What is the DLEP 2002 &
why is it relevant to the National Park?
30th
November, 2003
As
any bushwalker knows, what happens up on the ridgetops effects
the quality of the National Park below. We are already too familiar
with weeds which have come from the gardens above and swimming
holes which are now silted up. It wasn't so long ago when we could
drink from the creeks.
This
Plan is an important step to reversing that trend, so that maybe
we will again be able to drink from the creeks in the park. Draft
Local Environment Plan 2002 is the draft of the legal document
which will set out the rules about how land can be used and developed
in most of the Blue Mountains. (Other parts of the mountains are
already covered by LEP 91 and this is likely to extend to those
areas also)
BUT,
this is only a DRAFT and Council needs to hear from us all. If
we don't ALL speak up and support the good environmental protections
in it, Council will only hear the noise of those objecting, because
they are worried about their 'rights' to economic benefits from
land.
We
need to write or email to Council before 5pm Friday December 13th.
Silence on this matter is support for further damage to OUR National
Park. This an opportunity to ACT - no point complaining later!
Below
is a form letter below with some explanatory notes in italics
- please delete these, or use them to reword some of the points
in your letter or email to Council.
See
mailing/emailing details at end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission
to Draft LEP 2002
Dear
Sir/Madam
I
support the overall direction of the DLEP 2002 which will
give greater protection to the National Park from future development
activities in the urban area.
The
particular features I support are:
-
Council
will be able to reject developments on land adjacent to the
Park if it is not satisfied that there will be no adverse
impact on the Park. [ref Clause 43(5)]
However this should be extended
to apply to all land.
-
Creeklines
will be better protected by retaining native vegetation along
the watercourse corridor. This will help the water quality
of creeks in the Park and reduce the sediment.
Creeklines and a buffer
area around them have been protected by Environmental Protection
zones and Protected Areas.
-
Hanging
swamps will be better protected through Environmental Protection
zones. This will help keep the waterfalls flowing with clean
water in dry times.
Environmental Protection
zones are the best way to prevent development and other damaging
activities on both public and private land. Most privately owned
lots with swamps have been zoned EP around the swamp and buffer,
with the less constrained sections zoned for residential use.
-
Restrictions
on the amount of hard surfaces will help with groundwater
recharge (keeping swamps and creeks alive) and protect creeks
from damage. Increased hard surfaces add to the peak flows
after storms which cause erosion, undercutting of creek banks,
and siltation.
It is proposed to increase
the amount of soft surfaces in new developments in Living Zones
to 60% (in Living-Conservation and Living-Bushland Conservation)
or to 40% (in Living-General) as outlined in Schedule 2.
Also ask Council to
increase the area of land to be retained as soft surfaces in the
Employment zones. 20% is proposed in Employment-General and 30%
in Employment-Enterprise in Schedule 3.
-
A
ban on planting environmental weeds in one zone (Living Bushland
Conservation) is a good start to stop the cause of weed invasion
into the National Park. This ban should be extended to landscaping
in all zones.
Wind, water and birds
all carry weeds down into the National Park where they displace
native plants and damage native animal habitats.
This 'ban' is outlined in clause 54 & the weed list is in
Schedule 6.
Also ask Council to
explicitly define planting of environmental weeds and other non
indigenous plants in EP zones and Protected Areas as a prohibited
activity.
-
I
agree with the minimum lot size of 1200 sq metres in Living-Conservation
and Living-Bushland Conservation zones. Any reduction in this
lot size would lead to higher populations in outer areas and
more impacts on the National Park.
Smaller lot sizes would lead to significant increases
in population densities in these zones. If the current lot size
of 700 sq m were to remain, the potential for 8450 additional
new lots would have inevitable impacts on environmentally sensitive
areas, both directly and also through the provision of additional
infrastructure.
The increased population resulting from a 700
sq m minimum lot size would be beyond the capacity of the infrastructure.
I believe that the economic and environmental costs of providing
adequate social and utility services in the future would be excessive.
I
ask Council to proceed with the adoption of this Plan without
any further delay.
This plan is a huge step forward from the current
LEP 4 and has addressed the major issues identified by the community
in response to the previous draft and by the report from the Commission
of Inquiry on draft LEP97.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are aspects which
could be improved, I believe these should be dealt with by a review
of the Plan within the next two years. I would oppose a further
Inquiry and believe that minor details could be rectified without
a re-exhibition. Any further delay will result in many more damaging
developments.
|