Table 4-1 summarises key elements of the final ILP, and compares these to the draft ILP to demonstrate the impact of the post-exhibition changes.

Table 4-1 Comparison of the draft ILP and final ILP

Summary statistics Draft ILP Final ILP

Camden &

Campbelltown

LGA

Liverpool LGA Camden &

Campbelltown

LGA

Liverpool

LGA

Gross site area 463 ha (100%) 463 ha (100%)

Residential areas 216.9 ha 74.3 ha 215.6 ha -

Low Density Residential land 202.2 ha 56.9 ha 212.3 ha

Very Low Density Residential land 11.5 ha 17.32 ha - -

Medium Density Residential land 3.2ha - 3.2 ha

Dwelling yield 3,169 dwellings 941 dwellings 3,265 dwellings -

Average dwelling density 14.6 dwellings/ha 12.7 dwellings/ha 15.1 dwellings/ha -

Population 13,910 people 11,037 people -

Drainage infrastructure 13.4 ha 5.5 ha 13.5 ha -

Open Space

� Local parks

� Active open space

� Passive open space

� Riparian corridor

7.8 ha

5.5 ha

7.1 ha

6.6 ha

4.6 ha

-

3.2 ha

3.0 ha

7.8 ha

5.5 ha

7.2 ha

6.6 ha

-

-

-

-

Local Centre 5.0 ha - 5.0 ha -

Mixed use land 1.0 ha - 1.0 ha -

Community Centre 0.3 ha - 0.3 ha -

14

Summary statistics Draft ILP Final ILP

Camden &

Campbelltown

LGA

Liverpool LGA Camden &

Campbelltown

LGA

Liverpool

LGA

Primary school 3.0ha - 3.0 ha -

Environmental Conservation 2.52 ha - 3.7 ha -

Environmental Management (the

Scenic Hills)

48.4 ha - 48.4 ha -

Deferred Area - - - 104.4 ha

The dwelling yield has increased as well as the dwelling density within the two LGAs,

4.2.1 Local and Neighbourhood Centres

A number of submissions were made relating to the proposed commercial and retail areas identified within the draft ILP. Details of how the Department has responded to these issues are provided below.

Size of Local Centre The major landowner raised the issue of additional floor space within the Local Centre. They requested that the Department incorporate the identified neighbourhood floor space allocated for the centre, in the north of the Precinct, be incorporated into the Local Centre. The neighbourhood centre was identified in the exhibited SGS Economics Retail and Employment Study.

The Explanation of Intended Effect and DCP were exhibited as having a floor space cap of 15,000m² Gross Lettable Area (GLA), equivalent to 16,500m² Gross Floor Area (GFA). The Employment and Retail Study for East Leppington (SGS, 2012) did not support including the additional neighbourhood floor space into the Local Centre and confirmed that any increase in the floor space would have what is determined to be a significant impact on the surrounding centres including Leppington Major Centre and Edmondson Park Town Centre. It should also be noted the Project Working Group (PWG) did not support the inclusion of a zoned neighbourhood centre in the Campbelltown LGA in the exhibited draft ILP.

The Study further advised that a Local Centre has a different function and role to a Neighbourhood Centre served by a 400 metre walkable catchment and that the allocation of neighbourhood centre retail associated with the 400 metre walkable catchment has already been allocated to the 15,000m² Local Centre. Consequently, exceeding the 15,000m² retail floor space cap recommended for the Local Centre would result in the undermining of the economic viability of similar or higher order centres within the South West Growth Centre including Leppington Major Centre.

All the councils support the position taken by the Department that the Local Centre maintain a 16,500m² (see below for further details) retail floor area to support other centres within the South West Growth Centre. The Department does not support an increase to the floor space of the Local Centre to ensure surrounding centres including Leppington Major Centre where the Government has made a heavy investment, are not undermined in growth.

Floor space requirements The major landowner sought clarification of the definition of Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the Local Centre. SGS clarified that the retail floor space area referred to in the exhibited report was equivalent to Gross Leasable Area (GLA) and not GFA as stated.

SGS recommended that GFA floor space measurement should be used in the planning controls in accordance with the Standard Instrument definition. Therefore, the Department sought technical advice to adjust the exhibited floor space measurement to an equivalent GFA measurement as a derived percentage of GLA.

The adjusted floor space measurement equates to a 16,500m² GFA floor space cap for the Local Centre. This floor space cap for the Local Centre is included in the SEPP Amendment and DCP controls. It is also supported by Councils.

15

The Explanation of Intended Effect and DCP also exhibited time restrictions for the floor space of the Local Centre based on information available at the time of exhibition. Considering possible variations to the staging as indicated by the major landowner, the Department considers it reasonable to review the time restriction. Subsequently, time restrictions relating to 4,000m² floor space cap until 2016 are to be removed from the planning controls. Council is supportive of this position.

Corner of St Andrews Road and Camden Valley Way The zoning of the St Andrews corner of land as R2 Low Density Residential has been reviewed and the land will now be rezoned E2 Environmental Conservation consistent with Camden Council’s advice. The land contains high quality Cumberland Plain Woodland vegetation and is not suitable for other uses given its size, constraints and location adjacent to Camden Valley Way.

Figure 4-2 Corner St Andrews Road/Camden Valley Way – Land to be rezoned E2 – Environmental Conservation

The technical consultant’s report (SGS Report) supports this position arguing that the small demand for light industrial uses of a local nature was only to be incorporated as part of a neighbourhood centre in the north of the Precinct.

Consequently, Camden Council and the Department support the zoning of the St Andrews corner for environmental purposes under an E2 Environmental Conservation zone. The land will be in public ownership and the ENV on this site will be mapped on the Native Vegetation Protection SEPP Map to ensure it is retained.

Neighbourhood Centre A number of issues have been raised relating to the proposed neighbourhood centre in the north of the Precinct. As the Liverpool LGA is being deferred this matter will be addressed at a later stage when land within the LGA is rezoned. Opportunity will also be provided to the community to review any changes relating to a proposed neighbourhood centre.

4.2.2 Biodiversity and Bushfire Protection

Existing Native Vegetation As foreshadowed in 4.2.1 above, additional ENV areas will be protected on the corner of St Andrews Road and Camden Valley Way. This vegetation is high quality vegetation that is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The E2 zoned area on the St Andrews corner covers 1.19 hectares and will be in public ownership. Pimilea Spicata In accordance with Clause 17 of the Biodiversity Certification Order, the potential populations of Pimelea Spicata (Spiked-rice Flower) were to be surveyed to confirm the presence of the population as part of the Precinct planning process. Pimelea Spicata is listed as an endangered species under the Threatened Species Conservation Act and the Environmental Planning and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. If the population was identified to be present, then provision for the protection of the area of suitable habitat for species is required to be provided to the satisfaction of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

As the subject area was at the location of the RMS Camden Valley Way upgrade works, detailed surveys were undertaken by RMS and subsequently confirmed through the Precinct planning process. OEH has been consulted regarding the appropriate measures required to protect this species. The Office has confirmed with both the RMS and the Department that the proposed alignment of the Denham Court Road intersection meets OEH’s expectation of minimising the impact on the habitat area that has been identified for the protection of the Pimelea Spicata population.

16

OEH supports the Department’s proposal to zone this land E2 Environmental Conservation, however has requested that further work be undertaken by the existing landowner to detail the conservation mechanisms to be used to ensure the plant’s long term protection and management.

Further discussion of the preferred Denham Court Road intersection road alignment is provided in Section 4.2.7.

DCP Controls

The majority of land within Camden and Campbelltown LGAs is certified under the Biodiversity Certification Order. This allows for it to be cleared for development. Notwithstanding, much of the native vegetation is identified in the Biodiversity Assessment (EcoLogical, 2012) as being of high or very high ecological significance.

A figure titled ‘Vegetation to be Considered for Retention’ that identified areas containing ENV within the precinct was included in the respective DCPs for exhibition. However, in response to submissions, this figure has been removed from the final DCPs so as to avoid confusion with requirements under the Biodiversity Certification Order. The DCP will still include planning controls that require the consideration of retaining significant trees where possible when assessing development applications.

Apart from minor changes relating to the figures and wording in the DCP, the numerical controls relating to bushfire standards and APZs are also excluded from the planning controls as exhibited. This is on the basis of technical advice that the precinct is capable of complying with the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 guideline. The detailed controls provided for each development can also be assessed as part of the development assessment process. Consequently, site specific compliance will be considered during the Development Application process.

4.2.3 Scenic Hills

A number of submissions supported the protection of the Scenic Hills and requested that the Precinct Plan go further in protecting and conserving the land within the Hills. Questions were also raised in relation to landscape studies undertaken by Geoffrey Britton et al in 2000 and the implementation of the study recommendations. The development control plan for Campbelltown will include matters which must be considered when assessing development. These provisions support the retention of elements of the original colonial farm landscape through the interpretation of the original land grant, fence lines and other cultural elements. The land will however be developed for urban purposes and would not retain a rural outlook west of the Scenic Hills ridgeline.

The land identified as being within the Scenic Hills is currently zoned 7(d) Environmental Protection (Scenic) under the existing Local Environmental Plan (LEP). It is proposed to be rezoned E3 Environmental Management which is an equivalent zone to the existing zoning. The E3 zone allows one dwelling per 100 hectares consistent with the existing zoning and is supported by Campbelltown Council.

As part of the Precinct planning, visual, topographic and landscape analysis was undertaken for the Scenic Hills and a number of controls included in the DCP to ensure urban development is not visible from Denham Court Road. This will assist in maintaining a rural outlook east of the ridgeline. The Department is satisfied that these controls will adequately ensure any visual impacts to the Scenic Hills from future urban development are appropriately addressed at the development application stage. Views back to the west (Blue Mountains) will also be protected through similar consideration at the development application stage.

A submission that low scale commercial uses be made permissible in the E3 Environmental Management zone was also considered. However, the Department does not support commercial uses within the E3 zoned as it would not be consistent with the objectives for this zone.

4.2.4 Road Layout

A number of submissions were made relating to the road layout, cross-sections of road types and the zoning of roads. Details of how the Department has responded to these issues are provided below.

Gas Easement Road

17

In response to a request from the major landowner to reduce the width of the gas easement road, the Department has met with the relevant utility providers (Gorodok, APA Group and Jemena). Both of the utility providers indicated to the Department that they are supportive and comfortable with the exhibited cross-section for the gas easement road being approximately 38 metres in width. The utility providers support the inclusion of minimum dimensions in the DCP showing the two gas easements within the median of the road.

This cross-section in the DCP is not proposed to be changed. It is accepted however that detailed investigations undertaken as part of future development applications may offer alternate designs that may be acceptable to the consent authority and relevant service provider. The gas easement is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as agreed with the Project Working Group (PWG), however an overlay will be shown illustrating the location of the gas easements.

Zoning of Roads The major landowner requested that roads within the Camden and Campbelltown LGAs not be zoned to allow for flexibility in the subdivision design. It was agreed with Campbelltown Council and the PWG that Heath Road between Camden Valley Way and the community centre would be zoned SP2 Infrastructure. The remainder of Heath Road would be zoned consistent with the adjoining zones.

As discussed above, the gas easement road will be zoned as R2 Low Density Residential, however an overlay will be provided on the ILP to identify the two high pressure gas easements in the median of the road. Refer to the SEPP zoning map for the zoning changes.

4.2.5 Local parks and sports fields

The number and location of parks and sports fields is based on the demand generated by the projected population of the Precinct and criteria for access to these facilities established by the Growth Centres Development Code and Council’s policy. The exhibited Precinct Planning Report describes the rationale for location of these facilities in the draft ILP.

The exhibited Social Infrastructure and Open Space Assessment (Elton, 2012) recommended a total of 42 hectares of local and district open space be provided to support the future population for the Precinct. The approximate split is 35:65 between active and passive open space.

The active/passive open space split for the exhibited draft ILP was 15:85, compared to 35:65 split recommended in the technical report.

The final ILP provides for the following open space: • Active open space – 5.5 ha • Local parks – 7.8 ha • Passive open space 7.2 ha • Riparian corridor – 6.6 ha

As the Liverpool LGA is deferred, this area has been excluded from the ILP and open space calculations. A total of 27.1 hectares open space is provided in the final ILP relating to Campbelltown and Camden LGAs, equating to a ratio of 20:80.

Based on the recommendations, this would equate to the active open space being a quarter of the total open space provided in the ILP.

Campbelltown Council has indicated that there are adequate facilities for active recreation within their LGA and that the future community in the Precinct would be able to utilise spare capacity in these other venues. Campbelltown Council would not support additional active open space at the present time given the sufficient amount of open space already within the LGA.

Camden Council has indicated that there is a shortfall in the provision of active open space in the East Leppington Precinct. As additional active open space is not provided in the final ILP, the shortfall of active open space may be addressed within a VPA arrangement between the landowner and Council.

As the population within the East Leppington Precinct increases, the Department’s view is that councils may find it necessary to provide for additional facilities within the Precinct at the Development Application

18

(DA) stage. There will be opportunity for ongoing review of the provision of open space by councils as future development occurs and the demographics of the new community are better understood. Campbelltown Council supports this approach.

4.2.6 Drainage A number of issues were raised during exhibition in relation to flooding and drainage infrastructure in the East Leppington Precinct by the three Councils. The Department sought technical advice from the consult to address a number of issues which are detailed below. In addition, the Department undertook a peer review of the drainage strategy of the Precinct to ensure the following:

� The drainage strategy is consistent with each council’s relevant engineering standards; � the drainage strategy appropriately accommodates the proposed impacts as a result of the

development of the Precinct; � drainage infrastructure is appropriately sized to accommodate post-development flooding and storm

events; � appropriate emergency evacuation strategies have been recommended and can be accommodated; � each LGA contains and controls its own impacts ensuring an equitable outcome; and � no downstream impacts occur as a result of the East Leppington Precinct development.

The peer review confirmed that the land take provided in the ILP for the drainage strategy is appropriate for the proposed development within the East Leppington Precinct and that the outcomes identified above have been met. The sizing of the bio-retention and online basins will require further evaluation during detailed design to ensure the post-development flows are appropriately accommodated within each LGA. The reference Water Cycle Management report has been updated to reflect the outcomes of the peer review.

Detailed below are specific water cycle management issues raised by Councils that have been addressed in the finalisation of the Precinct Plan.

Hydrology Concerns raised by the Councils indicated that the Water Cycle Management (WCM) Strategy may have under-estimated stormwater volume and flood levels in the East Leppington Precinct. The results of the revised modelling at Denham Court Road indicated that the hydrograph was largely unchanged for the existing 9 hour duration and the volume of discharge and peak flow increases significantly for the 2 hour duration. Also, that the critical duration may be shorter than previously estimated in the WCM Report.

It was found that: • both the existing and developed condition hydrology has changed as a result of the revised

parameters, • the basin design of the WCM strategy was over-retarding flows, • the basin volume could be reduced and • basin outlets could be optimised.

Based on the peer review, the WCM report is to be updated to reflect the latest hydrological model (XP-RAFTS) and to ensure that the parameters adopted in this model are reported correctly.

Hydraulics Initial technical advice has been that a comparison of flood levels estimated by the Austral Leppington North TUFLOW model and results of the Upper South Creek Flood Study indicate that generally consistent results were achieved. Based on the finding that consistent flood levels are estimated at Bringelly Road and that the extents display a good match, it is concluded that the results of the East Leppington hydraulic model have been verified.

Peer review results indicate that based on the TUFLOW model, the drainage strategy will confirm that: • the pre and post-development flows at Denham Court Road and Camden Valley Way achieve

the stated objectives, • the appropriate surface models downstream of Denham Court Road are adopted including a tail

water condition consistent with a 2 hour duration for the peak flow time of concentration, and • no adverse impact on adjoining land owners and properties downstream of Camden Valley Way

would eventuate. The associated WCM report is to be updated consistent with these recommendations.

19

Revised existing results for the 100 year ARI and developed results for the 20 year, 100 year, 500 year, PMF and climate change have been provided to the Department. The increase in flood levels from the revised hydrology in the developed case is generally less than 100mm indicated by the 100 year ARI water level differences. The increase in flood discharge does not flow into a substantial increase in flood level. This confirms that the floodway allocated by the draft ILP is satisfactory and the revised hydrology modelling does not require any changes to the final ILP.

Emergency Management Strategy The management of flood risk during an emergency was assessed in the case of the PMF. The ability for the public to seek refuge from flood waters and to evacuate if necessary was the main focus of the emergency management strategy. An evacuation route has been proposed by the consultant taking into consideration pedestrian and vehicular safety with three velocity x depth criteria used as discussed in the WCM Report.

4.2.7 Traffic and Transport

Many of the key issues raised during exhibition related to traffic and transport issues within the Precinct. The Department sought technical advice from the consultant as well as from RMS and TfNSW on a number of issues which are detailed below.

Denham Court Road/ Camden Valley Way Intersection The Denham Court Road/Ingleburn Road and Camden Valley Way intersection has been realigned due to the presence of the Pimelea Spicata population (refer to Section 4.1.2). Additional surveys were undertaken by RMS and OEH has agreed to an area which must be protected. OEH is satisfied with the alignment option put forward by RMS.

The Department has had a number of discussions with RMS regarding the alignment option and how is fits in with the proposed local road network in the draft ILP. The Department seeks to ensure that there is connectivity from the south to the north of the Precinct.

The Department is working with the RMS to develop an appropriate ultimate solution that will facilitate the delivery of the proposed road layout within the Precinct and allow for connectivity from north to south. The final ILP shows the ultimate intersection alignment.

Figure 4-3 Ultimate alignment of Denham Court Road

Denham Court Road The future widening of Denham Court Road was a key issue raised during exhibition. The key issues related to:

� Concern regarding no commitment from State Government to fund the upgrade � Upgrade should be fully met by the Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) � Absence of provision to extend upgrade to Campbelltown Road � Timing of Strategic Review

20

The exhibited Traffic and Transport Assessment (Cardno, 2012) acknowledges that there will be a large amount of traffic on Denham Court Road. This road will be a key east-west connection road between the Leppington Major Centre and Campbelltown Road.

The Assessment recommends that based on the expected volumes of traffic, Denham Court Road would need to be duplicated to two lanes in each direction from Camden Valley Way to the dog-leg corner (proposed Gas Easement Road) by 2026. This is when the traffic volumes are expected to exceed 16,000 vehicles per day. The scope of the assessment was to assess the upgrade requirements within the Precinct. The assessment confirms that the current provisions for the road widening from Bonds Creek to Camden Valley Way will be adequate until 2026.

The issue relating to the upgrade of Denham Court Road from Camden Valley Way to Campbelltown Road has been recognised by agencies as being of broad strategic relevance. Discussions with the RMS are underway to develop the design of the road to the future proposed Gas Easement Road. This will include:

• A four lane configuration by 2026 to this corner • Design and construction of the aligned road from Camden Valley Way to the Bonds Creek

Crossing in a four lane configuration • Design of the four lane configuration to the proposed Gas Easement Road corner.

The major landowner has made a preliminary offer to construct the road from where the RMS would complete the Denham Court/Ingleburn Road alignment to the Bonds Creek Crossing. Any such arrangement would be formalised through a Works in Kind agreement with the Government. The department considers this an appropriate pathway for:

• resolving the issue of an efficient road upgrade that will facilitate development of the whole precinct including the future development of a bus network across the precinct

• minimising disruption to the local community and • deriving savings to Government by avoiding the construction of roadworks that would need to be

replaced in the relatively short term • ensuring the Ingleburn Road/Denham Court Road alignment by the RMS which is part of the

Camden Valley Road package of works currently underway are delivered in a cost effective, efficient and beneficial manner.

Under this arrangement the Government will consider funding works on Denham Court Road through the Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) levy.

Camden Valley Way Intersections RMS has confirmed that the signalised intersections along Camden Valley Way with Denham Court Road, Heath Road and St Andrews Road form part of the upgrade works. Construction works are due to be completed by 2015.

Traffic Modelling A number of issues were raised during exhibition relating to the traffic modelling for the East Leppington Precinct. The traffic modelling has been revised to consider the RMS’ latest intersection layouts that are part of the Camden Valley Way upgrade and the final ILP.

An additional traffic assessment following exhibition, was undertaken to consider the traffic impacts at 5 year intervals between 2012 and 2036. An intersection analysis was undertaken for the four key intersections in the East Leppington Precinct.

The Denham Court Road intersection was only assessed in the 2031 – 2036 scenarios as these connections are only required at later stages of the Precinct. The additional assessment also included the western leg of the Camden Valley Way | St Andrews Road intersection as this was not included in the original assessment.

The results of the revised modelling for the key intersections shows that the intersections will all operate with satisfactory delays in all three of the growth scenarios until 2026. Modelling of future years showed that:

� Key intersections operate satisfactorily at design scenarios up to 2036, based on the 1.5% per annum background traffic rates which are consistent with those used in the RMS strategic modelling for the area.

21

� Camden Valley Way and Denham Court Road will operate with significant delays in 2031 based on the 3.0% and 4.4% per annum background traffic rates.

� Camden Valley Way | Heath Road and St Andrews Road will operate with significant delays in 2036 with consideration of 4.4% per annum background traffic rates.

Heavy Vehicles Following exhibition a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to consider the impacts of heavy vehicle flows along Camden Valley Way and Denham Court Road. The analysis considered different parameters based on feedback during exhibition compared to what was modelled for the exhibited transport assessment (Cardno, 2012).

The majority of development in the Precinct will be for residential development and it is envisaged that the heavy vehicle proportions will likely be reduced with the increased light vehicle traffic. Sensitivity testing was undertaken for the 2021 and 2036 scenarios to identify the impacts of higher proportions of heavy vehicle flows for an interim period and the ultimate scenario.

Only the 1.5% growth rate was assessed as the higher growth rates result in the intersections operating at capacity with 3.55% heavy vehicles mainly due to the large flows on Camden Valley Way.

The analysis for Camden Valley Way showed that there will be minimal impact on the operation of the intersections in 2021 and 2036 with a 1.5% growth rate. The assumption of reduced heavy vehicle proportions was supported in-principle by Transport for NSW (TfNSW). It is noted that in the higher growth rate scenarios the increased proportion of heavy vehicles would likely have a more significant impact as the intersections operate at capacity with a 3.5% heavy vehicle proportion.

The RMS has raised no concerns with these outcomes.

Public Transport The bus network diagram in the DCP has been amended to reflect comments from TfNSW to provide a more direct bus route structure. The diagram shows proposed bus stops near centres, recreational areas, schools and employment generating areas. The proposed bus network shown in the respective DCPs is indicative only and does not secure the operation of bus services on these roads.

TfNSW encourages the provision of an off-road shared cycleway along Denham Court Road as this would provide for a valuable cross suburban linkage from the Leppington Railway Station to Ingleburn. This recommendation would result in a wider reservation for Denham Court Road. The Department supports the active use of cycle ways forming part of the broader public transport solution and provision of a cycleway will be part of the design brief for Denham Court Road..

4.2.8 European Heritage

A number of issues regarding European cultural heritage were raised during exhibition in relation to Leppington House. The key issues raised related to the following aspects of European heritage:

� State Heritage Register listing; � Leppington House Park; � Second paddock associated with Leppington House; � Double-tree row; and � SEPP and DCP controls.

Each of the above issues are discussed in detail below indicating how the final ILP and planning controls have responded to these issues.

State Heritage Register listing All three Councils and the Heritage Office have raised the question of why the former Leppington House archaeological site has not been listed on the State Heritage Register. The site is not currently listed in Campbelltown’s LEP. The Heritage Assessment undertaken by Godden Mackay Logan (GML, 2012) identifies the site of being of potential State significance and recommends listing of the site.

Campbelltown Council, OEH Heritage Office and the Department support the State Heritage Register listing of the Leppington House Estate. The major landowner has acknowledged the State significance of the Site. However they have indicated that the State Heritage listing is an issue for Campbelltown Council to address when they take ownership of the Leppington House Park.

22

The Leppington House archaeological site is not proposed to be listed as part of the East Leppington Precinct planning process. However the Department strongly supports the listing of this site on the State Heritage Register. Listing of the archaeological site is a matter for the existing landowner and will be pursued with the OEH Heritage Office.

Leppington House archaeological site The major landowner, Campbelltown Council, the Heritage Office and the Department all support the conservation of the Leppington House archaeological site as a local park. The local park referred to ‘Leppington House Park’ will be in public ownership.

Figure 4-4 Leppington House archaeological site

The Leppington House archaeological site is identified on the Heritage SEPP map as a heritage item and listed in the SEPP Amendment. The Cultural Heritage Landscape Area identified on the Development Control SEPP Map will no longer be shown. These heritage controls will instead be replaced by appropriate controls in the Campbelltown DCP that relate to the key heritage elements including;

• Leppington House archaeological site, • The second home paddock, • The double-tree row and • The original carriageway, other remnant plantings and key views from the original house.

The controls aim to ensure development is appropriate and protects and re-interprets the significant heritage elements of this Precinct.

Second paddock The technical study identified two home paddocks associated with the original Leppington House Estate. The ‘first’ home paddock has been identified as the “Leppington House Park”. The second home paddock directly to the north-west is defined by historic tree plantings along the original carriageway and the original fence lines.

The major landowner does not support the second home paddock being identified for public open space and identifies standard residential development being suitable for this location. Campbelltown Council has indicated it is unable to accept any more additional open space within the LGA and does not support this area as public open space unless funding mechanisms are provided to assist with maintenance.

As the second home paddock is unable to be identified as public open space, the Department has included specific controls in the DCP that apply to the second home paddock area. Any residential development within this area will need to interpret and identify the heritage significance of the second home paddock and associated cultural heritage elements. Development within this area will need to be of an appropriate type and scale and through re-interpretation this area would need to be clearly delineated in the urban design and street pattern.

23

Double-tree row (Original carriageway) The original carriage way of Leppington House Estate is defined by a mature double-tree row of native species. This is identified as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance as it is quite rare to have historic tree rows comprising of native species.

Figure 4-5 Mature trees in heritage row

The major landowner does not support the retention of the double-tree row (original carriage way) in the form of a wide road reserve of public open space. This is partly based on their future likely cut and fill requirements. The major landowner intends to retain one row of trees and reinterpret and replant in a similar location in a narrower road reserve. They have indicated that one row needs to be removed to achieve an efficient development pattern.

Campbelltown Council acknowledges the importance of the tree-row however supports the retention of the trees in private ownership, not a wide road reserve. The Council identified that removing the trees and replanting an alternative species in the location could be an alternative option.

The Heritage Office and the Department both acknowledge the significance of the tree row along the original carriageway and strongly recommend that they are retained, preferably in public ownership. Discussions with Campbelltown, the major landowner and the Heritage Office noted the importance of ensuring the suitability of trees for retention, consideration of land take required to manage the trees and associated impacts on housing delivery and land use efficiency. Council’s position regarding maintenance and public liability and that trees of this nature would be unlikely to survive in private ownership in backyards was also considered.

Acknowledging that there is limited support for retaining the trees in their current configuration, interpretation and replanting may be an appropriate alternative. In addition, an Arborist assessment of the tree row indicates that on the basis of the size of the trees, a significant amount of land would be required for the trees to survive in situ. The report also recommends individual tree assessment to determine viability given the age of the tree rows, concluding that the .

DCP controls have been provided relating to retention or re-interpretation in the future subdivision pattern following an Arborist assessment of identified, significant tree rows.

Overall the Heritage Office considered that an interpretation of the remains of the Leppington House archaeological site is to include:

• the first and second paddocks, • a section of the original carriageway, • the major ridgeline and

24

• the associated remnant mature trees considered in the planning of the Precinct. This has been provided for in the planning package.

4.2.9 Noise Attenuation

The Department does not support noise walls in the Growth Centres. TfNSW and RMS have also indicated in their submission that they also do not support noise walls along Camden Valley Way. Reasons for the Department, RMS and TfNSW not supporting noise walls relate to:

• maintenance, • aesthetics relating to a significant Government investment and consistency of approach along

Camden Valley Way, • creating connectedness with other precincts, • creating an improved public domain and connectivity across Camden Valley Way and • recognising the importance of government infrastructure as a significant urban element within the

South West Growth Centre that should be celebrated.

The Department supports alternative options for noise attenuation such as mounding and architectural treatment within housing design as provided for in the DCPs. Alternative road layouts encouraging the location of local access roads parallel to CVW could also assist in the attenuation for noise. The objectives of noise attenuation could be achieved through a mix of landscaping and some element of noise attenuation including mounding.

The DCP controls have been amended to allow for flexibility in noise attenuation measures while not supporting noise walls along Camden Valley Way nor are they precluded as part of an integrated response. This approach is consistent with the planning undertaken for other Growth Centre Precincts along Camden Valley Way including Austral Leppington North and Catherine Fields (Part) Precincts.

Figure 4-6 – Mitigation for Noise required in Area along Camden Valley Way

It should be noted that the major landowner strongly supports the use of continuous noise walls along Camden Valley Way, arguing the costs of other alternatives including building insulation, mounding or alternative road layouts would be significant. The Department, RMS and TfNSW consider the long term benefits identified above outweigh having noise walls along the precinct’s CVW frontage.

4.2.10 Odour

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) raised a number of issues regarding the odour modelling for the Precinct. The Department has discussed the issues with the EPA and has confirmed that further comprehensive odour impact assessment is not required at this stage. The timing and location for the stages of development within the Precinct should consider the first stages of development being located away from existing poultry forms wherever possible.

25

4.2.11 Infrastructure

A number of issues relating to infrastructure provision and timing were raised during exhibition, the key issues raised are addressed below.

Provision of Sewer and Water A number of issues were raised by landowners within the Precinct regarding the timing of sewer and water servicing in the Precinct. Sydney Water’s long term servicing strategy is planned to be in place by 2016. This is considered to be a reasonable timeframe to allow for development across the Precinct. Further details regarding the servicing strategy for the East Leppington Precinct are contained within the updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) available on the Department’s website.

Environmental impacts associated with temporary infrastructure Councils raised a number of issues relating to the environmental impacts associated with the temporary pump-out systems proposed by the major landowner in the interim. These interim options are proposed by the developer until the ultimate servicing strategy is in place in 2016.

The temporary infrastructure would be replaced with long term strategy infrastructure consistent with the planned strategy. Sydney Water is required to provide approval for any temporary pump-out facilities and has provided advice that these facilities would be limited to the approved truck movements per day. The relevant Council would be consulted as part of the process.

Development adjacent to the Upper Canal A number of concerns relating to safety and security concerns associated with development adjacent to the Upper Canal were raised during exhibition. Appropriate provisions were included in the Camden and Campbelltown DCPs to ensure safety and security of the Upper Canal were addressed.

Figure 4-7 Upper Canal area

The Upper Canal will be fenced to the satisfaction of Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) to prevent the community from accessing this infrastructure do to safety and security concerns. Two vehicular and one pedestrian crossing is proposed over the Upper Canal and appropriate measures will need to be put in place to the satisfaction of the SCA. This is a detailed design issue to be addressed by the landowner. However appropriate development controls relating to the Upper Canal have been included in the Campbelltown DCP.

Approval for gas easement road The road proposed to be located either side of the two high pressure gas easements will require consultation with and approval from the relevant utility provider.

26

As previously discussed, a cross-section with dimensions agreed by the utility providers has been provided in the DCP. The cross section identifies a carriageway on either side of the easement/s with no development proposed within the easement.

Agreement from nominated acquisition authorities The Department of Education and Communities (DEC) has agreed to be identified as the acquisition authority for the primary school site. The primary school remains zoned SP2 Infrastructure and is identified on the Land Acquisition Reservation SEPP Map.

Agreement from Camden and Campbelltown Councils has been sought in relation to the acquisition of drainage, open space and community infrastructure facilities in the East Leppington Precinct.

4.2.12 Section 94 Contributions

In collaboration with Camden and Campbelltown Council, draft Section 94 contribution plans have been prepared for each LGA. Both Camden and Campbelltown Councils have indicated to the Department that they have received a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) offer from the major landowner. Both Councils intend on entering into a VPA for the East Leppington Precinct with the major landowner. Negotiations between Councils and the major landowner are underway.

Concerns were raised by Councils relating to the Section 94 contributions cap. The Government has indicated that it will fund the gap for Section 94 contributions when over the $30,000 cap for greenfield areas, if a Section 94 Plan is adopted for the Precinct. This does not apply to any VPA entered into between the landowner and Councils. The Department has considered a range of options for local infrastructure to ensure cost effectiveness in the delivery

4.3 SEPP Amendment

When the draft Precinct Plan was exhibited, it included an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE). The EIE contained a description of the provisions proposed to be included in the Precinct Plan. Since the completion of the exhibition, the Department has prepared two Precinct Plans based on the EIE, with amendments to address issues raised during the exhibition. The following sections describe the changes.

4.3.1 Council-area based Precinct Plans

The most notable change since exhibition is that two Precinct Plans have been prepared: the Camden Growth Centre Precinct Plan and Campbelltown Growth Centre Precinct Plan. The intention in doing this is to minimise repetition as additional Precincts are rezoned, and to enable differences in local Council policy on certain issues to be reflected in the Precinct Plans. It is intended that, as additional Precincts in each local government area are rezoned, they will be added to the relevant Precinct Plan principally through mapping amendments.

The Austral and Leppington North Precincts were the first Precincts in the South West Growth Centre to which the new Council-area Precinct Plans applied. The East Leppington Precinct is proposed to follow this approach to ensure consistency.

Other Precincts where planning is currently underway, including the Catherine Fields (Part) Precinct and Leppington Precinct will also be covered by the relevant Council-area Precinct Plans when they are rezoned.

4.3.2 SEPP changes

A number of changes were made to the State Environmental Planning Policy Sydney Region Growth Centres) Amendment (East Leppington Precinct) 2012 (referred to as SEPP) to reflect the changes in the ILP. The Department has aimed to keep zoning changes to a minimum.

The Councils and the major landowner raised the issue of using the R1 General Residential zone instead of the R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones. The Department has discussed this issue with each Council separately. The Department has formed the position that the R2 and R3 would be applied for the East Leppington Precinct. These zones provide for flexibility through a

27

range of dwelling types addressing Councils and major landowners reasons for seeking the application of the R1 zone. Both Campbelltown and Camden councils support the application of the R2 and R3 residential zones rather than the R1 zone for their areas.

The key changes made to the SEPP Amendment were:

� Land Application Map only applies to the Camden and Campbelltown LGAs and reflects the north of the Precinct (land in Liverpool LGA) as deferred.

� The SEPP Maps no longer include controls for the Liverpool LGA � Inclusion of an E2 Environmental Conservation zone on St Andrews corner and associated ENV

shown on the Riparian Protection Area SEPP Map � Removal of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Controls from the SEPP Amendment � Listing of Leppington House archaeological site as a Heritage item � Inclusion of additional permitted uses in the SP2 drainage zone to provide flexibility � The majority of collector roads to now be zoned R2 Low Density Residential to allow for flexibility � Inclusion of a flexibility clause of 50 metres to allow flexibility across zone boundaries. This does not

apply to the E2 Environmental Conservation zone.

A number of changes were made to the SEPP maps to reflect the changes to the ILP and SEPP as identified in this Report. A summary of the changes to the maps is provided in Table 4-1.

Table 4-2 Summary of SEPP Map Changes

Map Summary of changes

Precinct Boundary Map � No change proposed

Land Application Map � Map to be amended to show deferred area in Liverpool LGA.

Land Zoning Map � Inclusion of E2 Environmental Conservation zone on St Andrews corner

� Heath Road only zoned from Camden Valley Way to the community centre.

� Remainder of Heath Road to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential

� Gas easement road to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential � Crossings over Upper Canal not separately shown on zoning

map, SP2 Infrastructure zoning to remain

Land Reservation Acquisition Map

� Inclusion of E2 Environmental Conservation land on corner of St Andrews Road

Height of Buildings Map � St Andrews corner removed from height of buildings map

Minimum Residential Density Map

� St Andrews corner removed from density map

Lot Size Map � No change proposed

Development Control Map � Cultural Heritage Landscape Area removed

Heritage Map � Leppington House archaeological site identified as a heritage item

Native Vegetation Protection Map

� Inclusion of vegetation on St Andrews corner � Vegetation in Liverpool LGA no longer included.

Riparian Protection Area Map � No change proposed

4.4 Development Control Plans

A number of changes were made to the Development Control Plans (DCPs) for Camden and Campbelltown Councils to reflect changes to the ILP and to address submissions received during

28

exhibition. The Department held workshops with each of the Councils following exhibition to discuss the DCPs in detail.

It was agreed that for the Camden DCP, Camden council would adopt the agreed draft DCP for the Austral Leppington North Precinct. A separate schedule for the East Leppington Precinct is proposed to be added to the adopted Camden Growth Centres DCP.

It was also agreed between the Department and Campbelltown Council that the DCP for Campbelltown would be a merged document and would not contain a separate schedule for the East Leppington Precinct as there are no further Growth Centre Precincts in the Campbelltown LGA.

As the LGA boundary between Camden and Campbelltown LGA does not follow cadastral boundaries, it was critical to ensure consistency between the Camden and Campbelltown DCPs. The Department has endeavoured to ensure consistency between the two LGAs. The key changes to the exhibited DCPs are:

� All figures have been updated to reflect the deferred area in Liverpool LGA � Amendments have been made to the Leppington House heritage controls to reflect the agreed

outcomes with the Heritage Office including: - Reference between double-tree row and other significant tree plantings clarified - Requirements for a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and when this would be required

clarified - Inclusion for controls for the re-interpretation of the double-tree row in the street design

pattern - Inclusion of controls for the second paddock ensuring this area is appropriately defined

through the urban design and Development Application process � Removal of numerical provisions relating to Asset Protection Zones (APZ) and inclusion of

references to the Planning for Bushfire Guidelines � Reference to each Council’s specified engineering design guidelines in relation to the street network

and design � Noise attenuation guidelines do not support noise walls and provide flexibility for alternative noise

attenuation measures along Camden Valley Way and Denham Court Road � Clarification of the GFA requirement for the Local Centre to reflect the SEPP Amendment � Widening of the indicative share way along the Upper Canal to reflect an access road rather than a

share way. � Removal of the figure identifying significant vegetation to be retained to avoid any confusion with the

Biodiversity Certification requirements. � Removal of sections not relating to a specific LGA from the relevant DCP (i.e. gas easement controls

are not relevant in the Camden DCP).

4.5 Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Since exhibition, key infrastructure agencies such as Sydney Water have advanced their planning for critical infrastructure that will enable development in the Precinct. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been updated since exhibition to reflect the latest planning for critical infrastructure and recent advice for infrastructure agencies. The revised IDP is available on the Growth Centres website.

29

5 Consistency with other Instruments, Acts and Policies

5.1 Growth Centres Structure Plan

The proposed plan is consistent with the South West Growth Centres Structure Plan (refer to Figure 5-1). The Structure Plan states that it is an ‘indicative regional land use plan’, to guide Precinct Planning. The Precinct Planning process for the East Leppington Precinct has been guided by the Structure Plan. Table 5-1 summaries the consistency with the Structure Plan.

Figure 5 1 South West Growth Centre Structure Plan

Table 5-1 Consistency with South West Growth Centre Structure Plan

Structure Plan Final ILP Justification

Target Dwelling Yield The Structure Plan identified a dwelling target yield of 3,000 dwellings for the East Leppington Precinct.

The final ILP provides for 3,265 dwellings, 265 more than was anticipated in the Structure Plan. The will provide for an anticipated population of 11,037 people.

Consistent with the Structure Plan

Flood liable land along Bonds Creek

The final Precinct Plan has identified the 1:100 year flood line along Bonds Creek. The riparian corridor along Bonds Creek will be zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Drainage) and will be in public

Consistent with Structure Plan

30

Structure Plan Final ILP Justification

ownership.

Sydney Catchment Authority Upper Canal

The Upper Canal is identified on the Structure Plan. The Upper Canal remains in its current state however will require additional security and safety measures to restrict access to the canal. Controls relating to the Upper Canal are included in the DCP including consultation with the SCA.

Consistent with Structure Plan

Camden Valley Way is a major road and access point

The ILP identified an upgrade to Camden Valley Way from two lanes to four lanes, with ultimate capacity for six lanes.

Consistent, construction of Camden Valley Way upgrade currently underway.

Denham Court Road The ILP identifies Denham Court Road as the key east-west link across the Precinct. Recommendations for the widening of Denham Court Road have been made.

Consistent, detailed work regarding status of road in the South West Growth Centre and funding currently underway.

Neighbourhood Centres The Structure Plan identifies three neighbourhood centres within the East Leppington Precinct. The ILP proposes a larger Local Centre instead of three neighbourhood centres. Whilst not entirely consistent with the Structure Plan, it responds to the needs of the future community without impacting surrounding centres.

Consistent with the Structure Plan.

Proximity to Leppington Major Centre

The ILP responds to the nearby Leppington Major Centre by ensuring any proposed centre within the East Leppington Precinct will not have a significant impact on the economic viability of this centre.

Consistent with the Structure Plan.

5.2 Growth Centres Development Code

The Growth Centres Development Code is a guide to the preparation of the Precinct Plans. The Development Code provides for consistent standards of development across the Growth Centres. The East Leppington Precinct Plan has been prepared with reference to the Development Code and other development controls including those of Campbelltown and Camden Councils, to enable controls to be consistent with surrounding areas. In some instances, variations of the design controls to the Development Code have been made to respond to particular site characteristics.

In summary, the Precinct Plan is consistent with the Development Code with the exception of matters where site specific controls are required, or where it has been determined that consistency with Campbelltown or Camden Council’s current controls takes precedence. A summary of consistency with the Development Code is provided below.

Table 5-2 Consistency with the Growth Centres Development Code

Development Code Requirements Precinct Planning Controls

A. Key Inputs

31

Development Code Requirements Precinct Planning Controls

Density Targets: - Low: 12.5-20 dwellings/ha - Medium: 20-40 dwellings/ha - High: 40 dwellings/ha

Minimum density controls for the East Leppington Precinct are: � Low (R2 zone): 15 dwellings/ha � Medium (R3 zone): 25 dwellings/ha)

The South West Structure Plan identifies 3,000 dwellings for East Leppington. Development to the minimum densities under the SEPP Amendment will achieve a yield of approximately 3,265 dwellings in the Precinct.

High density development is not considered likely to occur as access to transport, employment and other services would not be sufficient to support these densities (as compared to locations near major town centres). Should market demand push for a higher density development, the density requirements are only minimums and this could be achieved through the flexibility allowed relating to dwelling types in the SEPP Amendment.

Indicative lot sizes: - Townhouses, semi-detached and

detached small dwellings: up to 350m²

- Detached medium: 350-450m² - Detached large: 450m²

Minimum lot sizes for the East Leppington Precinct are: • Multi-unit dwellings:1,500m² • Attached dwellings: 375m² • Semi-detached dwellings: 400m² • Detached dwellings: 250m² (specific controls also

apply to detached dwellings in the R3 zone). • Dwelling house in the E3 zone: 100ha

Employment and retail

Town and village centres contain services for a number of adjacent communities and contain secondary retail (supermarkets, specialist shops, mini-majors).

Walkable communities are linked to a small scale mixed activity zone to encourage local community integration.

A Local Centre is proposed at Camden Valley Way at the intersection of Heath Road.

The Precinct has approximately 9 hectares provided for the Local Centre, mixed use, primary school and community facilities. Neighbourhood shops are permissible with consent in the R2 and R3 zones under certain conditions. Other community facilities such as schools and open space have been positioned to form a focus for neighbourhood activity.

B. Urban Form Analysis

B.9 Street pattern A hierarchy of town centre streets that include main streets, secondary streets and lanes.

The final ILP provides for a grid pattern for the streets within the Precinct to allow for access routes for circulation, parking and service access.

B.10 Lot layout and orientation Optimal lot size and orientation is defined for solar access.

Blocks have been designed to maximise the north-south or east-west orientation of lots, to achieve appropriate solar access.

C. Mixed Use Town Centres, neighbourhood and Housing

C.1 The DCP should set FSR controls, height and minimum landscape development controls for lots greater than 350m²

Controls are included in the SEPP Amendment relating to the Height of Buildings and Minimum Lot Size.

C.3 Streets Road cross sections and dimensions are identified for use in Precinct Plans

Cross-sections for streets within the Precinct are provided within the DCP.

5.3 Other Relevant SEPPs

Table 5-3 Consistency with Other SEPPs

Relevant Plan Consistency

32

Relevant Plan Consistency

Draft SEPP 66 – Integrating Land Use and

Transport

The proposed SEPP is consistent with these SEPPs to the extent they are relevant at this stage. Most relate to the statutory requirements and considerations at the Development Application stage.

The impact of urban development has been considered at a strategic level to ensure that Development Applications will be capable of complying with these SEPPs.

SEPP 55 – Remediation

SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Development

SEPP 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

SEPP 36 – Manufactured Home Estates This SEPP does not apply to areas within the Sydney Region.

5.4 Section 117(2) Directions

The proposed SEPP Amendment is not strictly required to comply with these directions, as they apply only to the preparation of Local Environmental Plans. However, the Precinct Plan may at some point be incorporated into the relevant Council Local Environmental Plans and it is therefore appropriate that the Precinct Plan be consistent with Section 117 directions to the maximum possible extent.

As assessment of consistency with Directions issued by the Minister (or Director-General of DP&I under delegation) under Section 117 of the EP&A Act was prepared as part of the Precinct Planning Report, prior to exhibition. That assessment is still valid for the final Precinct Plan, and the Precinct Plan is generally consistent with the directions.

5.5 Biodiversity Certification for the Sydney Growth Centres

Biodiversity Certification under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 was conferred upon the Growth Centres SEPP in December 2007 and confirmed in July 2008 via an amendment to the TSC Act. The Certification effectively switches off the need to undertake assessment and obtain approvals required under the TSC Act for development on land that is Certified. The Biodiversity Certification includes a number of requirements (or Relevant Biodiversity Measures – RBMs) that must be satisfied in order to maintain the Certification.

A Biodiversity Consistency report (Appendix C) has been completed for the subject land within the precinct. The report concludes that 3.34 ha of field-validated existing native vegetation (ENV) and an additional 1.02 ha of AHCVV (total of 4.36 ha) will be protected using the E2 Environment Conservation Zone and through the vegetation clearing controls in the Growth Centres SEPP. Areas of suitable habitat for two existing Pimelea spicata populations (totalling 2.24 ha) were found to be present and have similarly been protected to the satisfaction of OEH. OEH has provided preliminary advice supporting these measures and will also provide endorsement of the biodiversity consistency report following its review.

5.6 Growth Centres Strategic Assessment Program

In December 2011 the Federal Government endorsed the Sydney Growth Centres Strategic Assessment Program Report and in February 2012 approved the classes of actions in the Growth Centres that if undertaken in accordance with the approved program do not require separate approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Program includes a range of commitments for matters of national environmental significance protected under the EPBC Act. The commitments are drawn from the analysis in the Supplementary Assessment Report and Draft Strategic Assessment Report (Part B), and build upon the Relevant Biodiversity Measures for the Growth Centres Biodiversity Certification.

33

A strategic assessment report (Appendix D) has also been prepared that confirms that concludes that the East Leppington Precinct subject to this report is consistent with the Strategic Assessment of the Growth Centres SEPP, as follows:

• Protection of 2.81 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) exceeds the amount of CPW required to be protected within this precinct under the Biodiversity Certification Order and Strategic Assessment Report.

• Protection of 3.34 hectares of ENV exceeds the amount of field validated non-certified ENV located on the site that is subject to RBMs 6-13. Protection of 1.02 ha of AHCVV compensates for the non-certified ENV that was field validated as no longer occurring on the site

• Protection of two (2) populations of Pimelea spicata on the site has been provided to the satisfaction of OEH.

• Protection of 3.34 ha of ENV and 1.02 ha of AHCVV meets the requirements of the Strategic Assessment in relation to habitat protection for the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox.

5.7 Project Management and Process

Project management for East Leppington has involved the major landowner, Stockland Pty Ltd. The Department’s guidelines for landowner involvement have been applied and a project plan that includes probity guidelines, put in place.

The probity report concludes that the process followed in relation to East Leppington Precinct planning process has been conducted with due regard to probity.

5.8 Planning Agreement

5.8.1 Parties to the Planning Agreement

A planning agreement has been entered into between the Minister and Stockland Development Pty the major landowner or developer (Appendix E)

5.8.2 Summary of Objectives, Nature and Effect of the Planning Agreement

Under the terms of the Planning Agreement, the major landowner will be required fund certain costs associated with precinct planning including:

(a) Costs relating to planning studies which the Minister commissions as part of the Precinct Planning Process (or that were commissioned by the major landowner prior to commencement of the Precinct Planning Process); and

(b) Costs incurred by the Developer as a result of its reimbursement to the Department for:

• costs associated with any review of environmental factors, any environmental impact statements required under the Act for the provision of water, sewerage or road infrastructure within the precinct

• costs associated with the Department’s management responsibilities for Precinct Planning, including but not limited to the Relevant Councils’ co-ordinator

• costs associated with reviews or additional planning studies costs of peer reviews of technical studies

• costs associated with community consultation, including but not limited to hire of venues, printing and other communication.

The Planning Agreement provides a mechanism where the major landowner will submit invoices to the Minister. The Minister will then determine what costs the major landowner is entitled to obtain a Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) credit for.

34

The maximum amount of any credit

Under the terms of the Planning Agreement the maximum amount of the credit that the major landowner will be able to discharge against any future obligation to pay a SIC will be $3,000,000.

When credit will be given

SIC credit will be given in the event that the land is rezoned.

Registration

The Planning Agreement will be between the Minister and the major landowner and the obligations under the Planning Agreement are not required to run with the Land. The Planning Agreement contains certain controls on the ability of the major landowner to assign the obligations under the Agreement. For those reasons the Planning Agreement is not required to be registered on title.

5.8.3 How the Planning Agreement Promotes the Public Interest The Planning Agreement promotes the public interest by ensuring that an appropriate contribution is made towards with precinct planning for the East Leppington Precinct.

How the Planning Agreement Promotes the Objects of the Act

The Planning Agreement promotes the objects of the Act by encouraging:

• the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land

The Planning Agreement promotes the objects of the Act set out above by requiring the landowner to make a contribution to precinct planning for the East Leppington Precinct and by providing that a credit should be given for that contribution in the event that the precinct is rezoned.

5.8.4 Requirements relating to Construction, Occupation and Subdivision Certificates

The Planning Agreement does not specify requirements that must be complied with prior to the issue of a construction certificate, an occupation certificate or a subdivision certificate.