Rosebud

This week Craig Thomson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, is working on a submission to oppose the rezoning of Melbourne Water land in Rosebud South. Unfortunately he has run into problems getting appropriate ecological information about the site. He wonders if the State Government and Melbourne water have deliberately made the ecological report unavailable. The fauna report relies solely on a habitat assessment and a desktop study for threatened species.

AWPC President, Mr Thomson, says that the absence of on ground fauna surveys is very alarming that there was no on ground fauna surveys. He asks,

"Is this now what happens when the state government tries to fast track rezoning crown land for commercial profit. Or, worse, has it become common practice? It seems like a little of both. Either way this lack of survey will miss the Eastern grey kangaroos, koalas, swamp wallabies and echidnas that survive on this urban fringe. It also misses the potential for threatened species to be present on site. Any potential development on this site could be the difference between extinction or survival of local biodiversity."

"That is is not good enough."

See the information provided below. For more about the site go to http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/about-planning/planning-services-directory/fast-track-government-land-service/181-jetty-road,-rosebud.

How to make a submission

All submissions must be directed to the Advisory Committee and will be treated as public documents.  If you would like to make a presentation at the Public Hearing, you must make a written submission and complete the relevant section of the online form.

                 Make your submission and comments here before 9 December 2016                  

ABZECO Biodiversity Assessment Report 16048 South East Outfall Pipeline: Jetty Road to Rosebud Avenue, Rosebud V1.0-August2016 pg22

5 Fauna

A fauna assessment of the study area consisted of an on-foot field survey of habitat quality and a desktop assessment of the likelihood of fauna species of conservation significance occurring within the study area. A detailed zoological survey comprising a range of techniques over different seasons was not undertaken for this study as it was beyond the scope of works.

5.1 Pre-existing information search

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) was queried for threatened fauna species recorded within a 5 km radius of the study area (DSE 2013a). Appendix 4 provides the results of this query.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) on the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE), website was queried to determine if any protected fauna related matters not reported in the VBA query are considered likely to occur within the study area. Species identified in the EPBC query are presented in Appendix 5.

5.2 Fauna Habitat

Vegetation in the study area is likely to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a range of common fauna species such as common woodland birds and arboreal mammals such as Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus. However, based on habitat requirements for a range of threatened fauna species that are known to occur locally and the poor site condition and fragmented landscape, it is considered unlikely that the vegetation on the site would serve as critical or limiting habitat for significant fauna species.

The majority of threatened fauna species previously recorded within the 5km search area or predicted to occur are considered unlikely to utilise the study area. The low likelihood rating is based on various factors including, lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent database records or the predicted location being outside of the known habitat range of current species populations. One listed species, Powerful Owl Ninox strenua occupies a large home range and as such may utilise sections of the study area for occasional foraging. However vegetation throughout the site is considered unlikely to provide limiting or critical habitat for this species as the site supports few large or hollow bearing trees.

Australian Wildlife Protection Council asks Mornington Peninsula Council to investigate potential breaches at 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd and also to ensure that important remnant vegetation and heritage listed trees are better protected from property development. At the very least Council should ensure planning applications that are granted to remove indigenous vegetation are required to have wildlife spotters on site and flora professionals the opportunity to collect seed and plant material for environmental revegetation projects.

To Antonella Celi,
[Councillor for the Seawinds Ward, Mornington Peninsula Shire]
During the council election campaign, you advocated for protecting neighbourhood character from over development. Which rightly is a concerning issue many locals feel strongly about. One such development application which has been approved and works which have started is 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd, VCAT REFERENCE NO. P566/2016, PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P15/1026. I know this application has been raised in a number of council meetings and one you yourself have spoken out against.

While I do not have the arborist report to confirm my suspicions, I do strongly believe that works that have commenced have breached the permit. That the Mornington Peninsula council is responsible for enforcing. The breaches I believe to have occurred are listed at the bottom of the page.

I am really frustrated and angry that a manna gum that was estimated to be between 300-500yrs old could be cut down. Especially considering there was a vegetation protection overlay on the property, the tree in question was recommended to be heritage listed and I was in the process of making a heritage listing request. With the assistance of Peninsula Speaks. It is very disappointing to know council staff do not take their job seriously and defer their employment duties to community members. I really do believe if the planning department took the enquiries seriously from the public and did the job expected of them, that historical indigenous tree would have been saved. It does not surprise me with the attitude of staff, that developers are advertising the sale of houses. Before the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council approve planning applications.

I now ask that the council investigate the potential breaches at 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd and also ensure that important remnant vegetation and heritage listed trees are better protected from property development. At the very least ensure planning applications that are granted to remove indigenous vegetation are required to have wildlife spotters on site and flora professionals the opportunity to collect seed and plant material for environmental revegetation projects.

Regards
Craig Thomson
President Australian Wildlife Protection Council
Secretary Animalia Wildlife Shelter
Treasurer Save Tootgarook Swamp Inc.

More information

[...]

461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P566/2016
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P15/1026

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1).
Design and Development Overlay (DDO1).
I believe that the above overlays should have been enough to protect the manna gum.

I believe that the following conditions have been breached,

Amended Plans

1. (b) A vegetation removal plan which utilises the numbering in the Arborist report submitted and which shows vegetation proposed to be removed and vegetation proposed to be retained, with the vegetation to be retained being Trees 46, 62, 67, 76, 88, 93, 97, 111, 112 and 113
There are now less Eucalypt trees remaining than were meant to be protected.

And

12. Prior to the commencement of any building or works, appropriate tree protection fencing must be erected in accordance with Australian Standard AD4970 – 2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites). The tree protection fencing must remain in place until the completion of any works hereby approved.
This did not happen.

I believe The following probably has not been under taken,

13. The construction methods contained within the Arborist report endorsed under this permit must be undertaken.

Native Vegetation Offsets

15. In order to offset the removal of 0.024 hectares of remnant patches and 13 scattered trees approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that meets the following requirements, and is in accordance with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual. The general offset must:

* (a) Contribute gain of 0.063 general biodiversity equivalence units.
* (b) Have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.181.
* (c) Be located within the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority boundary.

16. Before any native vegetation is removed from the site, evidence in the form of a credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual.

Bearing in mind the recent Crib Point tragedy - a suspected arson attack, with wildlife loss yet to be detailed, one home destroyed and one home damaged plus several sheds destroyed, we have to be more vigilant about how and whether we develop our bushland neighbourhoods more densely. Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact.

Vegetation clearing on days of total fire bans

477 Waterfall Gully Rd Rosebud 3939 Victoria.

Clearing took place on Friday 15/1/16, Monday 18/1/16 and Tuesday 19/1/16 thus far.

To date up to 45 trees and shrubs have been removed, including 4 manna gums. One which was a hollow bearing tree and one on a neighbouring property. Most of the other vegetation removed was coast tea-tree.

I called the Mornington Peninsula shire council's planning department, on the 18th and 19th of January about the clearing of vegetation. The officers I spoke to on both days confirmed that there are no permits for either vegetation clearance or an application permit for a building extension/residential development. The planning department said that the vegetation clearance was legal without a permit. As the vegetation in question was within 10 meters to the residence or 4 meters within the property boundary.

As the primary reason that fire regulations allows for the vegetation clearance. I have raised the following concerns;

No 477 Waterfall Gully residence has been unoccupied since November, when it was sold. That the first action of the owner is to remove all trees and shrubs from site would suggest it is being cleared for a development - an opinion shared by the professionals clearing the vegetation and by the surrounding neighbours.

Two of the three days the vegetation being cleared were days of total fire ban. The 18th and 19th of January were days of total fire bans. The use of multiple heavy industrial petrol operated equipment on days of total fire ban, I believe, makes a mockery of fire prevention laws.

The planning department understand my concerns and have been as helpful as they can. However there is nothing they can do to address this issue due to current regulations. So I ask your assistance in addressing flaws in the fire regulations that allow developers to exploit them. These flaws are:

To ban activities such as clearing vegetation or activities that could cause fires on days of total fire bans,
Close loop holes that developers use to clear vegetation under false pretences, which cost the Shire revenue.

Further considerations on this matter

Neighbourhood character

The character of a neighbourhood defines the people and families that live in an area. Many of these people who live in community make real value contributions to the neighbourhood character by volunteering their time. It is of great disappointment that potential developers ( who more often than not, do not live in the neighbourhood) use inequities in planning laws to change a neighbourhood character for financial gain.

Health and Wellbeing

Waterfall Gully Rd/ South Rosebud is a bushy area and as such creates a certain atmosphere to the suburb. Residing in a beautiful neighbourhood therefore contributes to a mentally healthy state of its residents. The removal of trees for more dwellings creates a heat island. As our population ages heat stress related illnesses is becoming a more of an issue. Noise pollution from vegetation clearance and building is another factor of having a major impact on health and well being.

Overdevelopment and emergencies

Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact. Most people who choose to live in bushland area would not approve of significant intensification of development. They would need to be alerted to any plans to build new roads for a planned increase in population and would probably object to significantly increased population plans. They are not being alerted, the roads are not being built, but the densification is happening in an unplanned fashion. This is dangerous. If a fire emergency was to threaten South Rosebud, Jetty Rd is the main route to escape!

Wildlife

Even though wildlife are protected, there never seems to be any enforcement to protect them. Up to 45 trees and shrubs were cleared at 477 Waterfall Gully Rd. What happens to those animals who have now lost their home?