Denwol Suffolk Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council - [2023] NSWLEC 1602 - NSWLEC 2023 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Denwol Suffolk Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council

[2023] NSWLEC 1602

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2023-06-09

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2023-06-09

Catchwords

[2021] NSWLEC 120 Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc. v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Ltd (2013) 194 LGERA 347

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

[2021] NSWLEC 120 Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc. v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Ltd (2013) 194 LGERA 347

Judgment (40 paragraphs)

[1]

Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/269686 Publication restriction: Nil

[2]

Judgment

COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures, removal of existing trees and construction of a two-storey mixed use development across two buildings. The development is proposed at 9 -13 Clifford Street, Suffolk Park (the site). The Applicant filed a Class 1 Application, appealing the actual refusal of the development application pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act).
The matter was listed for conciliation on 3 February 2023 pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The conciliation was terminated. The Applicant was granted leave by the Court to amend their development application on 21 March 2023. The Applicant was further granted leave to amend their development application during the hearing in response to the expert evidence of the planning experts. Leave was not opposed by the Respondent and the parties agree that for the purposes of s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act that the amendments are not minor.

[3]

The Issues

Despite amendments to the development application, the Respondent maintains that the development warrants refusal on the following grounds: 1. That the proposed development is likely to have a serious and irreversible impact (SAII) on biodiversity values and fails to incorporate sufficient measures to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on biodiversity values. 2. Because the proposed development provides insufficient asset protection zone (APZ) from the adjoining Council Reserve and the performance solution proposed is not feasible. 3. That the bulk, scale and density of the development is incompatible with the character of the local area. 4. That the town houses (in building B) are of a monotonous design with minimal articulation along the 43m of the proposed building. 5. The proposed development retains an insufficient portion of the existing vegetation which forms part of the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion Endangered Ecological Community (Cypress Pine EEC). Further, there is uncertainty of the viability of the trees proposed for retention. The proposed landscaping lacks an integrated approach and lacks provision for canopy trees. 6. The Building A provides insufficient parking for the commercial development and the allocation of the proposed car parking will impact customers. 7. Insufficient information has been provided to validate the conclusions of the Applicant's Traffic and Parking Assessment with respect to the traffic impacts of the development to the intersection of Clifford Street and Broken Head Road. 8. The Applicant's proposed Waste Management Strategy lacks contingency as it relies firstly on a single commercial contactor to perform the waste collection function and secondly relies on availability of a single waste collection vehicle from that contractor.
In addition to the above issues, the Applicant also objects to the imposition of the section titled "Footpath and Associated Pedestrian Crossing" in the following proposed condition on the grounds that it is unreasonable and as it would not satisfy the test at s 4.17(1) of the EPA Act and is beyond power. The proposed condition reads: "14. Consent required for works within the road reserve Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, consent from Council must be obtained for works within the road reserve pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans must accompany the application for consent for works within the road reserve. Such plans are to be in accordance with Council's current Design & Construction Manuals and are to provide for the following works: Driveway … Footpath and Associated Pedestrian Crossing 1.2m wide concrete footpath on the southern side of Clifford Street between the development site and the bus stop west of the site at a crossfall of 1% or 1:100 (maximum 2.5% or 1:40). Footpath in accordance with Northern Rivers Local Government Drawing R-07. Pedestrian crossing and ramps to be provided in Clifford St connecting the northern and southern footpath adjacent the development site. Pedestrian crossing and ramps are to be designed to Northern Rivers Local Government Drawing R-04, Austroads Guide to Road Design and TfNSW Pedestrian Crossing Guideline 2022. The provision of pedestrian crossing in Clifford St, subject to the following warrants in Chapter 6.1.2 of TfNSW Pedestrian Crossing Guideline 2022 - TS 00043:1.0: - • In each of two separate one-hour periods in a typical day, the pedestrian flow per hour (P) crossing the road is, or is expected to be, equal to or greater than 20. • Children and elderly or mobility impaired pedestrians count as two pedestrians. …"
Finally, the Applicant also objects to the imposition of the following condition which imposes a restriction on the use of the development for short term rental accommodation: "97. Use of Dwellings The dwellings within this development are not to be used for short term (less than 3-month duration) rental accommodation, "holiday let" or as tourist and visitor accommodation."

[5]

Public Submissions

In determining the development application, the Court is to take into consideration any submissions made during the notification of the development application. The submissions received by Byron Shire Council since the lodgement of the development application were tendered in the proceedings as part of the Respondent's evidence. I have read and considered those submissions.
The Respondent confirms that the original development application was publicly exhibited in 2022, and the amended development application in 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014. The issues raised by the submissions on the amended development application can be summarised as: 1. Whilst the amended plans reduce the footprint of Building A, the change to tourist accommodation provides negligible benefit to the community. 2. The bulk, scale and façade design of the proposed development is incompatible with the character of the locality. 3. The development represents a threat to the Cypress Pine EEC where native vegetation clearing is nominated as a key threatening process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). 4. The relocation of the APZ onto the site results in the removal of a further 10 trees which is unacceptable. 5. The modified development remains an overdevelopment of the site. 6. The previous consent granted for the site (now lapsed) represented a more appropriate scale of development for the site. 7. The development would increase traffic issues in Clifford Street, and as a result, with the intersection of Clifford Street and Broken Head Road. The existing congestion and risk will be increased. 8. The submitted traffic study underestimates the impact to the intersection that will arise from the development. 9. The traffic study is out of date and relies on data from 2013. 10. The traffic impacts from this development need to be considered with the approved daycare centre in Clifford Street and the significant increase in tourism the area has experienced. 11. The site sits within the Tallow Creek Flood Plain and may be subject to flooding. The proposed development increase in impervious areas will exacerbate this risk. 12. The site has a high water table which will affect the management of stormwater on the site. 13. The proposed development does not respond to the unique village character of Suffolk Park. 14. The proposed development will result in the demolition of existing affordable housing. 15. The amended plans unacceptably increase the removal of vegetation that will result from the development. The vegetation removal proposed is unreasonable given the character of the area and the identification of some of the site as Cypress Pine EEC. 16. The proposed tree removal may impact on Koala habitat, noting that Koalas have been seen in the locality. 17. The proposed development provides insufficient parking for the retail/commercial uses proposed. This will impact on already constrained street parking. 18. The stormwater design relies on infiltration from two underground tanks. The lack of pump provision is not the best practice and the infiltration rates relied on are not realistic. The tanks proposed need to be larger and pumps should be provided. 19. The Applicant's stormwater modelling contains anomalies that should be addressed. 20. The proposed development, in particular the tree removal and increased stormwater, will affect the Ti Tree Aboriginal Place located to the south of the site. 21. The prolonged construction time for the development will impact the amenity of the locality for existing residents. 22. The project will clear 0.13ha of Cypress Pine EEC and result in significant pruning of other retained Cypress Pine EEC. The extent of impact is excessive.
During the hearing, provision was made for a number of objectors to address the Court directly and give evidence of their concerns in relation to the proposed development. These objections emphasised many of the concerns summarised in the proceeding.
During the notification period for the amended development application, twenty -five submissions in support of the development were received by Council. The key points in those submissions can be summarised as: 1. The amendments are responsive to the previous concerns raised. 2. The proposed development will provide additional housing and commercial space, both of which are in demand in the locality. 3. The development will replace outdated facilities with new building stock. 4. The amended plans appear compliant with the planning controls and should be approved. 5. The proposed facilities are needed in the area. 6. The proposed development represents the evolving character of Suffolk Park and is a positive change. 7. The development will encourage people to visit and stay in Suffolk Park which will improve business viability.

[7]

The Cypress Pine EEC

The parties and their experts agree that that the vegetation on the site is Cypress Pine EEC. Importantly, Cypress Pine EEC is listed as an endangered ecological community in Pt 2 of Sch 2 of the BC Act, which relies on its description in the determination of the Scientific Committee under Div 5 of Pt 2 of the TSC Act (the Final Determination). The following extract of the Final Determination is relevant: "1. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is the name given to the ecological community dominated by Coastal Cypress Pine, Callitris columellaris, found typically on coastal sand plains, north from the Angourie area on the far north coast of NSW. The community is characterised by the species listed in paragraph 2, and typically has a closed to open canopy of C. columellaris, which may be mixed with eucalypts, wattles, banksias and/or rainforest trees, and an open to sparse understorey of shrubs, sedges and herbs. Structural forms of the community include woodland, open forest and closed forest, although the tree stratum may be very sparse, absent, or comprised only of dead trees in stands affected by partial clearing, tree senescence or fire. 2. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is characterised by the following assemblage of species: Abildgaardia vaginata Eragrostis brownii Acacia aulacocarpa Eucalyptus pilularis Acacia disparrima subsp. Eucalyptus resinifera disparrima subsp. hemilampra Acacia ulicifolia Eucalyptus signata Acianthus caudatus Euroschinus falcata Acianthus exsertus Halfordia kendack Acronychia imperforata Hoya australis subsp. Acrotriche aggregata australis Allocasuarina littoralis Imperata cylindrica var. Alyxia ruscifolia major Araucaria cunninghamii Leptospermum Aristida spp. polygalifolium Astroloma humifusum Leucopogon ericoides Austromyrtus dulcis Leucopogon Baloskion tetraphyllum leptospermoides subsp. meiostachyum Leucopogon margarodes Banksia integrifolia subsp. Lomandra longifolia integrifolia Monotoca elliptica Banksia serrata Notelaea longifolia Bulboschoenus barbata Oxylobium robustum Callitris columellaris Paspalidium distans Chiloglottis sp. Persoonia stradbrokensis Commelina cyanea Platycerium bifurcatum Corymbia intermedia Pomax umbellata Cyclophyllum longipetalum Pteridium esculentum Cymbopogon refractus var. Pterostylis nutans refractus Pterostylis pedunculata Cyperus stradbrokensis Zieria smithii Dianella caerulea 3. The total species list of the community is considerably larger than that given above, with many species present in only one or two sites or in low abundance. The species composition of a site will be influenced by the size of the site, recent rainfall or drought condition and by its disturbance (including fire) history. The number of species, and the above ground relative abundance of species will change with time since fire, and may also change in response to changes in fire regime (including changes in fire frequency). At any one time, above ground individuals of some species may be absent, but the species may be represented below ground in the soil seed banks or as dormant structures such as bulbs, corms, rhizomes, rootstocks or lignotubers. The list of species given above is of vascular plant species; the community also includes micro-organisms, fungi, cryptogamic plants and a diverse fauna, both vertebrate and invertebrate. These components of the community are poorly documented. 4. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is dominated by a dense to open canopy of Callitris columellaris (Coastal Cypress Pine), sometimes with Coyrmbia intermedia (Pink Bloodwood), Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), E. signata (Scribbly Gum), Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima (Salwood), Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-oak), Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia (Coast Banksia) or B. serrata (Old Man Banksia). The typically sparse layer of shrubs may include, Acacia ulicifolia (Prickly Moses), Leucopogon ericoides (Pink Beard-heath), L. leptospermoides, Monotoca elliptica (Tree broom-heath) and juveniles of any of the canopy species. The typically sparse groundcover comprises scattered grasses, including Aristida vagans (Three-awn Speargrass), Eragrostis brownii (Brown's Lovegrass), Imperata cylindrica var. major (Blady Grass) and Paspalidium distans, graminoids such as Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum (Plume Rush) and Lomandra longifolia (Spiny-headed Mat-rush) and forbs including Dianella caerulea (Blue Flax Lily) and Pomax umbellata or it may also contain a rich orchid flora (Moye in litt. 2008). The community may have a distinctive litter layer with patches of compressed Callitris branchlets, which have a characteristic chemical composition that is high in terpenes, such as limonene and pinene (Ogunwande et al. 2005). Undisturbed stands of the community may have a woodland or forest structure, with C. columellaris dominating the canopy, although larger trees, such as eucalypts may be emergent. Stands of the community that have been partially cleared in the past may be reduced to scattered trees and a few characteristic ground cover species, possibly with other native species represented in a soil seed bank. Fires may also influence the structure of the community, as the dominant tree species, C. columellaris, is generally killed when burnt. Post-fire regeneration of the community may therefore have the structure of shrubland or heathland for many years. 5. A number of threatened flora species have been recorded in Coastal Cypress Pine Forest or associated ecotones. These include Acronychia littoralis (Scented Acronychia), Archidendron hendersonii (White Lace Flower), Geodorum densiflorum (Pink Nodding Orchid, Shepherds Crook Orchid) and Drynaria rigidula (Basket fern). 6. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest typically occurs on the inland side of the coastal sandplain on low rises that represent eroded Pleistocene backbarrier dunes (Morand 1996). A few examples of the community are located on coastal bedrock hills mantled with wind-blown sand or more rarely without a sandy mantle (e.g. Landmark 1999). The community has also been recorded from Holocene sand dunes (Griffith 1999). The sandy soils are generally deep, freely draining podsols, loam or clay soils associated with basalt or, less commonly, fine-grained sedimentary rocks and similar substrates. Currently known occurrences of the community are generally within 35km of the coast and below 100m elevation. Mean annual rainfall varies from approximately 1000 mm up to 1800 mm across the distribution of the community. 7. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is apparently restricted to the NSW North Coast bioregion. The dominant species, C. columellaris, extends into south-east Queensland as far north as Hervey Bay. Biantoff and Elsol (1989) record C. columellaris in forest on the Sunshine Coast in south-east Queensland, although it is uncertain whether this represents the same community or other communities in which C. columellaris is sub-dominant. However, any occurrence of the community in south-east Queensland is likely to be highly restricted. In NSW, Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is currently known from the local government areas of Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley, but may occur elsewhere within the bioregion. Bioregions are defined in Thackway and Cresswell (1995). 8. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest includes 'Coast Cypress Pine' (Forest Ecosystem 22) of NPWS (1999) and DEC (2004), 'Callitris columellaris tall open to closed forest' (F4) of Pressey and Griffith (1992), the 'Cypress Pine' unit of Landmark (1999), 'Cypress Pine Open Forest to Woodland' (313) of Kingston et al. (2004), Coast Cypress Pine on Dunes and Ridges' (Community 33) of Sherringham et al. (unpubl. data) and Coastal Cypress Pine assemblages described by Benwell (1995, 1998). Coastal Cypress Pine Forest belongs to the Coastal Dune Dry Sclerophyll Forests vegetation class of Keith (2004). 9. Based on detailed field inspections, the total distribution of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest covers approximately 150 ha (A. Benwell, unpubl. data), and is certainly less than 200 ha. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is currently known from 15-20 localities, most of which are patches no larger than 10 ha. Stands of the community have been mapped in Bundjalung, Yuraygir and Broadwater National Parks (Griffith 1983, 1984, 1985) and Billinudgel Nature Reserve (Benwell 1998), accounting for about half of the total known occurrence. The remaining stands occur primarily on private land or road easements. All known occurrences of the community are within a total extent of occurrence of 2500 -3000 km2. These estimates indicate that the community has a highly restricted distribution. 10. Since European settlement, and relative to the longevity of its dominant trees, which live for more than a hundred years, Coastal Cypress Pine Forest has undergone a large reduction in geographic distribution. This reduction has occurred as a result of vegetation clearing for sand mining, agriculture and coastal development. Estimates based on field observations of old remnant trees in cleared land around the remaining stands of the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest suggest that the area occupied by the community may have declined by more than 77% (A. Benwell, unpubl. data). The actual reduction in geographic distribution is likely to be larger than this estimate suggests because stands which may have been totally destroyed could not be included in the calculation. Small-scale clearing continues to threaten the community, primarily as a result of coastal development and associated upgrading of roads. For example, within the past two decades, fragmentation of the community has increased as a result of clearing for tea tree plantations, caravan parks, road construction and associated quarrying (DECC in litt., A. Benwell, pers. comm. August 2006), indicating a continuing decline in the geographic distribution of the community. The remaining area of the community is severely fragmented. The integrity and survival of small, isolated stands of the community is impaired by the small population size of its component species, enhanced risks from environmental stochasticity, disruption to pollination and dispersal of fruits or seeds, and likely reductions in the genetic diversity of isolated populations (Young et al. 1996, Young and Clarke 2000). 'Clearing of native vegetation' is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 11. Other threats to Coastal Cypress Pine Forest include habitat degradation and weed invasion. Maintenance of service easements and fence construction encroaches on the edges of some stands, while trampling and rubbish dumping occurs where the community is close to towns and recreational sites. Such disturbances accelerate the invasion of weeds, which may form a dense understorey or ground layer, displacing native understorey species and inhibiting recruitment of canopy species. Principal weed species include Asparagus aethiopicus, Bryophyllum delagoense, Chloris gayana, Lantana camara, Ochna serrulata and Schefflera actinophylla. Other weed species recorded in the community include Panicum maximum, Rhaphiolepis indica, Solanum nigrum and S. seaforthianum. The invasion and establishment of exotic species in Coastal Cypress Pine Forest, results in a large reduction in the ecological function of the community. 'Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses' and 'Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana (Lantana camara L. sens. lat)' are listed as Key Threatening Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 12. Inappropriate fire regimes also pose a threat to Coastal Cypress Pine Forest. Undisturbed stands of the community typically have a sparse understorey and apparently do not accumulate large quantities of uncompacted litter. These attributes do not favour propagation of fires under common weather conditions. However, the dominant species, C. columellaris, may be killed by crown fires or heavy scorching of the lower trunk. Such effects have been observed in localised patches (A. Benwell, pers. comm.), as incursion of fire may be facilitated by more flammable vegetation that surrounds the small patches of the community. A recent crown fire in Bundjalung National Park killed existing seedlings, saplings and mature trees of C.columellaris and apparently resulted in little post-fire recruitment (S. J. Griffith, pers. comm.). Regeneration of the species appears to rely on seed that is released regularly from non-persistent cones, mainly in the summer months. Seedling recruitment is mainly seen in gaps created by small-scale disturbance (A. Benwell, pers. comm.). Given these characteristics and observations, high-frequency fires are likely to be detrimental to the persistence of the community, although infrequent fires may be necessary to create the gaps apparently required for seedling recruitment to replace senescent trees. Frequent fires are also likely to accelerate the invasion of weeds, since these species are efficient colonisers of open space where there are sources of propagules nearby. Weed invasion is likely to alter the fuel characteristics, making the community more flammable. Increasing human population pressures, such as those occurring on the NSW north coast, typically result in an increase in fire ignitions in bushland that is accessible to urban areas. 'High frequency fire resulting in disruption of life cycle processes in plants and animals and loss of vegetation structure and composition' is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 13. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is not eligible to be listed as a critically endangered ecological community. 14. Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is eligible to be listed as an Endangered Ecological Community as, in the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing a very high risk of extinction in New South Wales in the near future, as determined in accordance with the following criteria as prescribed by the Threatened Species Conservation Regulation 2002: Clause 25 The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of its component species: (b) a large reduction in geographic distribution. Clause 26 The ecological community's geographic distribution is estimated or inferred to be: (b) highly restricted, and the nature of its distribution makes it likely that the action of a threatening process could cause it to decline or degrade in extent or ecological function over a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of the ecological community's component species. Clause 27 The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of its component species: (b) a large reduction in ecological function, as indicated by any of the following: (d) change in community structure (g) invasion and establishment of exotic species (h) degradation of habitat (i) fragmentation of habitat" (Source: Department of Planning and Environment, https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/nsw-threatened-species-scientific-committee/determinations/final-determinations/2011-2012/coastal-cypress-pine-forest-in-the-nsw-north-coast-bioregion-minor-amendment-determination, accessed 15 September 2023)

[8]

Ecology Expert Evidence

The ecology experts participated in joint conference and prepared a joint report that was tendered as Exhibit 5 in the proceedings. The experts disagree in two key areas. Firstly, whether the development is likely to have a SAII on the Coastal Cypress EEC and secondly whether the development has adequately demonstrated the avoidance or minimisation of impacts upon biodiversity values.
In their joint report, Dr Robertson and Dr McLean note their agreement to the following matters: "… 4. A part of the site is mapped as High Environmental Value vegetation. 5. To the north of the site is a Council-owned reserve that includes native forest vegetation, including examples of endangered ecological communities. 6. The experts discussed the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) that were prepared by Cumberland Ecology (2023 a & b). 7. The experts agreed that the BDAR has been suitably prepared from a jurisdictional sense by Cumberland Ecology. Furthermore, they agree that the BDAR has covered the requisite scope of work and is compliant with the requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) provided that the full impacts of storm water from the proposed redevelopment of the site have been considered. This is further explained under the relevant heading below. 8. The experts concur that the subject land has been partially cleared and modified for existing residential development, such that much of the original site vegetation and fauna habitats have been modified. They note that there are now houses, paths, driveways, lawns and garden beds located on the subject site. Notwithstanding that, the site contains trees and some other plant species that are representative of the endangered ecological community (EEC) known as Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion (hereafter "Coastal Cypress Pine Forest or the EEC"). 9. The experts agree that ideally the proposed redevelopment of the site should be designed to avoid impacts to the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest. However, they also acknowledge that the potential for avoidance is largely prevented by the requirements for the creation and modification of an asset protection zone across the site as stipulated by the bushfire experts. For this reason, although the potential for avoidance has been considered during the preparation of the BDAR, only limited retention of the EEC is possible on site under the current proposed development scheme. 10. The experts noted that the BDAR has appropriately calculated the number of ecosystem credits that are required to offset the residual loss of the EEC from the subject land. They also note that the BDAR proposes trebling the number of credits to be purchased (from two to six) and retired to address the expected loss of tree cover. …" (Exhibit 5)

[11]

What are biodiversity values?

The concept of "biodiversity values" is defined at s 1.5(2) of the BC Act as follows: (2) For the purposes of this Act, biodiversity values are the following biodiversity values - (a) vegetation integrity - being the degree to which the composition, structure and function of vegetation at a particular site and the surrounding landscape has been altered from a near natural state, (b) habitat suitability - being the degree to which the habitat needs of threatened species are present at a particular site, (c) biodiversity values, or biodiversity-related values, prescribed by the regulations.
Additional biodiversity values are prescribed at cl 1.4 of the Biodiversity Conversation Regulation (BC Regulation) as follows: 1.4 Additional biodiversity values (section 1.5 of the Act) The following are prescribed as additional biodiversity values for the purposes of the Act - (a) threatened species abundance - being the occurrence and abundance of threatened species or threatened ecological communities, or their habitat, at a particular site, (b) vegetation abundance - being the occurrence and abundance of vegetation at a particular site, (c) habitat connectivity - being the degree to which a particular site connects different areas of habitat of threatened species to facilitate the movement of those species across their range, (d) threatened species movement - being the degree to which a particular site contributes to the movement of threatened species to maintain their lifecycle, (e) flight path integrity - being the degree to which the flight paths of protected animals over a particular site are free from interference, (f) water sustainability - being the degree to which water quality, water bodies and hydrological processes sustain threatened species and threatened ecological communities at a particular site.
The relevant biodiversity values of the site are agreed by the ecological experts as the Coastal Cypress EEC present: s 1.5(2) of BC Act and cl 1.4(a) and (b) of BC Regulation.
As held by Preston CJ in Planners North v Ballina Shire Council (2021) 251 LGERA 309; [2021] NSWLEC 120 ('Planners North') at [91] the precondition at s 7.16 (2) of the BC Act in relation to SAII "is distinct from two other requirements in Part 7 of the BC Act dealing with biodiversity assessment and approval under the EPA Act", those are:

Firstly, the requirement in s 7.7(2) of the BC Act that if the development is likely to significantly affect threatened species (or threatened ecological communities, the application must be accompanied by a BDAR.
Secondly, the application of s 7.13(2) of the BC Act which states that a consent authority, when determining a development application, is not limited in its consideration of the impacts of the proposed development under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act to the impacts on biodiversity values articulated in the BDAR.

[12]

The test of significance: s 7.2 of the BC Act

Taking the first matter, a development is likely to significantly impact on threatened species if it meets one or more of the criteria at s 7.2(1) of the BC Act, namely: (1) For the purposes of this Part, development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species if - (a) it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3, or (b) the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values, or (c) it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.
In relation to the first requirement, a Flora and Fauna Assessment Report (FFAR) accompanied the Class 1 Application which included an assessment of significance for the Coastal Cypress EEC referable to the development application at that time. The FFAR concluded that the proposed development would not result in a significant impact on any threatened flora or fauna. Notwithstanding the lack of an updated FFAR, a BDAR has been prepared and submitted by the Applicant to support the amended development application as part of Exhibit C. I note the agreement of the ecology experts that the content of the BDAR meets the requirements of s 6.12 of the BC Act, however the expert report does not overtly conclude that the test at s 7.2(1) is met by the development.
The lack of a test of significance was raised by the Court during proceedings. It was the agreed position of the parties that it was open to the Court to conclude, on the evidence, if the test at s 7.2(1) was met. As detailed at [33] this was not necessary as the development meets the criterion at s 7.2(1)(b) of the BC Act, thus obviating the need.
The BDAR, under a section titled 'Requirement for a BDAR' states in part: "… When considering the relatively small impact the project would have on Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the context of the local occurrence (impacting less than 1% of the local patch) and the surrounding low density zoning (R2, E2, E3 and RU2) which limits impacts to the surround areas of this TEC, it is considered unlikely that the project would result in a significant impact on this TEC in accordance with Section 7.3 of the BC Act. This is particularly as the occurrence on the subject site is highly modified, due to the land being previously developed. Nonetheless, as Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is listed as an EEC under the BC Act, a BDAR has still been prepared for the project as a precautionary approach. …" (Exhibit O)
On this basis, the first criterion at s 7.2(1)(a) of the BC Act mandating the submission of a BDAR is not met.
The second criterion at s 7.2(1)(b) of the BC Act to conclude that the development is likely to significantly impact threatened species is determined by reference to the BC Regulation. The BC Regulation at cl 7.2(2)(a) nominates a clearing threshold which if met means the development exceeds the biodiversity offset scheme, thus meeting the requirement at s 7.2(1)(b) of the BC Act. Clause 7.2 of the BC Regulation states: 7.2 Clearing of area of land that exceeds threshold (1) Clearing of native vegetation is declared by this clause to exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the area proposed to be cleared is the area set out in Column 2 of the Table to this clause opposite the minimum lot size applicable to the land to be cleared in Column 1 of that Table. Note - Section 7.4 of the Act provides that any part of development that involves the clearing of native vegetation on category 1-exempt land (within the meaning of Part 5A of the Local Land Services Act 2013) is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether proposed development exceeds the threshold. (2) The minimum lot size applicable to any land being cleared is as follows - (a) if an environmental planning instrument under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prescribes a standard minimum lot size in relation to the land on which the proposed development is to be carried out - that minimum lot size, (b) in any other case - the actual size of the allotment of land on which the proposed development is to be carried out. For the purposes of paragraph (a), the standard minimum lot size is the minimum lot size that applies to development generally on the land, and not any different minimum lot size that applies to particular development or in particular circumstances. (3) In the application of the Table to this clause - (a) if the proposed development does not comprise only the clearing of native vegetation - the area of clearing is the total area of proposed clearing irrespective of the number of lots concerned or the ownership of those lots, and (b) if the proposed development comprises only the clearing of native vegetation - the area of clearing is the total area of proposed clearing - (i) over the lots in the same ownership (unless subparagraph (ii) applies), or (ii) over the lots that are worked or operated as a single property (whether or not they are in the same ownership), and (c) if the land on which the proposed development is to be carried out comprises different areas of land with different minimum lot sizes - the minimum lot size is the smaller or smallest of those minimum lot sizes, and (d) if the proposed development comprises or involves the clearing of more than one patch of native vegetation - the area of clearing is the total cumulative area cleared. (4) The Environment Agency Head is to publish a method (which may include computer programs) to be used for the purpose of calculating the total area of clearing for proposed development. Table Column 1 Column 2 Minimum lot size of land Area of clearing Less than 1 hectare 0.25 hectare or more Less than 40 hectares but not less than 1 hectare 0.5 hectare or more Less than 1,000 hectares but not less than 40 hectares 1 hectare or more 1,000 hectares or more 2 hectares or more

[16]

Direct and Indirect impacts

As the development application is required to be accompanied by a BDAR, a second requirement under Pt 7 of the BC Act, in s 7.13, is triggered: s 7.13(1) of the BC Act. Section 7.13(2) requires a consent authority, when determining a development application that is required to be accompanied by a BDAR, to take into consideration under the EPA Act the likely impact of the proposed development on biodiversity values as assessed in the BDAR that relates to that application: Planners North at [104] (Preston CJ).
The subject site contains Coastal Cypress EEC. In relation to the extent of the EEC, in their joint report the ecology experts agree that: "The experts concur that the subject land has been partially cleared and modified for existing residential development, such that much of the original site vegetation and fauna habitats have been modified. They note that there are now houses, paths, driveways, lawns and garden beds located on the subject site. Notwithstanding that, the site contains trees and some other plant species that are representative of the endangered ecological community (EEC) known as Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion. " (Exhibit 5)
The BDAR maps the extent of the Coastal Cypress EEC on the site as 0.19ha and describes the condition of the plant community as moderate. The BDAR makes the following comments about the condition of the EEC on the site: "Within the subject land scattered trees from this community persist in areas that have not been subject to clearing for building activities. The understorey has been cleared as part of landscaping works and almost no native ground stratum occurs. Remaining canopy species within the site consist of 25 mature Callitris columellaris, a large Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany), and three Melaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark). The sub canopy is limited to scattered native species such as Archontophoenix cunninghamii (Bangalow Palm) and Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo) and introduced species such as Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) and Scleffera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree). A small number of shrubs are also present including but not limited to the native species Podocarpus elatus (Plum Pine), Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese tree) and Harpullia pedula (Tulipwood) and the non native Plumeria rubra (Frangipani). The ground cover across is predominately a mown lawn of Cynodon dactylon (Common Couch) with other exotic species such as Callisia repens and Eleusine indica present in small numbers. …" (Exhibit O)
The distribution of the Coastal Cypress EEC on the subject site is included in Figure 8 of the BDAR which is extracted below:
The BDAR assesses the vegetation integrity score for the Coastal Cypress EEC as 32.3, composed of a composition score of 15.5, structure score of 34.7 and a function score of 62.6.
Dr McLean notes in his joint report his observation on site of the presence of four vegetation species not nominated in the BDAR, being: oxalis perennans, oplismenus aemulus, microlaena stipoides, and glycine microphylla. (Exhibit 5) Dr McLean argues this omission from the BDAR may underplay the vegetation integrity score determined by it.
Further, in his oral evidence, Dr McLean noted that the vegetation integrity score nominated in the BDAR of 34.7 is significantly above the threshold of 15 from the offsetting requirement applies. His point was that the vegetation on the site is not of poor integrity and may be underestimated in the BDAR.
In the alternative, Dr Robertson's oral evidence was that the quadrant methodology underpinning the BDAR was correctly applied using the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) and in fact the BDAR in these proceedings provided more quadrants than required by the BAM at Table 3. He argues, that in this case the integrity score is predominately reflective of the presence of canopy trees, but that there are very few understorey or ground cover native species present. Further, he argues that the species nominated by Dr McLean at [45] as observed on site are not identified in the Final Determination as being characteristic of the Cypress Pine EEC.
In the joint report Dr Robertson describes the Cypress Pine EEC on site as: "… Within a BDAR, proposed development sites must be assessed using the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM). The BAM requires authors of BDARs to recognise and map traces of the original plant communities on site, no matter how degraded. The occurrences on site are substantially degraded derivatives of the endangered ecological community. Past development and human occupation of the site has removed the majority of the original plant species. The historic development of the site and the context of the site within the suburb of Suffolk Park prevents key natural ecological processes from occurring, including fire, grazing, flooding, nutrient cycling and regeneration of characteristic species of the endangered ecological community." (Exhibit 5)

[18]

The required APZ

In their joint report, the bushfire experts agree that the site is designated as bushfire prone land under s 10.3 of the EPA Act and that the proposal is to be assessed under Chapter 8 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP). Section 4.14 of the EPA Act requires that the consent authority be satisfied that the relevant specifications and requirements of the PBP are complied with for development on land mapped as bushfire prone land.
PBP is structured such that a development is required to meet specified bushfire protection measures. That can be achieved by either applying the acceptable solutions identified within each section of PBP, or by preparing a performance based solution. PBP describes performance based solutions as: "1.4.5 Performance based solutions Performance based solutions allow flexibility and innovation in responding to site‑specific opportunities and constraints while still meeting the identified performance criteria. They also allow the consideration of a broad range of issues and information, including bush fire risk, community expectations, environmental protection and the application of new science, processes and technologies. Performance based solutions must provide substantiated evidence and clearly demonstrate how the specific objectives and performance criteria are to be satisfied. When performance based solutions are proposed, they will be assessed on their merits and individual circumstances. In these circumstances, a Bush Fire Design Brief (BFDB) process can be undertaken which would involve early agreement on the key elements and acceptance criteria from all stakeholders including the NSW RFS. Performance based solutions may be undertaken for any of the BPMs detailed in Chapter 3 and supported in accordance with the submission requirements in Appendix 2."
The bushfire safety requirements in dispute are primarily the requirement for an APZ. PBP describes the purpose of an APZ as a buffer zone between a bush fire hazard and buildings. The APZ is managed to minimise fuel loads and reduce potential radiant heat levels, flame, localised smoke and ember attack. In this case, the requirement for an APZ arises from the presence of vegetation on the Council Reserve which adjoins the site to the north and north west of the subject site. The experts disagree as to the correct approach under PBP for the assessment of fire risk arising from the parcel of vegetation on the Council Reserve. The difference in the experts approach results in differing views on the required width of the APZ on the subject site.
Appendix 1 of PBP sets out the methodology to determine the appropriate APZs and Bushfire Attack Level construction levels. The application of the following section of Appendix 1 was the centre of the difference in opinion of the experts: "A1.11 Assessing remnant bushland and narrow vegetation corridors The size and shape of small areas of vegetation influences the behaviour of bush fires and the associated risk to the built environment. Small or narrow parcels of vegetation have less opportunity to support fully developed bush fires because of their limited size. There are two recognized pathways for assessing remnant bushland or narrow vegetated corridors. An assessment can either follow the simplified approach or the short fire run approach. The two approaches should not normally be used simultaneously to assess a patch of vegetation. A1.11.1 Simplified approach The simplified approach provides an acceptable method for assessing remnant vegetation. Remnant vegetation is a parcel of vegetation with a size of less than 1 Ha or a shape that provides a potential fire run that could threaten buildings not exceeding 50m. These remnants are considered a low hazard and APZ setbacks and building construction standards for these may be the same as for rainforests. The effective slope is to be determined under the remnant that provides the most significant bush fire behavior. …"
The Applicant relies on the simplified approach at A1.11.1 of PBP to argue that the vegetation contained in the Council Reserve is low hazard. Mr Pederson argues the vegetation has an overall size less than 1ha meeting the requirements of the Simplified Approach at A1.11.1. On that basis, applying Table A1.12.3 and the agreed slope of >0-5º, the required APZ in his view is 12m.
In the alternative the Respondent, and their expert Mr Douglas argue that to apply the Simplified Approach at A1.11.1 of PBP the vegetation contained in the Council Reserve needs to meet both criteria, ie. be a size less than 1ha and have a shape that provides a potential fire run that could threaten buildings not exceeding 50m. Mr Douglas argues that this second parameter is not met by the vegetation in the Council Reserve, meaning the Simplified Approach at A1.11.1 is not available to the development application. On that basis, applying Table A1.12.3 and the agreed slope of >0-5º, the required APZ in his view is 25m.

[19]

Findings: APZ

I note that the bushfire experts in the proceedings agree the following facts relevant to the consideration of the application of A1.11 in PBP:

That the bushfire hazard is the parcel of vegetation on the Council Reserve located to the north and north west of the subject site and that the vegetation has an area of less that 1ha in size.
That the potential fire run exceeds 50m, being approximately 82m north west.
That the effective slope under the vegetation is between 0-5º downslope.

When reading the provision in context and giving the plain meaning to the text, in particular the use of 'or' between the two parameters, I accept the submissions of Mr Lazarus that the text of the Simplified Approach at A1.11.1 of PBP requires that only one of the parameters (size or shape) are met. The provision at A1.11.1 sits under an introductory paragraph which provides context to the Simplified Approach. That introductory paragraph also identifies that 'small or narrow parcels have less opportunity to support fully developed bush fires because of their limited size'.
I am not persuaded that there is any basis in the text of A1.11.1 of PBP for the conclusion of Dr Douglas that the requirement for vegetation to have an area of less that 1ha in size and be of a shape that provides a potential fire run not exceeding 50m. (Emphasis added.) In my view, there is no ambiguity in the text of the provision.
On the basis of the preceding, a 12m APZ is required by the application of Table A1.12.3 of PBP and is provided by the proposed development.
The creation of the APZ, and the recommendation of the Applicant's Bushfire Assessment Report for the whole of the site to be managed as an inner protection zone (IPZ), affects existing vegetation on the site and the ability for revegetation.
The Bushfire Assessment Report requires the following to apply to the IPZ:

Tree canopy cover should be less than 15% at maturity;
Trees at maturity should not touch or overhang the building;
Lower limbs should be removed up to a height of 2m above the ground;
Tree canopies should be separated by 2 to 5m;
Preference should be given to smooth bark and evergreen trees;
Large discontinuities or gaps in vegetation should be provided to slow down or break the progress of fire towards buildings;
Shrubs should not be located under trees;
Shrubs should not form more than 10% ground cover;
Clumps of shrubs should be separated from exposed windows and doors by a distance of at least twice the height of the vegetation;
Grass should be kept mown (as a guide grass should be kept to no more than 100mm in height); and
Leaves and vegetation shall be removed. (Exhibit C)

The requirements of the IPZ were incorporated into the development application along with recommendations of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). The proposed tree management is depicted in the following: Source: Extract of Tree Protection Plan (Exhibit 6)
The viability of the canopy trees nominated to be removed was the subject of arboricultural evidence.

[20]

Viability of tree retention proposed

The development application is accompanied by an AIA which summarises the direct impacts of the proposed development generally and on the Coastal Cypress EEC as follows: "… 4.1.1 A total of one hundred and nine (109) trees have been assessed in the context of the revised design. Twenty six (26) trees are proposed to be removed and eighty three (83) are proposed to be retained. An additional ten (10) unnumbered trees, Trees A-J are also to be removed. 4.1.2 Of the eighty three (83) trees to be retained, forty (40) are located on adjoining properties with no TPXs coinciding with the site boundary. These forty (40) trees have been described as Outside Scope in the Tree Schedule (Attachment A) and shaded grey on the Tree Protection Plan. All forty (40) trees are to be retained. 4.1.3 There are forty three (43) trees within the site or with TPZs coinciding with the site to be retained. 4.1.4 There are thirty four (34) Coast Cypress Pines, Callitris columellaris (CCP) within and with TPZs overlapping the site boundary to be retained (including Three K in the south western corner). Additionally, there are twenty six (26) Outside Scope Coast Cypress Pines, Callitris columellaris being retained on adjoining properties with no TPZ encroachments. 4.1.5 Of the twenty six (26) trees to be removed, six (6) are Coast Cypress Pines Callitris columellaris (Trees 9, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 23). …" (Exhibit 6)
The arboricultural evidence centred on the difference of opinion between the two experts as to the viability of the proposed retention of five trees, namely Trees 11, 31, 33, 34, 35. The arboricultural report describes these trees as follows: (Source, extract of AIA in Exhibit 6)
Mr Tesoriero argues that, in addition to the six Coast Cypress Pines identified in the development application for removal, a further four are not able to be retained when the full extent of the impacts of the proposed design are considered. Further, he argues that the development application proposes removal of three mature Broadleaf Paperbark, one mature Red Mahogany and one Cheese Tree which are all species which form part of the Coastal Cypress EEC. He argues conservatively 11 tree species of the Coastal Cypress EEC will be removed, but that the number is more likely to be 15-16 given the incursions proposed into the tree protection zones (TPZ).

[21]

Tree 11

In relation to Tree 11, Mr Tesoriero argues that the full impacts of the development, and the incursion into the TPZ, have not been considered in the AIA. He notes that works within the TPZ of this tree include new concrete hardstand carparking, driveway and building footprints which occupy 46% of the TPZ. Further, he argues that whilst the AIA recommends the driveway being constructed above the existing grade, the required levels for this to occur are not accommodated in architectural plans. In addition, he notes that Tree 11 has a number of aerial roots which would protrude well above the surface area and would be impacted. He assesses the actual impact on the TPZ as approximately 30%. He concludes: "… approximately 30% of the overall TPZ area will require excavation for pavement subgrades resulting in damage and severance of existing visible tree roots. The cumulative impact of works within the TPZ/SRZ including pavement construction, building footprints on grade and canopy pruning is not sustainable and will render this tree unviable to be retained." (Exhibit 6)
In contrast, Mr Castor argues that the retention of Tree 11 is viable on the basis that the car park slab is constructed at the existing grade of Reduced Level (RL) 5.00 and car space 14 is constructed at a higher level given the floor level of the adjacent townhouse is RL 5.250. In his oral evidence, Mr Castor maintained his view that Tree 11 would be viable after the development.
Having reviewed the additional engineering details contained in Exhibit N, Mr Tesoriero's oral evidence on Tree 11 can be summarised as:

Assuming a 150mm slab for car spaces 13 and 14 and an existing ground level of RL 4.95- 5.20, the under slab of the proposed slab would be at RL 5.05. This would impact on surface roots of Tree 11.
On his analysis of the proposed 'Option 1' in Exhibit N, the proposed development will impact 12% of the TPZ of Tree 11 with an overall impact to the TPZ of 34%. Alternatively, if the application was amended to reflect 'Option 2' with an upturn beam the development will impact 7% of the TPZ of Tree 11. Option 2 would reduce the overall impact to the TPZ to 29%
In addition, the proposed development requires 15-20% canopy pruning.

In conclusion, Mr Tesoriero argues the cumulative impacts of the intrusion to the TPZ and the crown pruning means that the retention of Tree 11 is unviable. He notes that the proposed TPZ intrusion exceeds the 10% standard in AS 4970 2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites which in combination with the age and maturity of Tree 11 reduces the tolerance of Tree 11 to development.

[22]

Tree 31, 33, 34, 35.

In addition to the AIA, the Applicant has prepared a Structural Design Statement to support the retention of trees 31, 33, 34 and 35. That design statement, tendered as Exhibit N, details the piered driveways and building elements that allow for elevated construction in proximity to the nominated trees, collectively referred to as 'Option 2'.
In the joint report, Mr Castor argues that the nominated incursions into the TPZs outlined in the AIA are acceptable on the following basis:

The TPZs indicated in the AIA are nominal circles and do not represent the likely actual root spread.
The presence of roots beneath the existing impermeable driveways or existing dwellings is likely to be restricted, limiting the impact arising from new structures in these locations.
The proposed level of the café/retail buildings has been raised to allow for elevated, piered construction to minimise tree impacts.
The stormwater has been rerouted to be beyond the TPZs of all retained trees with the exception of Trees 19 and 21.
That he is of the opinion that Coastal Cypress Pine is of moderate to high tolerance to urban development given the number of remnant specimens observed.

In the joint report, Mr Castor concludes that 'the impacts of new-for-old development within the TPZs of Trees 31, 31a, 33, 34 and 35 will be acceptable and allow for long term tree retention'. (Exhibit 6)
In his oral evidence, Mr Castor agreed in relation to: Tree 31

That the existing structures already encroach in the trees' TPZ and that despite the proposed 30% pruning including the northern secondary leader branch. He maintains that Tree 31 will have reasonable form and that the root system impact is tolerable. Tree 33
That the 60-70% crown pruning impact nominated by Mr Tesoriero is correct and that it would result in a severe impact. He accepts that Tree 33 should be removed. Tree 34
The proposed café/ retail mirrors the existing development and the proposed crown pruning is sustainable. Tree 35
That the car park excavation is likely to be minimal and that visible roots can be retained where they are located beneath existing structures.
That the cafe/ retail structure proposed will have no greater impact than the existing hardstand.
That if the main leader branch is required to be pruned, which he conceded is likely, that would make the retention of the tree unviable.

In contrast, Mr Tesoriero argues that the proposal will result in unacceptable encroachments into the TPZs of trees 11, 31, 33, 34, and 35. He argues the proposed encroachments are defined by the Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites as 'major encroachments' as they are greater than 10% of the area of the TPZ. Further, he argues that the design modification relied on by Mr Castor are not integrated with the architectural plans. Further, he argues that the following matters raise doubt about the conclusion of Mr Castor that the trees will be retained:

Extensive and unsustainable canopy pruning will be required to Trees 31, 33 and 35 to facilitate the construction of the development and to meet compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection. Tree 31 will require removal of approximately 30% of the live crown and 90% of the northern co-dominant stem. Tree 33 will require removal of approximately 60-70% of the live crown including the central leader due to the tree skew to the north east. Tree 35 will require removal of 60-70% of the live crown.
Without further investigations, there is no certainty that the existing structures have restricted root growth to an extent whereby encroachments into the TPZs can be excluded. Root mapping is required to support the conclusions advanced by the Applicant.
The AIA indicates that tree 11, 33, 34 and 35 are on the late mature age class and vigour which will reduce their tolerance to the proposed major encroachments and extensive canopy pruning.
The existing ground levels in proximity to the TPZ of 31, 33, 34 and 35 when compared to the proposed finished floor level of the café/retail indicate that excavation of up to 450mm will be required to implement the design in the Structural Design Statement. This is in conflict with the evidence of Mr Castor.

Having reviewed the additional engineering details in Exhibit N, Mr Tesoriero's oral evidence can be summarised as: Tree 11

Assuming a 150mm concrete slab for car spaces 13 and14 and given an existing ground level of RL 4.95-5.20, the underside of the proposed slab (being RL 5.05) will impact on surface roots.
On his analysis of the proposed 'Option 1' in Exhibit N, 12% of the TPZ of Tree 11 would be encroached by the excavation works with an overall impact of 34% to the TPZ.
If the development was amended to reflect 'Option 2' in Exhibit N, with an upturn beam, 7% of the TPZ would be impacted by excavation works, reducing the overall impact to the TPZ to 29%.
To facilitate the development, 15-20% of the canopy requires pruning.
In conclusion, Mr Tesoriero argues the cumulative impacts of the intrusion to the TPZ and the crown pruning means that the retention of Tree 11 is unviable. He notes that the TPZ exceedance is greater than the 10% standard in AS 4970 2009: Protection of Trees on Development Sites and that the age and maturity of Tree 11 reduces tolerance to impact. Tree 31
Having reviewed 'Option 1' in Exhibit N for the proposed design of excavation/ foundation/ slab of the café/ retail area and its impact to Tree 31, Mr Tesoriero concluded a 25% impact to the TPZ.
Alternatively, applying 'Option 2' the impact of excavation/ foundation/ slab of the café/ retail area would be a 12% impact to the TPZ.
He noted that both of the preceding impacts would be addition to the proposed 30% crown pruning, which includes the removal of the co-dominant leader branch.
In relation to the combined impact to Tree 31 under Option 1, Mr Tesoriero concluded that the cumulative impact would make the retention of Tree 31 unviable.
In relation to Option 2, Mr Tesoriero concluded that whilst the reduced impact to the TPZ may result in a sustainable impact, the development application lacks root mapping information. He concludes that without this information the viability of Tree 31 is uncertain. Tree 33
Mr Tesoriero's oral evidence maintained his conclusion that retention of Tree 33 is unviable.
He argues that both the encroachment to the TPZ and the significant crown pruning of 60-70% (including the leader branch) are a severe impact and the tree would need to be removed as a result of the development. Tree 34
After reviewing the 'Option 2' the schematic of excavation/ foundation/ slab, Mr Tesoriero concludes that the structure of retail/ café space No 1 would require a minimum of 130mm of excavation in the TPZ and a minimum of 100mm in relation to retail/ café space No 2. His assessment is that this would result in a total encroachment to the TPZ is 20%.
In addition, the development requires crown pruning of 15-20%.
He concludes that based on these impacts the retention of Tree 34 is unviable. Tree 35
Whilst Mr Tesoriero disagreed with Mr Castor's assessment of the impacts of the proposed development to the TPZ of Tree 35, he agrees with the conclusion that the trees retention is unviable. That conclusion is based on the TPZ impact (which he estimates at 38%) combined with the proposed crown pruning of between 60-70% and the loss of the tree's central leader branch.

[23]

Impacts of the development on Coastal Cypress Pine Trees

Whilst the development application in its current form does not propose the alternative construction techniques detailed in Exhibit N as 'Option 2', I accept that such requirements could be imposed on a development consent. As such, I have given consideration to the likely impacts that arise under this option.
I accept the criticism of Mr Tesoriero that the lack of root mapping affects the reliability of assertion of Mr Castor that the existing trees would have limited roots under existing pavement or concrete where these areas occur in the TPZ of the relevant trees. This leads to uncertainty as to the impact to the trees and their ongoing viability.
I accept and prefer the evidence of Mr Tesoriero in relation to the likely impacts of the proposed development on the existing Coastal Cypress Pine trees on the subject site. I am satisfied that that the proposed development will make the retention of Tree 11, 31, 33, 34 and 35 unsustainable. In my view, Mr Tesoriero's evidence was persuasive in its analytical, reasoned approach. He firstly quantified the specific impacts to each tree, secondly analysed the cumulative impacts arising from the development and then assessing those impact against the age, maturity and vigour of the specific tree. Further, I note that the Applicant has not undertaken root mapping to support the ongoing viability for Tree 31. In the absence of this data to support the Applicant's assertion of restricted root growth in the impacted areas of Tree 31, I accept that viability is uncertain, and it is appropriate to take a cautionary process and consider the impacts to this tree to be unsustainable.
Having accepted and adopted Mr Tesoriero's evidence and conclusions, the direct impacts arising from the proposed development include the 26 canopy trees nominated in the AIA along with Tree 11, 31, 33, 34 and 35. The impacts of the proposed development include the removal of a total of 31 canopy trees.
By reference to the extract of the Tree Protection Plan at [47] it is plain that the removal of Trees 31, 33, 34, and 35 will add to the existing impact of the removal of the overwhelming majority of canopy trees that add to the existing streetscape of Clifford Street. I have given weight in my consideration of the acceptability of this impact to the submissions from the public that raise concern that the development application has an unacceptable level of tree removal given the character of Suffolk Park and the identification of the Coastal Cypress EEC on the site. I note that Tree 25 and 27, both Cheese Trees that remain in the frontage of the site are not nominated in the Final Determination as part of the Coastal Cypress EEC.

[24]

The Vegetation Management Plan and Landscape Plan: Mitigation of impact

Relevantly, the proposed development includes works that incorporate the replanting and management of the site post development. These works are described in the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and the Landscape Plans. (Exhibit W) These works are constrained by the requirements of the site to be managed as an IPZ as detailed at [64]. Notwithstanding the bushfire limitations, those works represent a part mitigation of the impacts of the development.
The VMP will apply to the portion of the site identified in yellow and nominated as managed land in the following extract from Exhibit W. Extract of Exhibit W, yellow shade indicates are of the site encompassed by the VMP
Within this area the following principal management actions are proposed:

Removal of introduced shrub and ground cover species present on the site.
Reduction of canopy cover to 15% to meet the requirements for an IPZ.
Infill planting in accordance with the proposed landscape plan
Replacement of any Coastal Cypress Pine removed due to safety or lost due to poor health. The replacement is required to be a species typical of the community with a mature height of 6m whilst still meeting bushfire requirements.
Removal and control of weed species
Monitoring and reporting of success of weed management, vegetation growth and native recruitment.

Further the VMP notes that prior to the commencement of construction, tree protection fencing of retained trees and installation of erosion and sediment controls will be required.
The VMP was the subject of evidence from the ecology experts. Dr McLean's criticisms of the VMP centred on its lack of enforceability, lack of performance indicators against which outcomes could be measured and finally the focus of the VMP on canopy trees, rather than the Coastal Cypress EEC as a community. In relation to the last matter, Dr McLean emphasised that the Coastal Cypress EEC is an assemblage of species, including grassy understorey and not solely the Coastal Cypress Pine species itself. In cross examination, Dr McLean accepted that his criticism in relation to the enforceability of the VMP is addressed by the proposed conditions of consent. He maintained the remaining concerns.
In response to Dr McLean's criticisms, Dr Robertson in effect argues that the subject site doesn't warrant a VMP of the complexity asserted. His reasoning can be summarised as:

The site is limited in what can be conserved and what can be replanted given the bushfire constraints.
The site has very little existing native ground stratum and there is limited scope to replant this stratum.
The scope of the VMP is drafted to match the limited scope of actions that are possible. The focus on tree species is a result.
That improvements to the VMP, such as the insertion of performance targets or more detail on monitoring, could be given effect by conditions of consent.

The development application is also supported by Landscape Plans prepared by Ennismore Field Pty Ltd. The landscape design is characterised by sparsely planted large leaf plants in an inorganic pebble style mulch. As stated by Mr Perkins the design has the intent to minimise potential fuel loads for bushfire across the site. By reference to the planting schedule, the species proposed to be planted in the front setback to Clifford Street include:

Carpobrutus glaucescens (Pig face)
Doryanthes palmeri (Giant Spear Lily)
Themeda australis mingo (Kangaroo grass mingo)
Viola hederacea (native violet)
Xanthorrhoea (Grass tree)
Banksia oblongifloria (Fern leaf banksia)

None of the preceding species appear on the list of species characterising the Coastal Cypress EEC in the Final Determination.
The Landscape Plans were the subject of joint conferencing in the context of the Respondent's contentions that broadly argue that:

The landscape design proposed was not in keeping with the local character and fails to positively contribute to the streetscape.
The proposed landscape design and VMP lack compensatory planting.
There is a lack of vegetative buffers proposed to adjoining properties.

Notwithstanding these broader contentions, in the context of considering any offsetting of the detrimental impacts of the proposed development, it is relevant to note that the experts in effect agree that:

The desire for compensatory or screen planting is effectively constrained by the bushfire management requirements of the site.
That the choice of landscape design approach (or style) is either a positive design choice responsive to those constraints or an incompatible landscape character dependant on the viewpoint of the observer.

In my assessment, the VMP and the proposed landscape plan provide at best a minor offset to the impact of the loss of vegetation and canopy trees on the site that will result from the proposed development. Further, I accept the evidence of Dr McLean that the proposed works in the VMP are not seeking to restore the biodiversity or vegetation values of the Coastal Cypress EEC. I accept the criticism of Dr McLean that the VMP places overriding emphasis on canopy trees and little emphasis on potential rehabilitation of the Coastal Cypress EEC post development as a community comprising an assemblage of species. The same can be said for the proposed landscape treatment of the site post development. In my view, irrespective of whether the stylistic choices made are appropriate to the locality, the potential to substitute the proposed species with those in the Final Determination appears to not have been considered by the Applicant. Whilst the potential for rehabilitation and revegetation may be constrained, I am not persuaded that the proposed understorey planting detailed in the Landscape Plans could not be substituted for species identified as forming part of the assemblage of species in the Coastal Cypress EEC.
Further, the scope of the VMP is highly constrained, in effect addressing the disconnected remnant portions of the site post development. So much is clear from the plan extracted at [86]. In my view, this limits its ability to mitigate or offset the direct impacts of the proposed development.
In contrast to Blake v Ku ring gai Council [2021] NSWLEC 1461 at [66] (Gray C), I note that the VMP and Landscape Plan in these proceedings do not have the objective or effect of rehabilitating and revegetating the Coastal Cypress EEC.

[25]

Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) of Coastal Cypress EEC

The preceding section determined the direct impacts on the Coastal Cypress EEC, and other vegetation, arising from the proposed development. Quantification of the direct impacts is relevant as the Respondent contends that the proposed development will likely result in a SAII on Coastal Cypress EEC pursuant to s 7.16(2) of the BC Act.
Section 7.16(2) of the BC Act precludes the grant of consent in the event that there is a SAII on biodiversity values. It provides: 7.16 Proposed development or activity that has serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values (1) In this section, serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values of proposed development or activity means serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values as determined under section 6.5 that would remain after the measures proposed to be taken to avoid or minimise the impact on biodiversity values of the proposed development or activity. (2) The consent authority must refuse to grant consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the case of an application for development consent to which this Division applies (other than for State significant development), if it is of the opinion that the proposed development is likely to have serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values. (3) If the Minister for Planning is of the opinion that proposed State significant development or State significant infrastructure that is the subject of an application to which this Division applies is likely to have serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values, the Minister - (a) is required to take those impacts into consideration, and (b) is required to determine whether there are any additional and appropriate measures that will minimise those impacts if consent or approval is to be granted. (4) If the determining authority is of the opinion that the proposed activity to which this Division applies is likely to have serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values, the determining authority - (a) is required to take those impacts into consideration, and (b) is required to determine whether there are any additional and appropriate measures that will minimise those impacts if the activity is to be carried out or approved.

[26]

How is SAII assessed?

Section 7.16(1) refers to s 6.5 of the BC Act, which explains how serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values are to be determined: 6.5 Serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values (1) The determination of serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values for the purposes of the biodiversity offsets scheme is to be made in accordance with principles prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Environment Agency Head may provide guidance on the determination of any such serious and irreversible impacts, and for that purpose may publish, from time to time, criteria to assist in the application of those principles and lists of potential serious and irreversible impacts.
Under the BC Act, a determination of whether an impact is serious and irreversible must be made in accordance with the principles prescribed in cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation as follows: 6.7 Principles applicable to determination of "serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values" (section 6.5(1)) (1) This clause applies for the purposes of determining whether an impact on diversity values is a serious and irreversible impact for the purposes of the biodiversity offsets scheme. (2) An impact is to be regarded as serious and irreversible if it is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of a threatened species or ecological community becoming extinct because - (a) it will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or (b) it will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or (c) it is an impact on the habitat of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very limited geographic distribution, or (d) the impacted species or ecological community is unlikely to respond to measures to improve its habitat and vegetation integrity and therefore its members are not replaceable. (3) For the purpose of this clause, a decline of a species or ecological community is a continuing or projected decline in - (a) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon, or (b) the geographic distribution and habitat quality of the species or ecological community. (4) If the guidance published by the Environment Agency Head under section 6.5(2) of the Act is changed, a biodiversity assessment report may, during the period of 90 days after the guidance was changed, be prepared on the basis of the guidance in force before the change, but only if the report states that it has been prepared on that basis.
As detailed in the decision of Preston CJ in Planners North at [90], pursuant to s 6.5(2) of the BC Act, guidelines have been produced by the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Environment. The document "Guidance to assist a decision-maker to determine a serious and irreversible impact" (SAII Guidance Document) has been published to assist decision-makers in the application of the principles in cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation.
As detailed in Planners North at [90], the format of the SAII Guidance Document is as follows: "…The criteria to interpret the principles in cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation are set out in Appendix A. The Department applied the criteria in Appendix A to all threatened species and threatened ecological communities listed under the BC Act. Entities that meet the criteria under one or more of the principles in cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation are identified as entities at risk of a serious and irreversible impact (SAII) in the Threatened Biodiversity Data Collection housed in BioNet and displayed on the Department website. This list includes a number of species that occur in and around the site on which the development is proposed to be carried out. In section 3, the Guidance document provides a framework for decision-makers to take into account the scale of an impact and the potential for avoidance and mitigation within the context of the principles in cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation and the supporting criteria in Appendix A. The framework involves five steps: · Step 1: Identify relevant entities at risk of a SAII · Step 2: Evaluate the extinction risk of the entity to be impacted · Step 3: Detail measures taken to avoid, minimise and mitigate impacts on the entity · Step 4: Evaluate a serious and irreversible impact · Step 5: Decision-making"
The SAII Guidelines note that the concept of SAII is a central component of the biodiversity offset scheme. The SAII Guidelines state that, at a fundamental level, the concept is about protecting threatened species and threatened ecological communities that are most at risk from extinction from potential development impacts. The SAII Guidelines clarify that the role of the decision-maker is "to determine whether or not any of the residual impacts of a proposed development, activity, biodiversity certification or vegetation clearing on biodiversity values (that is, the impacts that would remain after any proposed avoid or mitigate measures have been taken) are serious and irreversible". (Emphasis added.)
I have adopted the preceding decision-making framework in this judgment.

[28]

Evaluate extinction risk of entity to be impacted.

Clause 6.7(2) of the BC Regulation states that an impact is to be regarded as serious and irreversible if it is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of a threatened species or ecological community becoming extinct because of: (a) it will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or (b) it will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or (c) it is an impact on the habitat of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very limited geographic distribution, or (d) the impacted species or ecological community is unlikely to respond to measures to improve its habitat and vegetation integrity and therefore its members are not replaceable.
The ecology experts agree that the Coastal Cypress EEC is a candidate for SAII based on its narrow geographic distribution, meeting cl 6.7(2)(b) of the BC Regulation.
The Applicant argues the extent of the Coastal Cypress EEC is underrepresented in the Final Determination. Dr Robertson argues that the Final Determination was based on out-of-date vegetation mapping and that the extent of the Coastal Cypress EEC is substantially larger than indicated in those maps. Dr Robertson asserts that based on the NSW State Vegetation Type Map (Statewide Map) the likely distribution is at least 500ha (as opposed to the 150 -200ha noted in the Final Determination).
In response to the concerns of Dr McLean about the accuracy of the Statewide Map and the lack of ground truthing, Dr Robertson agrees that the map is not always accurate. However, he makes reference to his work in the site of the Brunswick Heads Caravan Park where the Coastal Cypress EEC was identified yet is not nominated on the Statewide Map. In the joint report he argues that: "I am aware of a suite of areas at Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay and Ballina where extensive, unmapped areas of this community occur. The point that I make about the mapping and about what I know to be unmapped areas of the community is that the remnant areas of the community are substantially larger than is stated in the Final Determination for the EEC." (Exhibit 5)
Prior to the joint conference, Dr Robertson prepared what he described as a map of indicative counts of Coastal Cypress Pine trees within the Suffolk Park area where the trees were visible from the street. That count identified some 2625 Coastal Cypress trees. He notes that the areas identified in this map are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and concludes that as they are not zoned to permit more dense development, a high proportion of these trees will remain. The map of this indicative count is extracted below:
In his oral evidence, Dr Robertson accepted that no assessment has been made of the identified areas to determine whether they contain other species which form the Coastal Cypress EEC.
Further, Dr Robertson correlated the BioNet records for the Coastal Cypress Pine trees with the mapped records of the communities dominated by this species. He argues that the presence of the BioNet records for the tree species outside the areas mapped for the communities indicates that the Statewide Map is an underestimate of the distribution of Coastal Cypress EEC.
In making the determination of SAII, Dr Robertson argues the Court should give weight to the current form of the community on site, its questionable long-term viability and the likely greater distribution of the Coastal Cypress EEC than that asserted in the Final Determination. Dr Robertson concludes that the loss of a small number of trees as a result of the proposed development where they occur as part of a highly modified form of Coastal Cypress EEC is unlikely to constitute a SAII as it is unlikely to threaten the existence of the Coastal Cypress EEC in the suburb of Suffolk Park or across the entirety of its distribution.
In his evidence, Dr McLean assess the impacts of the proposed development against the extent of the community detailed in the Final Determination concluding that the removal of 0.19ha of Coastal Cypress EEC will account for a reduction of 0.12-0.095% of the global extent of the Coastal Cypress EEC. Dr McLean argues that:

Firstly, the loss of 0.19ha of vegetation mapped in the BDAR as moderate condition Coastal Cypress EEC will further reduce the population size of the ecological community.
Secondly, that in the absence of field validated data around the local occurrence of the Coast Cypress EEC and the importance of the stand on the subject site in the Suffolk Park area, a decision cannot be made as to if the impact contributes significantly to Coastal Cypress EEC becoming extinct.
Thirdly, the consideration at cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation does not specify the geographical location in which the extinction is to occur.
Finally, that the Coastal Cypress EEC on the subject site is of greater importance than isolated trees that occur in front yards and similar situations throughout Suffolk Park relied on by Dr Robertson. Dr McLean advances two reasons for this conclusion. Firstly, that where Coastal Cypress EEC are the single element remaining, their viability is far less than where other native elements also occur. Secondly, that the Coastal Cypress EEC on the subject site has the benefit of connectivity to a stand managed for conservation, allowing for seeds to flow 'over the fence' increasing the biodiversity value of the site compared to if it was isolated away from natural stands of Coastal Cypress Pine.

Further, Dr McLean argues that the Court should give little weight to the mapping of Coastal Cypress Pine species in Suffolk Park advanced by Dr Robertson. He explains his reasoning in the following extract from the joint report, noting that the reference to figure 3 is the map extracted at [114]: "Figure 3 shows some vegetation mapping completed by Cumberland Ecology in April 2023 to identify where Coastal Cypress Pine were occurring in the Suffolk Park area. The figure does not include a technical report or any supporting data outlining the field method used, including what was the minimum size of trees captured. The figure is used by DR to dismiss the importance of the stand of Cypress on the subject site by saying there are lots of Cypress in the local area, so the removal of another 1900m2 is acceptable. This figure and accompanying argument doesn't provide a consideration of the understorey condition, the proximity to larger patches which should be of higher conservation value than isolated trees and the presence of mature trees (i.e. with a diameter of 300mm or greater) as these likely offer greater ecosystem value than smaller trees. In my opinion this information should be used in the BDAR to justify why the action is not a SAII, including information about the condition of other patches and the importance of this patch compared to others in the Suffolk Park area. Figure 3 does not do this." (Exhibit 5)
In his oral evidence, Dr McLean emphasised that the identification by Dr Robertson of the presence of Coastal Cypress Pine trees in a specific location is not equivalent to concluding that the Coastal Cypress EEC is present.
In his oral evidence, Dr McLean was questioned about his view of the more recent regional vegetation mapping as part of the Statewide Map which indicates surviving areas of the Cypress Pine EEC exceed 500ha. He conceded that this Statewide Map makes it possible that the distribution of the Cypress Pine EEC is underestimated in the Final Determination. However, he raised concerns that:

The Statewide Map is generated by computer model by the computer where the computer is trained to identify patches of vegetation that have similar characteristics to the relevant plant community through a machine learning exercise. He emphasises that the computer identifications are rarely 'ground truthed'.
In his experience, ground truthing the designations on the Statewide Map on the Central Coast of NSW, they are about 50% accurate.

Dr McLean concludes that without the process of ground truthing, there is uncertainty as to whether the distribution of Coastal Cypress EEC is more extensive than nominated in the Final Determination.
In cross examination of the ecology experts, they acknowledged that there is a lack of clarity as to which specific locations were incorporated in the mapping that supports the 150-200ha of distribution of the Coastal Cypress EEC in the Final Determination. As such it is unclear, for example, whether the site discussed by Dr Robertson at Brunswick Heads Caravan Park was included in the nominated distribution in the Final Determination, or is an area of additional EEC.

[29]

Detail measures taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate harm

The Respondent argues that the development application fails to take appropriate and sufficient steps to avoid or minimise impacts to the biodiversity values of the land.
The BAM referred to in s 6.12(a) of the BC Act is that established by order of the Minister under s 6.7(1) of the BC Act. The current BAM is that published in October 2020.
At Section 7.1.1, which addresses project location, the BAM notes that: "… 4. When selecting a proposal's location, all of the following should be analysed. Justification for the decisions in determining the final location must be based on consideration of: a. alternative modes or technologies that would avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values b. alternative routes that would avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values c. alternative locations that would avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values d. alternative sites within a property on which the proposal is located that would avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values. 5. The proposal may also list and map site constraints, such as: a. bushfire protection requirements, including clearing for asset protection zones b. flood planning levels c. servicing constraints. 6. In the BDAR or BCAR, the assessor must document and justify any actions taken to avoid or minimise impacts through careful location of the proposal."
At Section 7.1.2, which addresses project design, the BAM notes that: "… 1. The BDAR or BCAR must document the reasonable measures taken by the proponent to avoid or minimise clearing of native vegetation and threatened species habitat during proposal design, including placement of temporary and permanent ancillary construction and maintenance facilities. The types of measures that can be used to demonstrate this include: a. reducing the proposal's clearing footprint by minimising the number and type of facilities b. locating ancillary facilities in areas that have no biodiversity values c. locating ancillary facilities in areas where the native vegetation or threatened species habitat is in the poorest condition (i.e. areas with the lowest vegetation integrity scores) d. locating ancillary facilities in areas that avoid habitat for species and vegetation that has a high threat status (e.g. an endangered ecological community (EEC) or critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) or is an entity at risk of a serious and irreversible impact (SAII) e. actions and activities that provide for rehabilitation, ecological restoration and/or ongoing maintenance of retained areas of native vegetation, threatened species, threatened ecological communities and their habitat on the subject land. 2. The BDAR or BCAR must document and justify efforts to avoid or minimise impacts through design."
Following the BAM approach, the BDAR divides the efforts of the project to the avoidance and minimisation of impacts into two broad categories, the project location and the project design. The measures under those two categories can be summarised as: "Project location: The location of the development footprint has been established to allow for the construction and operational requirements of the project whilst minimising impacts to biodiversity values. In determining the location of the development footprint, the project has sought to avoid and minimise direct and indirect impacts on native vegetation and habitat by: - Locating the project predominately within areas that have previously cleared and are currently occupied by existing dwellings and associated infrastructure. - Locating the project so as to modify only a small area (0.19ha) of native woody vegetation; and - Locating the project to manage approximately a third of the TEC [threatened ecological community] occurring within the subject land and in such a way as to retain existing habitat connectivity values with surrounding vegetation of adjacent sites. Project Design: In determining the design of the development footprint, the project has sought to avoid and minimise direct impacts on native vegetation and habitat by: - redesigning the project layout to reduce the number of Coastal Cypress Pine trees to be removed, which has minimised the impact to the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest EEC. - limiting the construction footprint of earthworks to comprise only the operational footprint area surrounding the project to reduce removal of native vegetation; and - minimise impacts to biodiversity through the implementation of a suite of mitigation measures, including weed management, tree protection measures and clearing protocols." (Exhibit O)
These measures are further detailed in the BDAR at Table 11 which also includes an examination of a 'Do Nothing approach' and the consideration of 'Alternative sites and layouts within the subject site'. These two actions are extracted below: Action Adopted (Yes/No/In part) Justification Timing Responsibility (if adopted) Outcome (if adopted) (if adopted) 'Do-nothing' option to avoid all impacts to biodiversity No The do-nothing option for the project would maintain current vegetation cover but would not enable redevelopment. Under a no-go option, trees would remain. However, the subject land occurs in a residential area surrounded by current construction projects, which would result in the ongoing degradation of the vegetation on site. - - - Consideration of alternative sites and layouts within the subject land Yes Preliminary options were considered and investigated for the project. The final option selected has consideration to both biodiversity values and the development During design and approval Proponent and consultant team Retention of approximately 0.06ha of native vegetation within the subject land, including the TEC Coastal Cypress Pine Forest.

[30]

(Exhibit O)

Table 11 in the BDAR contains a description of the following measures taken to avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity: Action Adopted (Yes/No/In part) Justification Timing Responsibility (if adopted) Outcome (if adopted) (if adopted) Incorporation of suitable technologies and design configurations to minimise overall development site footprint Yes As part of the design process of the project, careful consideration has been given to reducing the footprint to retain the ecological zone that includes most of the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest TEC in the subject land. During design and approval Proponent and consultant team Retention of approximately 0.06 ha of native vegetation within the subject land, comprising the TEC Coastal Pine Forest. Implementation of a suite of mitigation measures yes To minimise the impacts on biodiversity a suite of mitigation measures will be implemented such as weed management, and tree protection measures. Pre and post construction and during operation phase Proponent and consultant team Minimise impacts on biodiversity. Design amendments to various elements of the project design yes Redesign of the project was undertaken following identification of significance of TEC Coastal Cypress Pine Forest. During design and approval Proponent and consultant team Avoid and minimise impacts on native vegetation and TECs, retain habitat connectivity. Partial development of the subject land to avoid/minimise impacts on biodiversity and achieve greater tree retention yes Partial development has been incorporated in the retention of the 0.06 ha of the TEC Coastal Cypress Pine Forest to be retained and managed under a VMP. During design and approval Proponent and consultant team Avoid and minimise impacts on native vegetation, retain habitat connectivity and avoid most impacts on a TEC.

[32]

Evidence on the proposed avoidance, minimisation and mitigation

The Respondent's contention that the development fails to incorporate sufficient measures to avoid or minimise impacts to biodiversity values was the subject of expert evidence.
In the joint report of the ecology experts, they note their agreement as follows: "… 34. The experts agree that ideally the proposed redevelopment of the site should be designed to avoid impacts to the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest, as consideration of avoidance as a first step is integral to both the BAM and the DCP. However, the experts also acknowledge that the potential for avoidance is largely prevented by the requirements for the creation and modification of an asset protection zone across the site as stipulated by the bushfire experts. For this reason, although the potential for avoidance has been considered during the preparation of the BDAR, only limited retention of the EEC is possible based on the current proposed development scheme for the site. …" (Exhibit 5)
Dr McLean notes, however, that the amended development application results in greater impact to the Coastal Cypress EEC than the development application as originally lodged. He recalls that the previous scheme provided for a central large, landscaped area that acted to differentiate the commercial and residential development, which was proposed to be restored under the VMP. He argues this approach to the site facilitated improved outcomes for Coastal Cypress EEC than will be realised under the amended development application now before the Court.
Dr McLean also identifies two further impacts that, in his view, should be considered in the avoid, minimise and mitigate hierarchy detailed in the BAM and included in the BDAR. Those are: "… 42. The BDAR does not assess indirect (prescribed) impacts on the adjacent Coastal Cypress Pine EEC or Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC that occur in the adjacent Council Reserve. The assessment should consider steps taken to avoid and minimise impacts on adjacent areas that contain biodiversity values as outlined in Chapter 7 of the BAM 2020 manual. 43. During the site view held as part of the s34 process the community raised that the adjacent Council reserve was used by Koalas. In my opinion the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is potential Koala habitat, with Swamp Mahogany and Broad- leaf Paperbark, both favoured Koala feed trees occurring there. There has not been any assessment on the indirect impacts on any resident Koala population in thus area including how a departure from the required DCP setback will have an effect on this species. …" (Exhibit 5)
The first impact, the potential impact on the EEC in the adjoining Council Reserve, identified by Dr McLean was not directly responded to by Dr Robertson in the joint report or in his oral evidence.
In relation to the second impact identified by Dr McLean, I note the submissions he refers to are contained in the Respondent's bundle, Exhibit 3. No Koala's were sighted by the Applicant's ecologists during site survey. The Applicant utilised the BAM-C to generate the list of threatened species requiring further assessment in the BDAR, this process did not identify the Koala (phascolarctos cinereus).
In the joint report, Dr Robertson notes that he has had involvement with the project team during the evolution of the design of the proposed development. He accepts that an earlier version of the development application would have resulted in greater retention and replanting of the Coastal Cypress EEC on the site. However, he argues that the current site design has been adopted to reflect the bushfire constraints of the site and the interpretation of the requirements for an APZ. It is in effect this constraint, argues Dr Robertson, that has driven the proposed tree removal, the limited scope of the VMP works and the scope of additional planting proposed in the VMP and the landscape design. I note that the VMP and the landscape plan are in effect mitigation measures which I have addressed earlier in the judgment at [96] to [97].
The evidence of both experts in relation to the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation of impacts was subject to cross examination. Part of that cross examination was in relation to Exhibit J in which the Applicant sought to quantify the impacts of an alternative design. This content and intent of this exhibit is further discussed at [153]. In relation to this exhibit, Dr McLean's evidence was in essence that the mapping and comparison of canopy removal in the plan montage was taken to general a level to be of value. He argued that comparing the quantum of vegetation removal across the site does not consider: whether that vegetation is native or non-native; whether it forms part of the Coastal Cypress EEC, and what the relevant retention value of the specific canopy trees are. He argues: "So if you had to triage your conservation on the site, you'd then be retaining Coastal Cypress Pine in order of first [priority], then other native trees like Swamp mahogany and broad leaf paperbark as number two, then exotics that occur on site as number three." (Tcpt, 7 June 2023, p 8)
Dr McLean argues that the sort of analysis outlined in the preceding has not been undertaken.
Dr McLean's oral evidence on the question of whether the proposed development had reasonably avoided impacts to biodiversity values can be summarised as follows:

That the bushfire constraints are one of the considerations in determining the viability of a certain development on a particular site and that in some cases those constraints may be so high that development is constrained on a particular site.
The effect of those constraints may be ameliorated, for example in the case of bushfire by adopting higher construction standards (eg flame zone)
That an approach to the site of seeking to place new development on cleared or built upon areas would avoid or minimise impacts, but that has not occurred.
That, noting his evidence on the effectives of the proposed VMP (summarised at [90]), it is a form of mitigation.

In the joint report, Dr McLean concludes: "… 13 The main ecological issue is around impacts to the Coastal Cypress Pine forest (an EEC under the BC Act) on the subject site and if these impacts are acceptable (ie. do they trigger a Serious and Irreversible Impact) or conversely if adequate avoidance or minimisation of this EEC has been contemplated by the applicant or their Ecologists. While the current development scheme does not allow for a maintained or improved outcome for the EEC on the subject site, alternate development schemes may do so, although they have not been presented. Due to bushfire constraints, the current scheme does almost no minimisation of impacts to the EEC and no offset mitigation of the EEC is proposed, such as through restoring offsite patches of the EEC or replating areas that formerly contained EEC. This results in a worse outcome to the EEC than would occur if properly thought out. …" (Exhibit O)
In cross examination, Dr Robertson was firstly taken to the VMP and its role in mitigating impacts. I have summarised that evidence earlier in the judgment, noting that ultimately in cross examination Dr Robertson accepted that the VMP should be revised to address the residual concerns of Dr McLean. (Tcpt, 7 June 2023, p 19).
Secondly, Dr Robertson was questioned in relation to the actions taken to avoid or minimise documented in the BDAR. The questioning focussed on the content of Table 11, extracted at [129] and [130]. Dr Robertson accepted that the fourth action nominated, titled 'Partial development of the subject land to avoid/ minimise impacts on biodiversity and achieve greater tree retention' was not factual correct. He accepted that in fact the proposed development removes 1,300m² of a total of 1,900m² of Coastal Cypress EEC. Dr Robertson reiterated his evidence of the previous site design (to which the action nominated was directed) need to be 're-worked' to accommodate the bushfire constraints, leading to the reduction of retained Coastal Cypress EEC to 0.06ha.
Finally, Dr Robertson accepted that the reference to 'alternative sites and layouts' in Table 11 of the BDAR could have been supplemented by the inclusion of these preliminary design options within the BDAR.
I note that the following the outline of the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation of impacts undertaken by the Applicant in the BDAR, the development application proposes to offset the residual impacts with the retirement of three times the required biodiversity credits. (Exhibit O) This is explained by Dr Robertson in the joint report as follows: "… Although there will be a net loss of trees from the EEC from the subject site if the development is approved the loss is unavoidable if the site is developed due to the bushfire requirements. For this reason, the predicted residual ecological values are proposed to be offset by the purchase and retirement of treble the calculated number of ecosystem credits, which I believe is appropriate. …" (Exhibit 5)

[34]

The likely impacts of the development are unacceptable on merit

In undertaking the assessment of impacts of the proposed development pursuant to s 7.13(2) of the BC Act and s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act, the BDAR describes the direct impacts as:

The BDAR notes at Part 4.1.1 that native vegetation currently occupies some 0.19ha or 55.9% of the subject site.
the development proposes to clear 0.13ha, or 68% of that native vegetation.
Further, as extracted at [43], the BDAR notes the presence of 25 mature Coastal Cypress Trees on the subject site. The development will require, or result in, the removal of 11 of these trees, some 44%. Those being Tree 9, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 23 as noted in the AIA and 11, 31, 33, 34 and 35 as addressed in the preceding.

The presence of existing canopy trees, which are a key amenity and character attribute of the subject site, are the most notable existing elements of it. Further, those canopy trees form the dominant part of the Coastal Cypress EEC adding importance their presence. I note that the Final Determination of the scientific committee in relation to the endangered ecological community emphasised its limited geographic distribution. The Coastal Cypress EEC is only noted as only occurring in the NSW North Coast Bioregion with an estimated geographic extent of occurrence of some 2500 - 3000 km². Further, the Final Determination notes that field inspections identify that the total distribution of the EEC as between 150-200ha.
My view is that it is relevant to give weight to these attributes in considering the acceptability of the likely impacts on the existing Coastal Cypress Pine trees arising from the proposed development given they form part of the assemblage of species that are the Coastal Cypress EEC.
The Applicant, as part of their submissions, gave emphasis to the challenge the site represents in terms of bushfire compliance and the management of existing vegetation on the site. They note those challenges include the requirement for a 12m APZ and the maintenance of the remainder of the site as an IPZ with a maximum of 15% canopy cover. Mr Lazarus submitted that the requirement for tree removal arises from the bushfire constraints of the site, not from the proposed development. In support of this submission, the Applicant produced Exhibit J which seeks to quantify the impact to tree cover on the subject site under an alternative design for the site. That alternative design in Exhibit J replicated the proposed development in the portion of the site zoned B1: Local Centre, however proposed only a single dwelling on the remainder of the site. On this alternative design, the percentage tree cover remaining on the subject site was 14.8%, in contrast to the proposed development which retains a maximum 15% canopy cover. On this basis, the Applicant asserts that any redevelopment of the site will have comparable impacts and the Court should give this comparison weight in considering the acceptability of the impacts arising from the development. (Emphasis added.)
The subject site is constrained by bushfire requirements arising from its location and the fact it adjoins the Council Reserve. Those constraints include the extent of the APZ and the requirement to manage the remainder of the site as an IPZ. Further, the site contains Coastal Cypress EEC which whilst an assemblage of species is, on the subject site, predominately Coastal Cypress Pine trees. In my view, the proposed development does not adequately respond to these key constraints in ensuring that the likely impacts arising from the development are acceptable. Whilst the planning controls make certain uses and development types permissible through the use of zoning and development standards, the capacity of certain sites to accommodate those uses is informed by, among other things, its location, ecological sensitivity, physical attributes, outlook and the characteristics of the site itself. In my view, the Applicant has paid insufficient regard to the extent of Coastal Cypress EEC directly impacted by the development.
In his evidence in the joint report, Dr McLean notes the absence of an assessment of any likely impact arising from the development on koala habitat or the indirect impacts on the Coastal Cypress EEC within the adjoining to Council Reserve. I accept that the lack of assessment of the impacts of the proposed development, in particular the creation of the APZ at the northern boundary of the site, on the vegetation integrity score of the Coastal Cypress EEC adjacent the Council Reserve raised by Dr McLean has not been addressed by the Applicant, beyond the tabulation of the general impacts arising from the development in the BDAR. In relation to indirect impacts, the BDAR directs itself to habitat loss and invasion as the likely impacts to the adjoining Council Reserve. The BDAR does not assess or document the steps taken to avoid or minimise the broader impacts raised by Dr McLean and leaves uncertainty as the impacts to this patch of Coastal Cypress EEC arising from the proposed development.
In my view, it is arguable that the extent of Coastal Cypress EEC retained by the development is in effect that which is 'left over' after the development footprint is determined. My reasoning for drawing this inference is as follows:

The site analysis plan within the architectural drawings commences from an assumption of an extent of tree removal that is equivalent to that for which consent is sought in the development application. The site analysis plan examines the approach to development of the site predicated on the removal of 26 nominated trees.
Whilst often a site analysis might be informed by an AIA which indicates some existing trees are in poor condition and recommended for removal, which trees are significant, or important in the streetscape etc. That is not the case in this matter. The trees nominated for removal in this site analysis are treated in effect as a given. In analysing the site and as the basis of determining the approach to its redevelopment, they are assumed to be removed.
Despite the constraints of the nomination of the site as bushfire prone land and the presence of Coastal Cypress EEC on the site, the proposed development approaches the near achievement of the maximum FSR applicable on the site. I note the architectural plans nominate the applicable FSR controls and the FSR proposed by the development as follows: B1 zoned portion of the site: Control 0.5:1 Proposed 0.49:1 R2 zoned portion of the site: Control 0.5:1 Proposed 0.44:1 (Exhibit A)
Whilst this is not conclusive, it is a relevant indicia of how the site specific constraints have tempered or constrained development of the site.
A plain reading of the plan for the development (for example, refer to [86]) supports a conclusion that the areas of vegetation retained, or proposed to be managed by the VMP, are adjacent the property boundaries, or are contained within the setback or APZ areas. Areas nominated by the relevant planning controls as setbacks or APZ's are by their nature generally excluded from development.
Despite the location of nominated TPZ's of trees sought to be retained, the architectural plans maintain a linearity and regularity of development footprint that does not "adjust" to accommodate these TPZ areas. The buildings are not sited to avoid the TPZ's. Further, as identified earlier in the judgment the nominated levels of the proposed works and excavation do not minimise impacts to these trees resulting in additional likely tree loss.

As noted at [84] the removal of Trees 31, 33, 34 and 35 will add to the nominated trees for removal in the frontage of the site to Clifford Street. It was observable on the site view that these trees add to the character of the locality and the contribution of the site to the streetscape of Clifford Street. The development application seeks to offset this impact by the design and architectural treatment of the development and the proposed landscaping. I accept that the redevelopment of the site and the inclusion of retail will positively activate the street. However, as I found at [95] the landscape plan and the works proposed provide a minor offset to the loss of canopy trees that currently address Clifford Street. On balance, I find that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape of Clifford Street.
The detrimental impacts arising from the development are unacceptable. Firstly, due to their quantum, in particular the number of Coastal Cypress Pine removed and the overall lack of responsiveness of the design to existing site attributes. Secondly, the significance of the detrimental impacts both ecologically and visually, and finally due to the limited mitigation that the VMP and the landscape plans provide.
I am satisfied that pursuant to s 4.15(1)(b) of the EPA Act the detrimental impact of the tree and vegetation removal on the subject site arising from the development, when balanced against the benefits arising from the proposed VMP and landscape plan remain substantial. These impacts support a conclusion that the refusal of the development application is warranted.

[35]

Evaluation and finding on SAII

In these proceedings, the Respondent contends that the proposed development is likely to have a SAII on biodiversity values. As detailed at [26] the relevant biodiversity values are the Coastal Cypress EEC which occurs on the site. That is the relevant community at Step 1 detailed in Planners North.
I note that communities are defined under s 1.6 of the BC Act as follows: ecological community means an assemblage of species occupying a particular area.
As such an EEC, in this case the Coastal Cypress EEC, is an assemblage of species.
It is appropriate at this point in the judgment to address the additional mapping undertaken by Dr Robertson described at [113] and his evidence that, in his view, the likely distribution of Coastal Cypress EEC is greater than that asserted in the Final Determination. Giving weight to the definition at s 1.6 of the BC Act, I accept and adopt the evidence of Dr McLean as summarised at [118]-[122]. In effect, in my view, I can give the additional mapping undertaken by Dr Robertson little weight as the nomination of individual Coastal Cypress Pine trees cannot be taken to be equivalent to the presence at those locations of the Coastal Cypress EEC. Nor can this mapping form the basis for concluding the distribution or abundance of the EEC is greater than that documented in the Final Determination.
A different finding may have been open to the Court if: firstly, the type of technical data and field survey information identified by Dr McLean had been considered by the experts at joint conference and tested by the parties during the proceedings, and secondly, that evidence formed the basis for concluding distribution or abundance of the EEC is greater than that documented in the Final Determination.
Having identified the EEC likely to be impacted by the development, the next step is to evaluate the likely significance of the impacts that would remain after the measures proposed to avoid or minimise the impact on this EEC have been taken: see s 7.16(1) of the BC Act.

[36]

The development application fails to demonstrate adequate avoidance, minimisation and mitigation

I am satisfied that in my assessment, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate in the BDAR sufficient or appropriate measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate impacts on Coastal Cypress EEC that will arise from the proposed development of the subject site. My reasoning is: 1. I repeat my findings at [157]. 2. As detailed at [128], in the BDAR the Applicant divides the efforts of the project to avoid and minimise impacts into two broad categories: project location and project design. In addition to my comments at [154] and [156], I am not persuaded by the assertion in the BDAR that factually either the project location or design affect a reasonable avoidance or minimisation. I note the concessions made by Dr Robertson in cross examination summarised at [142-145]. 3. The development will result in the removal and further fragmentation of the Coastal Cypress EEC on the site. Whilst the BDAR asserts the proposed development is focused on cleared or built upon areas of the site, the proposed townhouses at the rear of the site actually replace and remove an existing stand of Coastal Cypress EEC that currently sit between existing buildings on the site (refer the mapping extracted at [44]). The assertion in the BDAR that the footprint of the development has been reduced to retain the ecological zone that includes most of the Coastal Cypress EEC is not evidenced in the proposed development. 4. To the extent that the BDAR asserts that the layout and design minimise impacts, I repeat my findings at [83] and [84] which detail impacts to Coastal Cypress Pines which form part of the Coastal Cypress EEC arising, in part, from a lack of detailed design or a development footprint which extends too far into the TPZ of these trees. 5. The BDAR relies on the VMP as a measure for avoidance and minimisations, but it is more appropriately a mitigation measure. I adopt my previous comments on these documents. 6. The Applicant's reliance on Exhibit J as a means of comparison of the impacts of the proposed development with a hypothetical development is, in my view, not particularly helpful. The BAM requires the assessor to focus on the documentation of reasonable measures taken by the Applicant to avoid or minimise clearing of native vegetation or threatened species habitat arising from the proposed development. The fact that an alternative design that proposed less development on a portion of the site that may, or may not, have less impact on biodiversity values does not establish the acceptability of the measures taken to avoid or minimise impacts for the development under assessment.
The BAM requires the assessor to document and justify actions taken to avoid or minimise impacts through careful location of the proposal, or its components. I am not persuaded that the BDAR details those measures in a way that either reflects the proposed development before the Court nor adequately justifies that the impacts arising from the proposed development are appropriated avoided or minimised in this case.
The biodiversity mitigation hierarchy requires, in order, the avoiding impacts, minimising impacts and then offsetting or compensating for any residual impact that remains after all steps are taken to avoid or minimise these impacts. I am satisfied that pursuant to s 4.15(1)(a) of the EPA Act that the development fails to demonstrate adequate avoidance, minimisation and mitigation of impacts as required by BC Act: see s 1.3(k), s 6.2(d), s 6.4(1) and s 6.12(c) and (d): Tomasic v Port Stephens Council [2021] NSWLEC 56 at [169] (Preston CJ). The inadequacy of avoidance and minimisation results in the proposed development having an unacceptable adverse impact on the Coastal Cypress EEC. The unacceptable adverse impacts arising from the proposed development support a conclusion that the refusal of the development application is warranted.

[37]

Evaluation of SAII

As noted at [146], the development application includes the retirement of biodiversity credits to offset any residual impacts of the proposed development application. That offset is in addition to the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation measures identified above and are used to address the impacts that remain: Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc. v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Ltd (2013) 194 LGERA 347; [2013] NSWLEC 48at [147]. The SAII Guidance document makes no reference to the decision maker considering these offsets in a determination of SAII under the BC Act. This is consistent with s 7.16 of the BC Act which is focused on the determination of SAII after 'the measures proposed to be taken to avoid or minimise the impact on biodiversity values of the proposed development or activity'.
I am satisfied, applying cl 6.5 of the BC Regulation, that the remaining impacts of the proposed development on Coastal Cypress EEC are serious and irreversible as they are likely to contribute significantly to the risk of Coastal Cypress EEC becoming extinct having regard to both states detailed at subcll 6.7(2)(a) and (b) of the BC Regulation, namely: (a) it will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or (b) it will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or …
Relevant to subcll (a) and (b) of 6.7 of the BC Regulation, Coastal Cypress EEC is recognised in the Final Determination as having limited geographic distribution and as having undergone a large reduction in geographic distribution. The Final Determination notes that most patches remaining are of less than 10ha.
The proposed development will further reduce that limited geographic distribution and will remove 0.13ha of the Coastal Cypress EEC. Further, the existing community on the site occurs in a location that is contiguous with the adjoining Council Reserve, also mapped as Coastal Cypress EEC and which the BDAR notes as having good vegetation integrity, see the extract at [149].
I accept and adopt the evidence of Dr McLean at [118] and [119]. For the reasons previously given, in my view, Dr Robertson places too great an emphasis on the addition mapping undertaken in concluding that the proposed development will not have a SAII. For the reasons detailed at [162], I am not persuaded the mapping and nomination of individual Coastal Cypress Pine trees can be taken to be equivalent to the presence of Coastal Cypress EEC at those locations.
On the basis of the proceeding, I have taken a precautionary approach to determining whether the proposed development will have a SAII on Coastal Cypress EEC. I find that the impacts of the proposed development on the Coastal Cypress EEC are to be regarded as serious and irreversible as they are likely to contribute significantly to the risk of the EEC becoming extinct pursuant to the principles at subcll (2)(a) and (c) of cl 6.7 of the BC Regulation.
I am satisfied that the proposed development, by clearing 0.13ha of Coastal Cypress EEC is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of Coastal Cypress EEC becoming extinct by continuing the pattern of clearing for urban development. Clearing of land for urban development is identified in the Final Determination as an ongoing threat to the Coastal Cypress EEC.
I am satisfied that the impact of the proposed development (clearing) will likely contribute significantly to the risk of Coastal Cypress EEC becoming extinct. It will do so it two ways, firstly, as it will further reduce the population size of the EEC that, as detailed in the Final Determination, has a very small population size and secondly, it will impact on an EEC that is estimated to have a very limited geographic distribution: cl 6.7(2)(b) and cl 6.7(2)(c) of the BC Regulation respectively.
Section 7.16(2) of the BC Act establishes a prerequisite to the exercise of power by the consent authority to grant consent to the development application. As the prerequisite is not met, I have no power to grant approval accordingly, pursuant to s 7.16(2) of the BC Act, having made the determination that the proposed development will have a serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values, I must refuse consent to the development application.

Denwol Suffolk Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (40 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (6)