Part 1 - Richmond Valley Council

Transcription

STATEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
For the proposed
EVANS HEAD AIRPARK
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome,
Memorial Airport Drive
Evans Head NSW 2473
121 Bridge Street
PO Box 1568
Tamworth NSW 2340
Prepared for:
Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd
GPO Box 7122
Brisbane QLD 4001
Our reference:
14004
P 02 6762 4411 F 02 6762 4412
E office@mitchelhanlon.com.au
W www.mitchelhanlon.com.au
FS 555072
Mitchel Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd
121 Bridge Street
PO Box 1568
TAMWORTH NSW 2340
Phone: (02) 6762 4411 Fax: (02) 6762 4412
office@mitchelhanlon.com.au
www.mitchelhanlon.com.au
FS 555072
This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was
commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. This document is not to be used or copied without the written
authorisation of Mitchel Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd or Evans Head Airpark Pty
Ltd.
Ref.: 14004
Evans Head Airpark – Statement of Environmental Effects
Page ii
ISSUE
VERS.
01
Final
File path:
DATE
27 June 2016
AUTHOR APPROVED
M. Hanlon, T.
McLean, K.
Oszinski
M Hanlon
ISSUED TO
General Issue
J:\2014\14004 Evans Head Airpark - Concept plan, DA & Engineering\01 Planning\01 Statement of
Environmental Effects\01 Issued\v01\SEE\14004 - Evans Head Airpark SEE_Issued Version v01.docx
Page iii
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have read this Statement of
Environmental Effects prepared on behalf of Evans Head Airpark by Mitchel
Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd and I believe the information contained in this
document in relation to:1. The proposed use of the land is correct;
2. The information supplied by Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd in regard
to the present use of the site is true and correct; and
3. This document represents an accurate statement of the proposed
development for the land and the methodology for environmental
protection of the land.
Peter Lynch
Director
ACN 134 862 203
Signature
27 June 2016
Page iv
Submission of Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE)
Prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979.
SEE Prepared by
Name
Mitchel Hanlon
Qualifications
B Surv (UNSW), M Nat Res (UNE), Dip Proj Management (NSW
TAFE), Registered Land Surveyor, MIS, MRICS
Address
Mitchel Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd
PO Box 1568
Tamworth NSW 2340
In respect of
Proponent’s Name
(ACN 134 862 203)
GPO Box 7122
Proponent Address
Brisbane QLD 4001
Land on which activity to be
carried out: address
Lot 3 DP 1217074
Proposed development
Proposed Development Application
Statement of
Environmental Effects
An SEE and all required plans have been attached.
Certificate
I certify that I have prepared the contents of this Statement and to the
best of my knowledge:
It is true in all material particulars and does not, by its presentation or
omission of information, materially mislead.
Signature
Name
27 June 2016
Mitchel Hanlon
Page v
Executive Summary
The Proponent
The proponent for the development is Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd
(http://www.evansheadairpark.com.au).
Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd is a company which has been established on
behalf of the airpark proponents. Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd are a group of
passionate aviators and supporters of the aviation industry with a vision to
preserve the heritage value and significance of the Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome.
The Proposal
Approval is sought for the development of an integrated residential, industrial
and commercial aviation development as ancillary development to an existing
air transport facility.
The proposal incorporates the following key elements:

Local commercial and recreational aerodrome;

Small scale commercial uses and community facilities associated
with the aerodrome;

Museum for military aviation and community groups;

Residential airside precinct with direct access to flying facilities;
o 26 residential lots on the western side (museum precinct);
o 59 residential lots on the eastern side (residential precinct);
and
o 23 commercial/industrial/private hangars.

Aircraft maintenance and support hub; and

Boutique hotel and convention centre.
Approvals Required
The project is deemed permissible due to the following:

Development of the site as an airpark is permissible as an ancillary
development to an air transport facility under the NSW State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.
Page vi

Development of the site for subdivision is permissible as the project
satisfies the heritage incentive clause 5.10(10) of the Richmond
Valley Local Environmental Plan 2010.
Approvals are required under the following:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection;

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007;

Integrated development s91 EPA Act 1979;
o Heritage Act 1977;
o Roads Act 1993; and
o Rural Fires Act 1997.
Clause 18 of State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection
requires a masterplan to be approved prior to consent if the development is
located in a residential zone within a sensitive coastal location that proposes
to subdivide land that will create more than 25 lots. Clause 18 permits
exemptions from the NSW Planning Minster if there are adequate planning
controls.
An application for an exemption has been lodged with the Grafton office of
NSW Planning.
Impacts
A number of specialist environmental studies have been prepared for the
site from which an assessment has been made of the proposed
development. These studies comprised:

Servicing Strategy (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting);

Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon
Consulting);

Traffic Impact Assessment (prepared by Seca Solutions);

Noise Impact Assessment (prepared by Vipac Scientists and
Engineers);

Flora and Fauna Assessment (prepared by Peter Parker
Environment Consultants Pty Ltd);

Contaminated Land Assessment (prepared by MTNKR Consulting);
Page vii

Heritage Due Diligence Assessment (prepared by Weir Phillips
Heritage);

Bushfire Assessment (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting); and

Socio-economic Assessment (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon
Consulting).
Service Infrastructure
Based on a review of the servicing information provided by Richmond Valley
Council, several options exist to extend water, sewerage,
telecommunications, and electricity into the development site.
Acid Sulfate Soils
A preliminary desktop assessment was undertaken and indicated that ASS
potentially occurs on the site. The geological and soil landform features
suggest that ASS could exist and preliminary soil sampling confirmed that
ASS may be present onsite.
The extent of the ASS was not determined in the preliminary soil sampling. It
is recommended that further soil analysis be undertaken to confirm the
location of ASS hotspots.
Broad management strategies and monitoring have been outlined, however
more detailed management strategies and a site-specific monitoring plan will
be prepared prior to construction works being undertaken. A detailed ASS
Management Plan will also be prepared prior to construction to mitigate the
potential impacts of ASS onsite.
Traffic
The proposed development site has frontage to both Woodburn-Evans
Head Road and Currajong Street. It is proposed that an access point will
be made available off each of these roads.
Data on traffic flow was collected by Seca Solutions on Woodburn-Evans
Head road. Peak flow was recorded as 266 vehicles per hour. It was
calculated that daily flows would be approximately 2 700 vehicles per
day.
It is anticipated that the development will have a minimal impact on road
safety. The current roads have good visibility and the traffic flows are
expected to remain low.
Page viii
Noise
Noise modelling was carried out by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd.
The development of ANEF contours enabled the identification of potential
impacts for comparison between current and future operations of the
Aerodrome. At present the activities at the Aerodrome have been
determined to be approximately 5,148 movements per annum (20152016). The projected movements for 2019-2020 are thought to be
approximately 10,556 movements per annum.
It was identified that recreational helicopter movements significantly
affected the ANEF contours. As such, a second helipad was proposed
and modelled with the original helipad for emergency uses only.
The proposed development currently straddles the ANEF contours and
the high density residential lots are in the >25 ANEF contour, which AS
2021 considers to be unacceptable for development, unless there is a
‘special case’. As the proposed development will be inhabited by aviation
enthusiasts, who will use the Aerodrome for leisure, this development is
considered as a ‘special case’.
A comparison of the impacts on existing receptors surrounding the
Aerodrome was undertaken; a comparison of the LAeq, day contours and
the ANEF contours for the current and future scenarios with two helipads
has determined:

The number of existing residences that will sit between the 55-60
LAeq, day contour does not increase; and

All existing residencies sit below the 20 ANEF contour for all
scenarios.
Overall, the impact on existing receptors will improve compared to the
current situation with a second helipad despite the increase in flight
movements.
Ecology
A Flora and Fauna Assessment of the site was undertaken in 2014 by Peter
Parker Environment Consultants Pty Ltd (PPEC). Previous site assessments
were undertaken by Peter Parker in 2001, 2004 and 2010 and by Geolink in
2010.
PPEC identified seven (7) vegetation associations in the three (3)
communities: woodland; shrubland; and grassland
No threatened plant species or Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)
was recorded at the site.
Page ix
Desktop Search
The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) Wildlife Atlas maps a
number of threatened plant species within five (5) kilometres of the site: heath
wrinklewort; needle-leaf fern; red-flowered king of the fairies; and water nut
grass.
The threatened fauna species are well represented in the Evans Head locality
due to the presence of habitats of high conservation value (i.e. Broadwater
and Bundjalung National Parks.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Few reptiles were recorded at the site in the 2014 survey or on previous
surveys. Four (4) frog species were recorded in the 2014 survey. These were
the common froglet, the rocket frog, the northern banjo frog and the
introduced cane toad.
Birds
PPEC reported the site supported large numbers of honeyeaters due to the
prolific blossoming of heath-leaf banksia and broad-leaved paperbark. The
peak of honeyeater activity was noted during the May 2014 survey due to the
proliferation of flowering trees and shrubs.
Characteristic “open country” species included the rainbow lorikeet, the scalybreasted lorikeet, the Australian magpie, and the torresian crow. Richard’s
pipit was common on the grassland adjacent to the airport runways as was
the masked lapwing.
A number of raptors were recorded on most survey days. These included the
Australian kestrel and the vulnerable square-tailed kite.
Severable vulnerable bird species have previously been recorded adjacent to
the site in 2001. One additional species, the square-tailed kite was recorded
during the 2014 survey.
Mammals
With respect to mammals, two (2) large macropods, the eastern grey
kangaroo and the swamp wallaby, were recorded grazing at the site in
previous surveys (Parker 2001; 2004) and both were recorded in the 2014
survey. Traps yielded poor results in the 2014 survey. The bush rat was the
only species of small mammal captured and was captured in Elliott traps
along both transects. However, only nine (9) individuals were captured over
the entire survey period. The cage traps failed to capture any fauna despite
the presence of the long-nosed bandicoot being detected by the fauna
camera and the northern brown bandicoot in hair-tune traps. The swamp
wallaby, northern brown bandicoot and the grasslands melomys were
recorded using hair-tube traps.
Page x
Koalas
Whilst koalas are known within the study area, no evidence was recorded
during any of the fauna surveys. Potential koala habitat within the meaning of
the SEPP does not occur at the site and therefore a koala plan of
management is not required.
Bats
Ten (10) bat species were identified during the 2014 survey. Three (3) bat
species recorded in 2014 are listed as vulnerable.
Fish
Fish species were recorded downstream from the study site on the southern
side of Woodburn-Evans Head Road. Three (3) fish species were recorded
in the 2010 survey and two (2) species in the 2014 survey. The introduced
mosquito fish, which was recorded in the 2010 survey, is listed as a
threatening process pursuant to the Threatened Species Conservation Act.
The striped gudgeon and the firetail gudgeon are both relatively common
native species in east coast Australian freshwater streams. Their presence
suggests that the habitat quality is high. These species are found in habitats
where the Oxleyan pygmy perch may occur.
The Oxleyan pygmy perch was not recorded during the fish survey conducted
for this proposal.
The drainage regime from the site feeds into Oxleyan pygmy perch habitat. It
is recommended that appropriate stormwater design be undertaken to
mitigate any detrimental impact to this habitat.
Recorded Threatened Species
The PPEC survey (2014) recorded the following threatened species:

Two (2) frogs: the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) and the wallum
sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis);

Six (6) birds: the bush-hen (Amaurornis olivaceus) the glossy black
cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), the osprey (Pandion haliaetus),
the ground parrot (Pezoporus wallicus) the eastern grass owl (Tyto
capensis) the square-tailed kite (Lophoictinia isura); and

Seven (7) bats: the hoary bat (Chalinolobus nigrogriseus), the little
bent-wing bat (Miniopteris australis), the large-footed myotis (Myotis
adversus), the yellow-the bellied sheath-tail bat (Saccolaimus
flaviventris), the eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis),
the grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and the common
blossom bat (Syconycteris australis).
Page xi
The number of threatened species is not surprising given that the Broadwater
National Park occurs within the study area.
7-Part Test
S5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the “7-part
test”) must be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a
significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological
communities, or their habitats. In regards to each, the relevant section and
comment is provided.
a) In the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local
population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.
No threatened plant species was recorded at the site. Accordingly,
the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of
the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely
to be placed at risk of extinction.
The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle
of any fauna species such that a viable local population of the
species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.
b) In the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely
to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the
endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is
likely to be placed at risk of extinction.
No endangered populations listed under Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) occur within
the vicinity of the site. Thus, the action proposed is unlikely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the
endangered population such that a viable local population of the
c) In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered
ecological community, whether the action proposed:
No endangered ecological community was recorded at or in the
vicinity of the site. Thus, the proposal is unlikely “to have an adverse
effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local
occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.” Nor will the
proposal “substantially and adversely modify the composition of the
ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be
placed at risk of extinction”.
d) In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological
community:
Page xii
Habitat modification or removal
Threatened species and threatened species habitat has been
recorded within the study site and study area. However, this habitat
is conserved within the Broadwater and Bundjalung National Parks.
Habitat isolation or fragmentation
The area of habitat proposed to be removed lies adjacent to the
Broadwater-Evans Head Road. Its removal is not likely to fragment
or isolate other areas of habitat.
In conclusion, the habitat of a threatened species, population or
ecological community will not be modified, fragmented or isolated
any extent as a result of this proposal.
The importance of habitat to be removed
The proposal will not require the removal of any habitat of particular
significance to threatened species or the removal of an EEC. Thus,
the proposal will not affect the long-term survival of the species,
population or ecological community in the locality.
The long-term survival of the species, population or ecological
community in the locality
Section 5A(d)(iii) requires an assessment with respect to the
importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or
isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or
ecological community in the locality. This site is located in proximity
to habitats which are recognised for their high conservation value
(e.g., the Broadwater National Park). The proposal will not require
any habitat to be removed, modified or fragmented to the extent that
it will significantly affect the long-term survival of the species,
e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical
habitat (either directly or indirectly),
The site does not contain any area which has been identified and
declared as critical habitat under Part 3 of the TSC Act. Therefore,
critical habitat will not be affected by the proposal.
Page xiii
f)
Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
The National Recovery Plan for the Wallum sedgefrog and other
Wallum-dependent frog species and the Oxleyan pygmy perch is
relevant. The recommended water quality management controls
will “restore essential habitat”. None of the other specific recovery
objectives are relevant with respect to this proposed development.
g) Whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key
threatening process
Potential threatening processes as defined under the TSC Act
which may occur at the site include predation by foxes, introduced
garden weeds, cane toad impacts, introduction of Phytophthora
and the exotic rust fungi. However, the site will be landscaped using
native species of local origin, and potential breeding sites for the
cane toad will be minimised to the extent practicable and possible.
This proposal includes the removal of woodland and shrubland. The
extent of tree removal will destroy a sufficient proportion of one or
more strata (layers) within a stand or stands of native vegetation so
as to result in the loss, or long-term modification, of the structure,
composition and ecological function of a stand or stands. The tree
removal proposed is within the meaning of “clearing of native
vegetation” as described above, this threatening process will
increase as a result of this development proposal
Under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, the proposal is unlikely
to lead to any change or significant increase in any of the listed
threatening processes, most of which are not relevant in the
circumstances.
Page xiv
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999
A search of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act) protected matters database for the area was conducted on
1st December 2014. Parker has reported:

One (1) threatened ecological community, fifty-five (55) threatened
species and forty-five (45) migratory species were reported by
PPEC. The threatened ecological community is lowland subtropical
rainforest which does not occur at the site.

The fifty-five (55) threatened species listed includes shorebirds,
marine fish, turtles, whales and sharks thus leaving fourteen (14)
terrestrial species and one (1) fish, the Oxleyan pygmy perch, as
the only fauna species which potentially may occur at or in the
vicinity of the site
Using the Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s significant
impact guidelines, assessment by PPEC indicate:

No Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) were
identified;

Indirect impacts on the Oxleyan pygmy perch are considered to be
negligible provided that the implementation of the recommended
water quality controls is undertaken;

No measures are proposed to for impact avoidance as no MNES
were identified; and

The impacts of the proposal are not considered to be significant
within the meaning of the definitions provided in the significant
impact guidelines.
Recommendations
To safeguard the potential Oxleyan pygmy perch habitat south of the site,
PPEC recommends that road runoff is directed into pits with gross pollutant
traps installed and a portion of the road runoff be treated by permeable
pavers. Also, that roof water should enter the stormwater system via roof
water drainage lines upstream of the gross pollutant traps where possible
Runoff water should flow through vegetated open space (vegetated or bioretention swales) via surcharge pits for further treatment. Runoff water should
then fed into the pygmy perch habitat rehabilitation area for final polishing.
Page xv
Contamination
Mr. Mark Imber of MTNKR Consulting was engaged to examine past site
investigations and identify the most appropriate course of action regarding
any historical site contamination.
Extensive site investigations have identified past land uses have resulted in
contamination. No further testing is deemed necessary as a Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) has already been developed. As this RAP was produced prior to
changes in the National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM), its
relevance will be evaluated against the new NEPM requirements. The site will
be remediated as required.
Wetlands
There is a wetland located to the north of the development site. This will
remain outside the development footprint with no plans to alter or encroach
on the wetland.
Heritage
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome has significance arising out of use during
WWII as an EATS training base and as a WWII memorial.
The site is listed on the State Heritage Register (Item 01649), under the
auspices of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, under the name ‘Evans Head
Memorial Aerodrome.’
The site is also listed by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Richmond Valley Local
Environmental Plan 2012. The site is identified as ‘Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome (including runways, Bellman Hangar, timber huts and machine
gun pit).’
A Plan of Management (PoM) prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (2009) exists for the
site.
The proposed development retains and upgrades the existing aerodrome
facilities. The residential airpark and associated community facilities provide
a viable source of funding to ensure its future viability. Provision of an aviation
museum provides an opportunity to explore and interpret the heritage
significance of the site.
The proposed lots are located outside of the heritage zones identified by the
Plan of Management for the site. A full understanding of the orientation of,
and relationships between, the runways is maintained. This is key to
understanding the site from the ground and the air. Groups of buildings on
this site are not a new phenomenon; large groups of buildings existed on this
site during World War II. The proposed location of buildings will not interfere
with any significant spatial relationships or view corridors into, within or out of
the site.
Page xvi
Bushfire
A bushfire assessment has been undertaken to determine the presence and
degree of bushfire threat applicable to the proposed development. The site is
identified as bushfire prone land as per the NSW Rural Fire Service mapping
for the Richmond Valley LGA (July 2003).
The vegetation type within the proposed development sites is characterised
by ‘tall heath (scrub)’. There are large areas which are free of canopy or shrub
vegetation and the groundcover is maintained. There are also a number of
areas that are identified as non-vegetated areas and areas of reduced
vegetation.
The subject site has been identified as a potential bushfire risk (Category 1 –
greater than 1 hectare of vegetation type 1 or 2). Bushfire mapping for the site
indicates the western residential and museum precinct as Category 2
vegetation while the remainder of the vegetation is identified as Category 1.
To increase access and defence mobility for fire trucks, it is recommended
that fire trails be constructed along the northern boundary of the
museum/residential precinct and along the northern boundary of the
residential/hotel precinct.
Recommendations include:

Asset Protection Zones (APZs) be adopted for the proposed
development to ensure protection from Bushfire;

Building envelopes, be enforced through a section 88b instrument
community title scheme;

Minimum AS 3959-2009 building and construction requirements, be
enforced through a section 88b instrument community title scheme;

Asset Protection Zones should be regularly maintained to ensure
the APZ is effective in providing an adequate protection area
between assets and any potential bush fire events. APZ
maintenance should include regular mowing of any grass. The
requirements for Asset Protection Zone maintenance are set out in
Planning for Bushfire Protection, 2006;

Any future landscaping within the development should take into
consideration the type of shade trees used to ensure the genus of
tree planted does not contribute to any fuel load build-ups within the
future landscaped areas of each allotment. Any future landscaping
should comply with the principles within Appendix 5 of PBP
(‘Bushfire Provisions – Landscaping and Property Maintenance’);
Page xvii

Emergency fire trails be constructed to ensure emergency exits
routes for residents, and ease of access for fire fighters in the event
of a bushfire. Emergency fire trails will be required to be constructed
to a standard which allows a fully loaded fire tuck to be able to
navigate them. Construction Should be in accordance with ‘Access
(3) – Fire Trails’ in the NSW Rural Fire Service Planning for Bushfire
Protection;

All internal roads associated with the development are constructed
in accordance with Table 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the NSW Rural Fire
Service Planning for Bushfire Protection (minimum width
requirements);
Socio-economic
Over the period to 2036, the population of Richmond Valley is expected to
increase by an average annual rate of 0.4% whereas the forecast for the
Northern Rivers is 1.0% and New South Wales is 0.9%.
Future forecasts for continuing population growth in the Richmond Valley
require an estimated 9,900 new homes to be built by 2031, particularly for
Casino, which will be the main growth centre.
The Richmond Valley has historically been dependent on primary industries
and food manufacturing enterprises supported by a number of agricultural
businesses. There is also an active retail and tourism sector with growth in
the creative industries, building and construction sectors.
Evans Head remains a popular holiday destination with tourism and support
services. It has a number of attractions, natural assets and State Heritage
Listed sites as well as annual events. Tourism remains a focus of Richmond
Valley Council and is viewed as a key mechanism to attract visitors and
revenue to the region.
Richmond Valley Council is actively looking for opportunities for developing a
robust and resilient economy that can cater for future population growth. The
Richmond Valley local government area (LGA) has been identified as a
region with diminished social and economic performance. It has a low socioeconomic base and is among one of the most disadvantaged LGAs in NSW
The local economy lacks diversify scoring low across a number of standards.
The economy is significantly less diverse than all seven northern NSW
councils and NSW more generally.
May 2016 quarterly unemployment figures from the Department of
Employment indicates the Richmond – Tweed region had an unemployed
rate of 5.2% and a youth unemployed rate of 14.3%. The state average was
5.3% and 11.9% respectively.
Page xviii
A competitive LGA is more likely to deliver sustainable economic growth
resulting in vibrant social communities. However this depends upon current
economic performance and what demographic advantages one LGA has
compared to others.
The conversion of the aerodrome to a medium-sized airpark will not only
conserve the heritage and environmental values of the site, but bring
economic opportunities for the local community whilst simultaneously
reducing the cost burden on Council
The proposed development will assist with diversification of the local and
regional economy which is presently heavily dependent on the primary
industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing and on manufacturing.
There will be a lift in the aviation and hospitality related sectors. Tourism
activity will also increase upon the completion of the museum complex.
It is estimated that there is an initial employment opportunity of up to 30 jobs
with an identified future potential of over 100 within the aviation-related
industries. A further 23 jobs are predicted within the tourism and hospitality
related businesses derived from the project.
The civil construction phase, the subject of this development application will
see an approximate spend of $20.9M. Further development will see a total
estimated building spend of $136.5M.
From a socio-economic perspective the project delivers against the triple line
of sustainable economic development, environmental performance and
social vitality. The proposal offers an opportunity to capitalise on inherent
advantages and strengths of Evans Head locality to facilitate this. Regional
areas that host an airport and aviation services generate an increase in
economic development leading to expansion of businesses and community
facilities
Page xix
Justification for the Proposal
Social and Economic
From an economic perspective, the proposed development will benefit the
Evans Head area through stimulation of the local economy and by providing
job opportunity for local people.
Richmond Valley Council is actively looking for opportunities to develop a
resilient local economy that can cater for future population growth and provide
employment opportunities for local people. The project is well aligned with the
priorities outlined in Council’s strategic plans to facilitate a robust economy
and provide for community priorities.
Moreover, Council has identified Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome as a
potential asset which could be utilised to deliver these goals.
The proposal development will assist with diversification of the local and
industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing as well as on manufacturing.
The development will provide a lift in the aviation and hospitality related
sectors. Tourism activity will also increase upon the completion of the
museum complex.
Local construction business will benefit during the construction phase and
utilise local labour and materials. The local economy will benefit from
increased consumer spending by local businesses supplying labour and/or
goods and services during construction.
Once completed, the airpark, hotel, aviation enterprises and museum will
benefit the local economy by providing directed sustainable employment and
local business spending on goods.
The development will help alleviate the low diversity in the Richmond
Valley LGA economy.
facilities
Page xx
Ecologically Sustainable
Development
Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd is committed to the use of environmentally
friendly practices in the development of the proposed facility. Furthermore, in
considering this application, it needs to be remembered that Ecologically
Sustainable Development (ESD) requires the effective integration of
economic and environmental considerations in the decision-making process.
Conclusion
The proposed development will create a number of key benefits:

Improve economic viability for the local economy through increases
in employment opportunity, tourism opportunity and diversification
of the local region;

The NSW Heritage Council supports the development as the best
outcome for the site. The development will implement a community
title scheme and an ongoing sustainable funding mechanism for its
continued maintenance and upkeep.

The introduction and implementation of erosion and sediment
control measures;

Maintenance of the existing waterways and dams on the site for
aquatic species;

Sustainable wastewater irrigation; and

Maintenance of native vegetation via landscape screening. This has
great potential to maintain native flora and fauna in the area once
established.
This application is the result of a thorough assessment and evaluation of the
environmental impacts which may result as a consequence of this proposal.
Issues such as: noise, traffic, flora and fauna, site contamination and coastal
sensitivity have been examined and reported in conformance with the
requirements of this principle.
Based on implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed
development will not contribute to serious or irreversible damage to the local
environment.
Page xxi
CONTENTS
Background ................................................ 9
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
The Proponent ................................................................................................... 10
The Proposal ............................................ 21
Development Overview...................................................................................... 21
Staged Development ......................................................................................... 22
Staging ............................................................................................................... 23
Museum ............................................................................................................. 23
Community Title Scheme................................................................................... 25
Previous Development Consents ...................................................................... 26
2.6.1
DA 2011/223 Retirement Village, Subdivision and Childcare Centre .................. 26
2.6.2
DA 2011-097 Remediation Works ....................................................................... 26
Existing Environment................................ 27
Site Location ...................................................................................................... 27
Existing Activities & Land Use ........................................................................... 28
3.2.1
Surrounding Area ................................................................................................ 28
Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 29
3.3.1
Topography ......................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2
Soils and Geology ............................................................................................... 29
3.3.2.1
Soils ............................................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2.2
Geology .......................................................................................................................... 29
3.3.3
Climate ................................................................................................................ 29
3.3.3.1
Temperature ................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.3.2
Rainfall ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.4
Service Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 31
3.3.4.1
Water Supply.................................................................................................................. 31
3.3.4.2
Sewerage ....................................................................................................................... 31
3.3.4.3
Stormwater Drainage...................................................................................................... 32
3.3.4.4
Telecommunications....................................................................................................... 33
3.3.4.5
Electricity ........................................................................................................................ 33
3.3.4.6
Natural Gas .................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.5
Road Network and Traffic .................................................................................... 33
3.3.5.1
Woodburn-Evans Head Road ......................................................................................... 33
3.3.5.2
Currajong Street ............................................................................................................. 34
3.3.5.3
Daily Traffic Flows .......................................................................................................... 34
3.3.6
3.3.6.1
3.3.6.2
3.3.7
Noise ................................................................................................................... 34
ANEF Contours and Planning Controls ........................................................................... 34
Existing Noise Levels...................................................................................................... 34
Ecology................................................................................................................ 36
Page 1
3.3.7.1
Field Surveys.................................................................................................................. 36
3.3.7.2
Flora ............................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.7.3
Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 45
3.3.7.4
Fish ................................................................................................................................ 47
3.3.7.5
Recorded Threatened Species ....................................................................................... 49
Contamination .................................................................................................... 51
3.4.1
Potentially Contaminating Activities..................................................................... 51
3.4.2
Cultural Heritage.................................................................................................. 59
3.4.2.1
Local Heritage ................................................................................................................ 59
3.4.2.2
State Heritage................................................................................................................. 60
3.4.2.3
Federal Heritage............................................................................................................. 61
3.4.2.4
World Heritage................................................................................................................ 62
3.4.2.5
Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ....................................................................... 62
3.4.3
Coastal Surface Water ........................................................................................ 62
3.4.4
Wetlands.............................................................................................................. 63
3.4.5
Coastal Groundwater........................................................................................... 63
3.4.6
Flooding............................................................................................................... 65
3.4.7
Bushfire ............................................................................................................... 65
Planning Regulatory Framework .............. 67
Background ........................................................................................................ 67
Project Definition................................................................................................ 67
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ..................... 67
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.......................................... 68
4.4.1
Objectives of the EP&A Act 1979 ........................................................................ 68
Permissibility & Consent .................................................................................... 69
4.5.1
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.................................. 69
4.5.2
Lot size ................................................................................................................ 69
4.5.3
LEP Heritage Incentive Clause............................................................................ 69
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.............................. 70
4.6.1.1
Clause 2 Aircraft facilities – Part 1 .................................................................................. 70
4.6.1.2
Clause 37A Ancillary development – Part 3 .................................................................... 70
4.6.1.3
4.6.2
Clause 15 Contaminated soil treatment works – Part 1 ................................................... 70
Integrated development – s91 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979 .................................................................................................................... 71
NSW Environmental Planning Instruments........................................................ 71
4.7.1
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land ......................... 72
4.7.2
State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection............................. 72
Regional Environmental Plans........................................................................... 73
Richmond Valley Local Environmental Plan 2012 ............................................. 73
4.9.1
Current Zoning..................................................................................................... 73
4.9.2
Conservation incentives....................................................................................... 78
4.9.3
Acid Sulfate Soils................................................................................................. 79
4.9.4
Airport provisions................................................................................................. 82
Page 2
4.9.5
RVLEP 2012 Mapping ......................................................................................... 84
4.9.6
Other Local Development Standards / Provisions ............................................... 85
Richmond Valley Development Control Plan 2012 ................................. 85
4.10.1
Part A – Residential development ....................................................................... 85
4.10.2
Part B – Commercial development ...................................................................... 85
4.10.3
Part C – Industrial development .......................................................................... 85
4.10.4
Part D – Rural land uses...................................................................................... 85
4.10.5
Part E – Accommodation, Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates ...... 85
4.10.6
Part F – Signage.................................................................................................. 86
4.10.7
Part G – Subdivisions .......................................................................................... 86
4.10.8
Part H – Natural Resources................................................................................. 86
4.10.9
Part I – Other Considerations .............................................................................. 86
4.10.9.1
Heritage conservation..................................................................................................... 86
4.10.9.2
Building In, On, Over or Under a Road............................................................................ 86
4.10.9.3
Building Lines ................................................................................................................. 87
4.10.9.4
Car Parking .................................................................................................................... 87
4.10.9.5
Noise Impact................................................................................................................... 87
4.10.9.6
Social Impact .................................................................................................................. 87
4.10.9.7
Water Sensitive Urban Design ........................................................................................ 88
4.10.9.8
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design............................................................ 88
4.10.9.9
Land Use Conflict ........................................................................................................... 88
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures ................................................. 89
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 89
Acid Sulfate Soils ............................................................................................... 90
5.2.1
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 90
5.2.2
Preliminary Site Assessment ............................................................................... 91
5.2.2.1
Desktop Study ................................................................................................................ 91
5.2.2.2
Existing Site Environment ............................................................................................... 92
5.2.2.3
Site Sampling ................................................................................................................. 93
5.2.2.4
Analysis Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 93
5.2.3
Potential Impacts and Issues............................................................................... 95
5.2.4
Management Strategies....................................................................................... 95
5.2.5
Monitoring............................................................................................................ 96
5.2.6
Contingency Planning.......................................................................................... 96
5.2.7
Summary ............................................................................................................. 97
Climate Change ................................................................................................. 98
Traffic and Access ............................................................................................. 99
5.4.1
Access................................................................................................................. 99
5.4.2
Sight Distance ..................................................................................................... 99
5.4.3
Parking ................................................................................................................ 99
5.4.4
Traffic Generation.............................................................................................. 100
Noise ................................................................................................................ 101
Page 3
5.5.1
Modelling ........................................................................................................... 101
5.5.2
Results............................................................................................................... 101
5.5.2.1
Current Scenario (2015-2016) ...................................................................................... 101
5.5.2.2
Future Scenario (2019-2020) ........................................................................................ 103
5.5.2.3
Future Scenario with Second Helipad ........................................................................... 106
5.5.3
5.5.3.1
5.5.4
Impacts on Existing Receptors .......................................................................... 110
ANEF Contours ............................................................................................................ 111
Summary ........................................................................................................... 113
Ecology ............................................................................................................ 114
5.6.1
Statutory Considerations ................................................................................... 114
5.6.1.1
SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat.............................................................................................. 114
5.6.1.2
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ...................................................... 114
5.6.1.3
5.6.2
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1979 .................................. 121
Recommendations............................................................................................. 125
Contamination .................................................................................................. 126
5.7.1
Industrial/Commercial Hangar Area................................................................... 126
5.7.2
Private Residential Airpark/High Density Area................................................... 126
5.7.3
Private Residential Airpark ................................................................................ 127
5.7.4
Remediation ...................................................................................................... 128
Heritage............................................................................................................ 129
5.8.1
Introduction........................................................................................................ 129
5.8.2
Background ....................................................................................................... 129
5.8.3
Impacts.............................................................................................................. 129
5.8.4
Plan of Management ......................................................................................... 130
5.8.4.1
Hangar Conservation and Aviation Operation Zone ...................................................... 131
5.8.4.2
Runway Conservation and Aviation Operation Zone ..................................................... 131
5.8.4.3
Aerodrome Open Space Zone ...................................................................................... 131
5.8.4.4
Southern Hangar/Works Depot Zone ............................................................................ 132
5.8.4.5
5.8.5
Southern Runway Zone ................................................................................................ 132
Bushfire ............................................................................................................ 133
5.9.1
Introduction........................................................................................................ 133
5.9.2
Bushfire Hazard Assessment ............................................................................ 133
5.9.2.1
Predominant Vegetation Type....................................................................................... 134
5.9.2.2
Slope ............................................................................................................................ 134
5.9.2.3
Bushfire Risk ................................................................................................................ 136
5.9.2.4
APZ .............................................................................................................................. 136
5.9.2.5
Property Access – Fire Services & Evacuation ............................................................. 141
5.9.3
Building and Construction Considerations......................................................... 142
5.9.4
Socio-Economic..................................................................................... 149
5.10.1
Existing Conditions and Expected Impacts........................................................ 149
5.10.2
Population.......................................................................................................... 150
5.10.3
Regional Economy ............................................................................................ 151
5.10.4
Socio-Economic Performance ........................................................................... 152
Page 4
5.10.4.1
Key Socio-Economic Indexes ....................................................................................... 152
5.10.4.2
Economic Profile........................................................................................................... 153
5.10.4.3
Employment ................................................................................................................. 153
5.10.4.4
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 154
5.10.5
Economic Impacts ............................................................................................. 154
5.10.5.1
Aviation Related Business Opportunities ...................................................................... 154
5.10.5.2
Employment ................................................................................................................. 155
5.10.5.3
Local Economy ............................................................................................................. 156
5.10.5.4
Tourism and Hospitality Related Business Opportunities .............................................. 156
5.10.5.5
Employment ................................................................................................................. 157
5.10.5.6
Local Economy ............................................................................................................. 157
5.10.5.7
Construction Phase ...................................................................................................... 157
5.10.5.8
5.10.6
Council Revenue and Expenditure................................................................................ 159
Social Impacts ................................................................................................... 159
5.10.6.1
Employment ................................................................................................................. 159
5.10.6.2
Education and Training................................................................................................. 159
5.10.6.3
Housing ........................................................................................................................ 160
5.10.6.4
Infrastructure/Isolation .................................................................................................. 160
5.10.6.5
Community Facilities..................................................................................................... 160
5.10.6.6
Promotion and Pride ..................................................................................................... 161
5.10.6.7
Net Community Benefit................................................................................................. 161
5.10.7
Conclusion......................................................................................................... 164
Servicing Strategy.................................................................................. 165
5.11.1
5.11.1.1
Water Supply Capacity ...................................................................................... 165
Internal Water Supply ................................................................................................... 165
5.11.2
Electricity ........................................................................................................... 166
5.11.3
Telecommunications.......................................................................................... 167
5.11.4
Natural Gas ....................................................................................................... 167
5.11.5
Stormwater Drainage......................................................................................... 167
5.11.5.1
5.11.6
Stormwater Quality ....................................................................................................... 168
Sewer ................................................................................................................ 169
Erosion and Sedimentation ................................................................... 172
Landscaping .......................................................................................... 172
Justification of the Proposal.................... 173
Biophysical Considerations.............................................................................. 173
Social and Economic Considerations .............................................................. 173
Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development ....................................... 174
7.3.1
The Precautionary Principle............................................................................... 175
7.3.2
Intergenerational Equity..................................................................................... 176
7.3.3
Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecological Integrity ........................................ 176
7.3.4
Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms ................................... 177
Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................................... 178
7.4.1
Consideration of Alternative Sites...................................................................... 178
7.4.2
Consequences of the Development Not Proceeding ......................................... 179
Page 5
Conclusion.............................................. 180
References ............................................. 181
Appendix A
General Search Information.....................................A-1
Appendix B
Soil Analysis Results ...............................................B-1
Appendix C
Traffic Assessment ................................................. C-1
Appendix D
Noise Assessment.................................................. D-1
Appendix E
Ecology Assessment ...............................................E-1
Appendix F
Contamination Assessment ..................................... F-1
Appendix G
Heritage Assessment ............................................. G-1
Appendix H
Bushfire Assessment.............................................. H-1
Appendix I
Socio-Economic Assessment ................................... I-1
Appendix J
Servicing Strategy ................................................... J-1
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Locality Plan ............................................................ 11
Figure 2: Evans Head Locality Plan ....................................................... 12
Figure 3: Concept Plan – Overall Development ..................................... 13
Figure 4: Concept Plan – Overall ........................................................... 14
Figure 5: Concept Plan – Museum Precinct........................................... 15
Figure 6: Concept Plan – Hotel Precinct ................................................ 16
Figure 7: Industrial Area Development Concept Plan ........................... 17
Figure 8: Museum Concept – Aerial Perspective ................................... 24
Figure 9: Museum Concept – Ground Perspective ................................ 24
Figure 10: Mean Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperatures.............. 30
Figure 11: Mean Monthly Rainfall........................................................... 30
Figure 12: Fauna Survey Methods & Locations ..................................... 39
Figure 13: Fish Survey and Location of Baited Fish Traps..................... 40
Figure 14: Vegetation Associations........................................................ 43
Figure 15: Local distribution of known, potential and unlikely Oxleyan
pygmy perch habitat.............................................................. 48
Figure 16: Threatened species recorded within study area.................... 50
Figure 17: Site Zoning........................................................................... 74
Figure 18: ANEF Contours for the Residential Zone for 2015-2016..... 102
Figure 19: ANEF Contours for the Museum Precinct for 2015-2016.... 102
Figure 20: ANEF Contours for the Residential Zone for 2019-2020..... 103
Page 6
Figure 21: ANEF Contours for the Museum Precinct for 2019-2020.... 104
Figure 22: Contour Line for 20 Events >70dB LASmax for 2019-2020 .... 106
Figure 23: ANEF Contours for 2019-2020 with a Second Helipad ....... 107
Figure 24: ANEF Contours for 2019-2020 with a Second HelipadMuseum Precinct ................................................................ 108
Figure 25: Contour Line for 20 Events >70dB LASmax for 2019-2020
with two helipad................................................................... 109
Figure 26: LAeq, day (2015-2016) (dB(A)) ............................................. 111
Figure 27: LAeq, day (2019-2020) (dB(A)) - One Helipad...................... 112
Figure 28: LAeq, day (2019-2020) (dB(A)) - Two Helipdads .................. 112
Figure 29: Required Asset Protection Zones ....................................... 144
Figure 30: Required Building Envelope & Relevant BALs- Hotel Area. 145
Figure 31: Required Building Envelopes & Associated BALsResidential Area.................................................................. 146
Figure 32: Proposed Building Envelopes & Associated BALsMuseum Precinct ................................................................ 147
Figure 33: Proposed Fire Trails............................................................ 148
PLATES
Plate 1: Restored Bellman Hangar......................................................... 18
Plate 2: Restored Bellman Hangar......................................................... 18
Plate 3: Looking northeast towards restored Bellman Hangar .............. 19
Plate 4: Heritage Sign ............................................................................ 19
Plate 5: 18/36 Runway (active) .............................................................. 20
TABLES
Table 1: Site Identification...................................................................... 27
Table 2: Summary of Measured Noise Levels during Whole
Monitoring Period .................................................................. 35
Table 3: Summary of Site Investigations and Reports ........................... 53
Table 4: Local Listed Heritage Places – Evans Head ............................ 59
Table 5: Commonwealth Listed Heritage Places – Evans Head ............ 61
Table 6: Groundwater Bore Receptors................................................... 64
Table 7: RVLEP 2012 Mapping.............................................................. 84
Table 8: Soil Analysis Results................................................................ 93
Table 9: Action Criteria for ASS Management ....................................... 94
Table 10: Predicted Traffic Movements................................................ 100
Page 7
Table 11: Summary of ANEF Acceptability for 2015-2016 ................... 103
Table 12: Summary of ANEF Acceptability for 2019-2020 ................... 105
Table 13: Building Type and ANEF Criteria ......................................... 108
Table 14: Species listed under the EPBC Act in protected matters
search ................................................................................. 122
Table 15: Community Fuel Loads ....................................................... 134
Table 16: Site Land Slopes .................................................................. 135
Table 17: Calculated Asset Protection Zones ..................................... 139
Table 18: Population ........................................................................... 151
Table 19: Socio-Economic Indicators.................................................. 152
Table 20: 2011 ABS population figures for regional LGAs ................... 152
Table 21: Economic Diversity Index ..................................................... 153
Table 22: Employment ........................................................................ 155
Table 23: Employment ........................................................................ 157
Table 24: Civil and building works cost estimate................................. 158
Table 25: Net Community Benefit ....................................................... 162
Table 26: Development Outcomes – Strengths and Opportunities ..... 162
Table 27: Development Outcomes – Weaknesses and Threats ......... 163
Table 28: Calculation of Development Design Loading........................ 169
Table 29: Sewerage Flows from the Development............................... 170
Page 8
Background
Introduction
Mitchel Hanlon Consulting Pty Ltd has been engaged by Evans Head Airpark
Pty Ltd (EHAP) to prepare a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and
associated documentation to accompany a Development Application to
Richmond Valley Council (RVC) for the re-development of the Evans Head
aerodrome facility.
Approval is sought for the development of an integrated residential, industrial
and commercial aviation development as ancillary development to an existing
air transport facility.


with the aerodrome;


o 26 residential lots on the western side (museum precinct);
o 59 residential lots on the eastern side (residential precinct);
and


This statement describes the existing land and the characteristics of the
proposed development. The statement also identifies the potential impacts
the development will have on the immediate environment. Where deleterious
impacts are identified, measures which may mitigate their impact are
presented.
The regional context in which the development is situated is illustrated in
Figure 1 (p11), while Figure 2 (p12) shows the site location within the locality
of Evans Head. The proposed development site is illustrated on an aerial
photograph in Figure 3 (p13). Site images are depicted in Plate 1 (p18) to
Plate 5 (p20).
Page 9
The Proponent
The proponent for the development is Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd
(http://www.evansheadairpark.com.au).
Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd is a company which has been established on
behalf of the airpark proponents. Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd are a group of
passionate aviators and supporters of the aviation industry with a vision to
preserve the heritage value and significance of the Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome.
The members have been specifically drawn together for this project through
their mutual love for aviation and desire to see the heritage-listed Evans Head
Memorial Aerodrome not only preserved but significantly contributing to the
economic viability of the region and local community, once again.
Page 10
Figure 1: Regional Locality Plan
Page 11
Figure 2: Evans Head Locality Plan
Page 12
Figure 3: Concept Plan – Overall Development
Figure 4: Concept Plan – Overall
Figure 5: Concept Plan – Museum Precinct
Figure 6: Concept Plan – Hotel Precinct
Figure 7: Industrial Area Development Concept Plan
Plate 1: Restored Bellman Hangar
Plate 2: Restored Bellman Hangar
Page 18
Plate 3: Looking northeast towards restored Bellman Hangar
Plate 4: Heritage Sign
Page 19
Plate 5: 18/36 Runway (active)
Page 20
The Proposal
Development Overview
EHAP proposes to develop a multifaceted residential and commercial Airpark
on the historically significant, State Heritage Listed, Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome.
At present the aerodrome is supported by voluntary organisations and the
local council, with very little income being derived for its own upkeep. With
self-sufficiency a high priority for the developer of the land, the proposed
Airpark provides the opportunity to not only conserve the aerodrome for
continued use in general aviation, but also bring substantial economic and
lifestyle benefits to the local and greater community.
With the creation of a residential and commercial airpark, aviation related
industries would be enticed to the area to start businesses and increase the
number and range of employment opportunities. With an aviation centre such
as this, more job opportunities are open to local youth, not only in aviation,
apprenticeships, building, etc, but also in tourism related industries.
With this in mind, Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd is also determined to keep and
pay homage to the significance of the aerodromes military history, both out of
respect to the part the aerodrome played in World War II, but also out of
respect to the relatives and friends of our men and women who worked and
played there in times of war. This goal will be achieved with the creation of a
military museum similar to the Temora and Point Cook aviation museums.
It would initially be built around the last surviving Bellman Hangar, eventually
leading to the creation of a very large scale museum with a strong RAAF
theme in line with its heritage. The local community would be consulted and
invited to take an active role in the nature and operation of such a museum.
The last surviving Bellman Hangar has been restored by the proponent ahead
of time in good faith jointly funded by the proponent ($250K), the Richmond
Valley Council ($250K) and the Australian Federal Government ($130K). The
facility is occupied by the recently established community based not for profit
organisation, Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Heritage Aviation
Association (EHMAHAA).
EHMAHAA was successful in being allocated one of six ex-RAAF F-111s
loaned to non-defence museums. The restoration of the last surviving
Bellman hangar was brought forward and completed in record time to allow
the Evans Head to satisfy the timing requirements of defence.
Page 21
The larger future museum facility will be sited in the Museum precinct on the
Western side of the aerodrome to house the expanding collection of
EHMAHAA and available to other local community groups such as the Evans
Head Living Museum. The new facility will serve as a centre for multiple
community based groups ensuring a close relationship with the aerodrome.
Local community would be consulted and invited to take an active role in the
nature and operation of such a museum.


with the aerodrome;


o 85 residential lots; and


Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd believe a residential and commercial airpark
facility, with its aviation focus and historical significance, is unique and will
attract a more varied clientele that can only be of added value to the residents
of the Richmond Valley. This airpark will bring added prosperity and
significance to the Evans Head area and distinguish it from the usual
development often found in coastal towns.
Staged Development
The development will be staged in accordance with the definition of s83B of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Development consent will be required for the construction of the museum,
hotel, hangar homes and industrial hangars.
A construction certificate will be sought to allow for the construction of the
access roads, internal roads, utility services, water supply, sewerage and
stormwater. Some taxi-way works will also be necessary.
Page 22
Staging
The residential, museum and industrial lands will be developed in stages.
The eastern precinct will comprise the eastern residential and industrial areas.
Initial access will be via Memorial Airport Drive with final main access being
via Currajong Street. Memorial Airport Drive will provide access to the
industrial area and the medium/high density residential area.
The Memorial Airport Drive will facilitate access for construction traffic and the
first three residential stages. The third, fourth and hotel stages will gain access
via a new intersection from Currajong Street.
The western precinct is comprised of the proposed future combined aviation
museum and community centre and residential airpark area. Access to the
western museum will occur via Woodburn-Evans Head Road. This precinct
will be developed after the eastern precinct. The aviation museum will
relocate from the existing Bellman Hangar to the museum precinct.
Development consent will be required for the museum complex.
A final staging plan will be submitted for approval prior to any application for
any construction certificate.
Museum
Whilst it is intended the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Heritage Aviation
Association be the principle user of the Museum, the complex will be available
for other museum groups within the Evans Head area to take up residence
within the museum building. Other community groups will also be invited to
utilise shared areas with other community groups within the building. The
men’s shed group will also be able to move to the museum site. It is not the
intention for the site to be the sole bastion of any one group.
An architect’s impression of the museum complex is shown in Figure 8 and
Figure 9
Page 23
Figure 8: Museum Concept – Aerial Perspective
Figure 9: Museum Concept – Ground Perspective
Page 24
Community Title Scheme
The development will be subdivided and managed as a Community
Development Scheme. The airfield and its curtilages will be held within a
common lot parcel (Lot 1) whilst the hangar homes, industrial sites, hotel,
museum and wetlands will each have their own parcel and separate title.
As the project will be staged, development precincts will be created and
registered with NSW Land and Property Information. The scheme will have
an overarching management plan.
Each hangar-home lot will have an individual Torrens Title. These will be
available for sale. Restrictive building covenants will be created under Section
88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The covenants will control the
characteristics of the buildings to ensure the design and construction
standards are appropriate for the development.
A sinking fund will be established to pay for ongoing management and
maintenance. The fund will be funded via levies imposed on each of the lots
within the scheme. The levy will be proportionate to each lot’s unit entitlement.
Page 25
Previous Development
Consents
2.6.1
DA 2011/223 Retirement Village,
Subdivision and Childcare Centre
Development consent was issued for DA2011/223 for the development of an
Integrated Retirement Village including Community Complex, a childcare
centre and the subdivision of Lot 1 in DP 1193927 to create 24 residential
lots. The consent was issued by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)
on the 15th March 2012 (JRPP, 2012).
A Section 96 amendment to the consent was approved by Richmond Valley
Council at an ordinary meeting on 19th February 2013 (RVC, 2013).
It is understood contracts have been exchanged with RSL LifeCare Limited
for the residue lot (RVC, 2012).
The land is held as Lot 1 in DP 1193927 with current title held by Richmond
Valley Council.
2.6.2
DA 2011-097 Remediation Works
Grant funding by the Federal government of $1,625,200.00 together with
additional funds of $1,923,600.00 was used for the remediation of part of the
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome site (RVC, 2013).
Development consent was issued for DA 2010-097 for remediation works at
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome by the JRPP on 18th January 2011.
The development was for the proposed remediation of identified
contamination across parts of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome and
former Council Depot. The contaminated materials were to be excavated to
a nominated depth and transported to Vacant Industrial Land (VIL) northwest
of the remediation area. Soils were to be stockpiled according to level or
nature of contaminates. Once materials have been determined suitable for
industrial land use, the materials will be spread across the VIL for future site
development (JRPP, 2011).
Page 26
Existing Environment
Site Location
The land is located on Lot 3 in DP 1217074. This lot comprises the entire
aerodrome site.
Lot 1 in DP 1193927 located to the immediate southeast and bounded by the
Woodburn-Evans Head Road, Curragong Street and Memorial Airport Drive,
was originally part of the site until it was excised from the parent parcel.
Council intends to sell a strip of land with frontage to Curragong Street as
individual residential allotments. Council intends to dispose of the remaining
residue when opportune.
The proposed development site is located along the Woodburn-Evans Head
Road approximately 1.5 km north-west of the centre of Evans Head. Specific
details of the subject land are included in Table 1 (p27).
Table 1: Site Identification
ASPECT
DESCRIPTION
Site Owner
Richmond Valley Council
Site Address
Memorial Airport Drive, Evans Head
Lot / Section / DP
3 / 1217074
Town / City
Evans Head
Parish
Riley
County
Richmond
LGA
Richmond Valley
Approximate Site Area
185 Ha
Current Zoning *
RU1 Primary Production and E3 Environmental
Management
Current Use
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome
Site Information Sourced from ACS Title Search
* Zoning under Richmond Valley LEP (2012)
The existing memorial aerodrome site is characterised by World War II
aviation infrastructure, including four runways, associated taxi-way and
aprons as well as a number of hangars, including a recently restored Bellman
Hangar.
Vegetation is extensively present within the site, with large patches of native
heath vegetation located within the northern half of the site, with patches
extending across the southern half of the site in areas not occupied by
aviation infrastructure.
Page 27
The site is bound by the Woodburn-Evans Head Road and Currajong Street
on the south-western and south-eastern sides respectively. Land to the north,
north-west and east of the site has been identified as the northern extents of
the Broadwater National Park.
Existing Activities & Land Use
3.2.1
Surrounding Area
Broadwater National Park is the dominate landuse to the west, north and east
of the aerodrome.
Richmond Valley Council’s landfill and wastewater treatment plant are located
to the immediate northeast of the site (1/605097 and 10/1075394).
Crown Land is located on the eastern boundary (2/1012063, 7094/1113512
and 7019/1051692) followed by Broadwater-Evans Head Road.
Land use is residential from the southern end of the national park on
Broadwater-Evans Head Road (near Camp Koinonia). This residential
landuse continues south along Broadwater-Evans Head Road and west
along the southern side of Currajong Street to Woodburn-Evans Head Road.
Airforce Beach lies approximately 550 metres from the aerodrome’s eastern
boundary.
An industrial estate is located to the southeast of the aerodrome. The sole
public access to the aerodrome is via Memorial Airport Drive. Access within
the industrial estate being from to the industrial is via Memorial Airport Drive.
A vacant land parcel is located to the immediate south of Memorial Airport
Drive. The parcel was the former works depot for Richmond Valley Council.
Remediation works have occurred on the site. Development consent has
been issued for the development of a retirement village. A strip of land along
the Currajong Street frontage has being developed for residential use.
Both the vacant land parcel and the industrial estate were excised from the
original the aerodrome land parcel.
The aerodrome’s southern boundary is bounded by Woodburn-Evans Head
Road. The land located on the southern side of Woodburn-Evans Head Road
forms part of the Broadwater National Park or is held by the NSW Aboriginal
Land Council.
Peri-urban land holdings are located on the southwest perimeter of the
aerodrome.
Page 28
Physical Environment
3.3.1
Topography
The subject site is identified as falling within the Coastal lowlands (on weak
sedimentary rocks with littoral alluvial plains) of the Clarence Lowlands
region. The area consists of moderately weathered bedrock (>50%) (2050%). The topography range is approximately 330-335m ASL AHD (CSIRO
2006).
3.3.2
Soils and Geology
3.3.2.1 Soils
The topsoil within the local area is generally described as brownish grey
coarse loamy sand. The sub soil contrastingly is described as being
comprised of a white / light grey coarse sand. The site is deemed to be
impacted by acid-sulfate soil as both the subsoil and topsoil are identified as
being naturally moderately-highly acidic with a pH of approximately 4.2 and
4.4 respectively (CSIRO, 2006). The soil within the area is generally
described as being a Rudosol (NSW OEH, 2014c).
3.3.2.2 Geology
The subject site is identified as falling within the Cunningham Slopes, of the
New England Moreton Uplands Province (CSIRO, 2006). Specifically the
subject site is generally identified as being situated on marine, barrier and
estuarine sediments, some with veneer of undifferentiated alluvial deposits
(sand, silt, clay and gravel). These formations include estruarine basin and
channel, intertidal, back-barrier, washover and tidal delta deposits and
organic swamp deposits (Dept. of Mines, 1971).
3.3.3
Climate
The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) automatic weather station (AWS)
to the subject site that contains historic temperature averages is located at
Evans Head RAAF Bombing Range (station number 058212). Validated data
is currently available from this station since records began in 1998-2014
(Bureau of Meteorology, 2014). This site is located approximately 8
kilometres from the proposed subject site.
Page 29
3.3.3.1 Temperature
A graph displaying the monthly fluctuations in mean daily minimum and mean
daily maximum temperatures at the Evans Head RAAF Bombing Range AWS
is shown in Figure 10. The average annual maximum daily air temperature
ranges between 20.4 ºC and 31.0ºC, and the average annual minimum daily
air temperature ranges between 18.7ºC and 26.1ºC (Bureau of Meteorology,
2014).
Temperature (°C)
Temperature Range - Evans Head (Station 058212)
Mean Temp
Daily Max. Temperature
Daily Min. Temperature
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Mean Temp
28.1
27.7
26.7
24.4
21.8
19.7
19.5
21.1
24.0
25.3
26.1
27.7
Daily Max. Temperature
29.9
30.0
28.6
25.8
23.3
20.9
20.4
24.1
26.9
27.6
29.1
31.0
Daily Min. Temperature
26.0
26.1
25.1
21.9
20.9
18.7
18.9
19.7
22.1
23.0
24.2
25.0
Figure 10: Mean Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperatures
3.3.3.2 Rainfall
A graph displaying both the mean monthly rainfall and the median monthly
rainfall at Evans Head RAAF Bombing Range AWS is shown in Figure 11.
The rainfall experienced at Evans Head RAAF Bombing Range AWS can be
described as high, as the mean annual rainfall for this AWS is 1467.4
mm/year, the median rainfall is 1464.4 mm/year and the rainfall is
predominantly summer rainfall (Bureau of Meteorology, 2014).
Figure 11: Mean Monthly Rainfall
Page 30
3.3.4
Service Infrastructure
3.3.4.1 Water Supply
Based upon a review of the servicing information provided to MHC by RVC,
water reticulation to the nearby existing industrial and residential
developments is provided via one of the following water mains are located at
or near the site:

Memorial Airport Drive – A 150 mm diameter water main is located
in the northern portion of the road reserve of Memorial Airport Drive.
This water extends into the development site and terminates at the
existing water metre adjacent to the tarmac / hanger area. The
industrial area adjoining Memorial Airport Drive and the residential
area to the south are both serviced via an existing 100 mm main.

Woodburn-Evans Head Road – A 200 mm diameter water main is
located in the northern portion of the road reserve of WoodburnEvans Head Road along the frontage of the proposed ‘museum’
site. It is noted that this main is owned by ‘Rous Water’; and

Broadwater-Evans Head Road / Flame Street – A 150 mm diameter
water main is located in the eastern portion of the road reserve of
Broadwater-Evans Head Road. The residential area to the east of
Broadwater-Evans Head Road / Flame Street is serviced via an
existing 100 mm main.
3.3.4.2 Sewerage
Based upon a review of the servicing information provided to MHC by RVC
sewage from the existing industrial and residential developments located
within the vicinity of the development site is conveyed to the Evans Head
Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) via one of the following rising sewer
mains are located at or near the site:

A 300 mm diameter rising sewer (pressure) main traverses middle
of the site. The main runs from Woodburn-Evans Head Road to the
Evans Head Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) adjoining the
site to the north;

The industrial estate immediately to the south of the site is serviced
via a 150mm gravity main which discharges at a sewerage pump
station located along Currajong Street. Sewerage is then conveyed
via a 300 mm diameter rising sewer main which connects to the
rising main traversing the site and then discharges at the WWTF
located to the north; and
Page 31

Sewerage generated within the nearby residential land to the south
and east of the site is conveyed to a pump station located adjacent
to Pine Lane. Sewerage is then pumped via a 200 mm diameter
rising main situated in the western portion of the Broadwater-Evans
Head Road / Flame Street the road reserve to the WWTF located
to the north.
3.3.4.3 Stormwater Drainage
Based upon a review of the servicing information provided to MHC by RVC,
management of the stormwater generated within vicinity of the nearby
existing industrial and residential developments is provided via one of the
following water mains are located at or near the site:

Stormwater generated within the region west of the tarmac area and
the residential area to the south is conveyed via a combination of
overland and channel flows and is discharged at the existing
headwall and associated culvert located within Woodburn-Evans
Head Road. Stormwater is then directed via an existing open
channel through Lot 543 in DP 48550 and discharging into the
Evans River via an un-named drainage line;

The north western portion of the site is deemed to drain via overland
flow towards the wetland area adjoining the Broadwater National
Park.; and

Stormwater generated within the eastern of the site is conveyed via
a combination of overland and channel flows and is discharged at
the existing headwall and associated culvert located within
Broadwater-Evans Head Road. Stormwater is then directed via an
un-named drainage line (located within Lot 469 in DP 755624) and
is then discharged in to the Pacific Ocean at Airforce Beach.
Stormwater generated within the existing tarmac areas, adjoining industrial
estate and parts of the residential area to the south east and east is conveyed
via channel flows and is discharged at the existing headwall and associated
culvert located at the intersection of Currajong Street and Broadwater-Evans
Head Road / Flame Street. Stormwater is then directed via an un-named
drainage line (located within Lot 7040 in DP 1052589) and is then discharged
in to the Pacific Ocean at Airforce Beach.
Page 32
3.3.4.4 Telecommunications
A review of the available ‘Dial-Before-You-Dig’ plans indicates that, at
present, there is extensive telecommunication infrastructure exists within the
local area.
All telecommunication services will be provided via the extension of the
existing telecommunication infrastructure located within the vicinity of the site.
A suitably qualified consultant will be engaged to undertake the necessary
telecommunication design upon the issue of Development Consent.
Subsequent confirmation that a suitable telecommunications supply is
available for each lot will be obtained from Telstra/NBN following the
construction of the infrastructure and forwarded to Council.
3.3.4.5 Electricity
present, there is extensive electricity infrastructure exists within the local area.
It is our understanding that at present electricity power supply is supplied to
the site and nearby industrial lands via overhead reticulation. However, future
electrical servicing will be provided via underground reticulation.
electrical design upon the issue of Development Consent. Subsequent
confirmation that suitable electrical services are available for the development
will be obtained from Essential Energy following the construction of the
infrastructure and forwarded to Council.
3.3.4.6 Natural Gas
present, there is no existing natural gas connections located within the
development site. As such, no allowance has been made to supply the
development with reticulated gas.
3.3.5
Road Network and Traffic
The proposed development site has frontage to both Woodburn-Evans Head
Road and Currajong Street. It is proposed that an access point will be made
available off each of these roads.
3.3.5.1 Woodburn-Evans Head Road
Woodburn-Evans Head Road runs along the southern boundary of the site. It
is single lane in both directions and operates under a posted speed limit of
50km/h increasing to 80km/h outside the urban area.
Page 33
3.3.5.2 Currajong Street
Currajong Street also runs along the southern boundary of the site and
connects with Woodburn-Evans Head Road at a roundabout. It is single lane
in both directions and operates under a posted speed limit of 50km/h.
3.3.5.3 Daily Traffic Flows
Data on traffic flow was collected by Seca Solutions on Woodburn-Evans
Head road. Surveys were conducted between 7.30 am and 9.30 am and 2.30
pm and 6.00 pm on the 12th December 2014. Peak flow was recorded as 266
vehicles per hour. It was calculated that daily flows would be approximately 2
700 vehicles per day.
3.3.6
Noise
At present, Evans Head is a low movement aerodrome. The Great Eastern
Fly-In occurs every January and is a two-and-a-half day event that celebrates
the World War II heritage of the aerodrome.
3.3.6.1 ANEF Contours and Planning Controls
The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) is a complex average of
annual aircraft movements. The average is based on a rating of each aircraft
event which occurs in a year, with noise adjustments applied to movements
which occur outside the period 07:00-19:00 hours.
ANEF contours with a value higher than 25 are considered incompatible with
residential development, whilst areas below 20 are considered acceptable for
residential development. Between 20 and 25, residential developments
should only be permitted with the incorporation of suitable noise reduction
features.
The boundary of the south-eastern area which is currently zoned residential
is approximately 60 metres outside the 20 ANEF contour. Per the Australian
Standard AS 2021, development, which is compatible with the area’s existing
zoning would be permissible.
3.3.6.2 Existing Noise Levels
Ambient noise monitoring between the 27th February 2015 and the 9th March
2015 occurred at three locations within the aerodrome to establish the existing
noise environment. The summary of measure noise levels are shown in Table
2
Page 34
Table 2: Summary of Measured Noise Levels during Whole Monitoring Period
NOISE
DESCRIPTOR
LAMAX
LAeq, 15 minute
Average
LA10, 15 minute
Average
LA90, 15 minute
10th percentile
Average
RBL
TIME
PERIOD
MONITORING
LOCATION 1
MONITORING
LOCATION 2
MONITORING
LOCATION 3
91.2
24-hour
79.3
102.8
Day (7am
to 6pm)
50.0
58.2
49.2
Evening
(6pm to
10pm)
47.9
50.0
44.6
Night
(10pm to
7am)
47.5
44.3
44.6
Day (7am
to 6pm)
50.7
52.0
48.9
Evening
(6pm to
10pm)
49.4
54.1
46.6
Night
(10pm to
7am)
49.7
44.5
44.4
Day (7am
to 6pm)
35.4
33.0
34.8
Evening
(6pm to
10pm)
37.3
38.5
37.5
Night
(10pm to
7am)
36.1
38.1
37.7
Day (7am
to 6pm)
38.9
39.6
39.1
Evening
(6pm to
10pm)
38.4
39.8
38.9
Night
(10pm to
7am)
38.9
39.6
39.3
Page 35
LAeq, 15 minute is considered to be the best descriptor for human perception of
sound pressure level over each monitoring period. The difference between
the monitoring locations was 0.3-9 dB(A) depending on the time of day.
Flight movements during the monitoring period were recorded with their time
of arrival or departure, runaway and type of craft. The noise level for each
aircraft movement was also recorded – refer Appendix D.
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework states that Zoning for noisesensitive development should be avoided where ultimate capacity or long
range noise modelling for the airport indicates either:

20 or more daily LASmax events greater than 70 dB(A);

50 or more daily LASmax events greater than 65 dB(A); or

100 events or more daily LASmax events of greater than 60 dB(A)
It was determined that the current flight operations as measured at site
comply with the above National Airports Safeguarding Framework criteria.
3.3.7
Ecology
Peter Parker Environment Consultants Pty Ltd (PPEC) was engaged to
undertake a Flora and Fauna Assessment of the site. The report is contained
in Appendix E.
Previous site assessments were undertaken by Peter Parker in 2001, 2004
and 2010 and by Geolink in 2010 (PPEC, 2014).
3.3.7.1 Field Surveys
Field surveys were undertaken by PPEC over four (4) days in May 2014.
Vegetation was surveyed using meandering transects.
The adopted vegetation classification system was Keith’s Open Shores to
Desert Dunes: the native vegetation of NSW and the ACT (2004) and Walker
and Hopkins’s Vegetation in Australian soil and land survey field (1990).
The Biometric Vegetation Classification for the Northern Rivers Catchment
Management Area includes a vegetation type identification code. The
following features were recorded:

Dominant trees, shrubs and ground covers in each strata;

Major plant species in the association;

Tree heights and foliage cover; and

Any threatened species.
Page 36
Fauna surveys included the trapping and database review based on the
vegetation recorded at the site and relevant local records. Threatened
species known in the area were targeted in the fauna survey.
The surveys were undertaken over four (4) nights from 19th to 23rd May 2014.
Hair-tube trapping occurred over ten (10) nights between 19th and 30th May
2014.
The survey methods used include:

Mist nets and acoustical detection devices were set in flyways for
megachiropteran and microchiropteran bats;

“A” and “B” Elliott traps and cage traps were set in a variety of forest
types and ecotones. The “B” Elliott traps were attached to trees
using tree-brackets or placed in log piles;

Hair-tube traps and spotlighting was used in association with other
survey methods to identify the presence of larger vertebrates. Ten
(10) hair-tube traps were also set in trees to attract blossom bats.
These were baited with peanut butter, oats and honey and sprayed
daily with a sugar solution;

Pit-fall traps were used to capture small mammals, frogs and
reptiles; and

Trail cameras were set up along transect lines and near bait
stations. A variety of meat and vegetable baits were used to attract
fauna.
Survey methods and trap locations are depicted in Figure 12.
Reptiles were searched for opportunistically in suitable habitats (e.g. among
leaf litter and under logs). Frogs were identified by call, pit-fall captures or
observations. Survey locations included creek-lines, ponding adjacent to the
runway and roadside drains (refer Figure 16).
Birds were identified visually and aurally during post-dawn and evening
transects. Transects of approximately 40 minutes duration were undertaken
each morning.
Birds were also recorded during the vegetation and fauna survey and follow
up surveys. Play-back calls were used to identify the presence of cryptic or
nocturnal species. Calls of the masked owl, grass owl, powerful owl, bush hen
and bush stone curlew were broadcast shortly after dusk on each survey
night. Calls of the ground parrot were broadcast in the north of the site on
sunset. Calls were broadcast over a 15 minute period in sequences of
approximately three minutes on and two minutes off.
Page 37
The mammal survey used a spotlight, Elliott “A” and “B” traps, hair-tube traps,
cage traps, harp-nets, mist nets, ultrasonic detection devices (Anabat II and
Songmeter), play-back calls (for birds) and collections of scats and skeletons.
Trail cameras were also used as were pit-fall traps
Nocturnal searching using a hand-held 100-watt spotlight was undertaken
along the trap-line transects and along tracks within and around the site over
four (4) nights. Spotlighting from a vehicle was also carried out using two
observers along the airport runway, tracks and local road network.
Opportunistic daytime litter searching occurred for scats, skeletons, reptiles,
frogs and skinks. Survey sites included roadside drains, under logs and
amongst litter along tracks. Surveys also included searches for koala scats
under forest redgum Eucalyptus tereticornis, a recognised koala food tree.
Megachiropteran and microchiropteran bats were searched for using harpnets, mist nets, ultrasonic detection devices (Anabat II and Songmeter) and
a spotlight. Three (3) Anabat II detection devices and one (1) Songwriter were
used to record bat ultrasound in a variety of habitats which included potential
flyways over banksia and paperbark shrubland and open grassland. This
effort is equivalent to 16 acoustical detector nights (i.e. 4 nights x 4 detection
devices). One of the detectors was used as a hand-held device during the
spotlight transects and then set in a stationery location for the remainder of
the night. Bat calls were recorded onto a digital flash card for later analysis.
Spotlighting for microchiropteran bats and flying-foxes as well as other fauna
species was undertaken in potential food trees and by call identification over
four (4) nights for approximately two hours/night.
Call detection for frogs was undertaken opportunistically.
Fish surveys were undertaken in a small stream located south of the site using
baited fish traps and a dip net (referFigure 13). Traps were spaced at 10 to
30 metre intervals along the drainage line which commences under the
Woodburn-Evans Head Road. Eight (8) fish traps were set on 19th May 2014
and retrieved on 20th May 2014. Native fish were retrieved, identified and
released back into the creek.
A previous survey at this location (Parker 2010) used ten (10) fish traps over
three (3) nights from 6th to 8th December 2010. On the 2010 survey, traps
were inspected each morning (7th, 8th and 9th December 2010), rebaited and
native fish were retrieved, identified and released back into the creek.
Page 38
Figure 12: Fauna Survey Methods & Locations
Page 39
Figure 13: Fish Survey and Location of Baited Fish Traps
Page 40
3.3.7.2 Flora
PPEC has identified seven (7) vegetation associations in three (3)
communities. These communities are:

Woodland;

Shrubland; and

Grassland.
The location of the vegetation associations is depicted in Figure 14.
The Woodland consists of:

A 6.8 ha area of broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca
quinquenervia), heath-leaf banksia (Banksia ericifolia var.
macrantha) and wallum banksia (Banksia aemula). These plants
are typically located in areas with a high watertable and along
drainage lines though they were located throughout the site. The
broad-leafed paperbark is a common species and this association
is locally common and conserved in both the Broadwater and
Bundjalung National Parks.

A small area (0.16 ha) of forest redgum (Eucalyptus tereticornis)
located on the edge of the runway. Forest redgum is locally
important as a koala food tree although no evidence of the koala
(observations, scats or scratches) was recorded at the site.

Two areas of swamp box (Lophostemon suaveolens), forest
redgum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and broad-leaved paperbark
(Melaleuca quinquenervia) are located on the site. A 1.7 ha area
located north of the airport runway and a 2 ha area within the
proposed eastern development precinct (2 ha). Swamp box, like
broad-leaved paperbark, is a common floodplain species. The 2 ha
component of this association supports several mature forest
redgum which were not represented elsewhere at the site. No
evidence of koala occurring in this association was observed.
Mature forest redgum are well represented locally at Iron Gates
located several kilometres to the south of the site and adjacent to
the Evans River.
Page 41
The Shrubland is tall open shrubland and consists of:

A 5.3 ha area of Brush iron-bark wattle (Acacia disparrima subsp.
Disparrima)
and
broad-leaved
paperbark
(Melaleuca
quinquenervia). Brush iron-bark wattle is a common regrowth
species in the Evans Head locality being recorded mainly along the
coast and extending north from the Bellinger River into Queensland.
This species occurs in woodland, wet sclerophyll forest, on margins
of rainforest and behind coastal sand dunes. This association is
scattered throughout the site, particularly along the runway margins
and along the Woodburn-Evans Head Road. It is particularly
common locally.

A 98 ha area of heath-leaf banksia, broad-leaved paperbark,
(Melaleuca nodosa), prickly tea tree within mid-high open
shrubland.
The northern part of the site has not experienced bushfire for over a decade
and the southern part of the site for a considerably longer period.
Page 42
Figure 14: Vegetation Associations
Page 43
Plants and vegetation of conservation
significance
No threatened plant species or Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)
was recorded at the site.
The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) Wildlife Atlas maps a
number of threatened plant species within five (5) kilometres of the site:

Heath wrinklewort (Rutidosis heterogama), grows mostly in heath,
often along disturbed roadsides. It occurs chiefly in coastal districts
from Maclean to the Hunter Valley, and inland to Torrington. It is a
small perennial herb to 30 cm tall, with a woody base bearing
sparse upright, or sometimes horizontal, branches with upright
shoots at the end. This is a relatively conspicuous species which
occurs in the Yuraygir and Bundjalung National Parks. It may
potentially occur but was not recorded during the survey;

Needle-leaf fern (Belvisia mucronata). This species is epiphytic or
lithophytic in rainforest or along creeks in moist open forest. Usually
found in small clumps on trees or rocks in rainforest. It is unlikely to
occur at the site due to the absence of rainforest;

Red-flowered king of the fairies (Oberonia titania). This species is a
small orchid which grows on trees and rocks. It occurs in littoral and
subtropical rainforest, paperbark swamps, and eucalypt-forested
gorges and mangroves. This species could potentially occur in the
broad-leaved paperbark association; and

Water nut grass (Cyperus aquatilis), occurs north from Evans Head
and grows in ephemerally wet areas. Suitable habitat occurs in the
north of the site in the area mapped prickly tea tree, zig-zag bog
rush.
Page 44
3.3.7.3 Fauna
PPEC states that threatened fauna species are well represented in the Evans
Head locality due to the presence of habitats of high conservation value (e.g.
Broadwater and Bundjalung National Parks).
Reptiles and Amphibians
Few reptiles were recorded at the site in the 2014 survey or on previous
surveys. This result is somewhat problematic as the habitats at the site are
suitable for a wide range of species. Two (2) species; the eastern grass skink
(Lampropholis delicata) were recorded in all vegetation associations but were
not abundant and the green tree snake (Dendrelaphis punctulata), was
recorded in the broad-leaved paperbark woodland.
Four (4) frog species were recorded in the 2014 survey. These were the
common froglet (Crinia signifera), the rocket frog (Litoria nasuta), the northern
banjo frog (Limnodynastes terraereginae) and the introduced cane toad
(Chaunus marinus).
Suitable habitat for the wallum sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis) and the
wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) was recorded north of the site where these
species were recorded by Parker (2001). However, neither of these species
were detected during the 2014 survey.
Birds
The site supported large numbers honeyeaters due to the prolific blossoming
of heath-leaf banksia and broad-leaved paperbark. Common species
included the noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus), the white-throated
honeyeater (Melithreptus Albogularis), the brush wattlebird (Anthochaera
chrysoptera), the brown honeyeater (Lichmera indistincta) and Lewin's
honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii).
Characteristic “open country” species included the rainbow lorikeet
(Trichoglossus haematodus), the scaly-breasted lorikeet (Trichoglossus
chlorolepiotus), the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen), and the torresian
crow (Corvus orru). Richard’s pipit (Anthus richardi) was common on the
grassland adjacent to the airport runways as was the masked lapwing
(Vanellus miles).
A number of raptors were recorded on most survey days. These included the
Australian kestrel (Falco cenchroides) and the vulnerable square-tailed kite
(Lophoictinia isura).
Bird abundance and species-richness is expected to vary throughout the
year. However, the peak of honeyeater activity was noted during the May
2014 survey due to the proliferation of flowering trees and shrubs.
Page 45
Severable vulnerable bird species have previously been recorded adjacent to
the site in 2001. One additional species, the square-tailed kite was recorded
during the 2014 survey.
Mammals
The 2001 and 2014 surveys included trapping for small and medium size
mammals, spotlighting and call detection.
Two (2) large macropods, the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)
and the swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolor), were recorded grazing at the site
in previous surveys (Parker 2001; 2004) and both were recorded in the 2014
survey.
The Elliott, cage and pit-fall traps all yielded poor results in 2014. The bush
rat (Rattus fuscipes) was the only species of small mammal captured and was
captured in Elliott traps along both transects. However, only nine (9)
individuals were captured over the entire survey period. The cage traps failed
to capture any fauna despite the presence of the long-nosed bandicoot
(Perameles nasuta), being detected by the fauna camera and the northern
brown bandicoot (Isoodon macrourus) in hair-tune traps.
The swamp wallaby, northern brown bandicoot and the grasslands melomys
(Melomys burtoni) were recorded using hair-tube traps.
Koalas
The koala is known within the study area, particularly at Iron Gates to the
south of the site. However, it was not recorded during any of the Parker fauna
surveys and no evidence of scats was detected under forest redgum (a koala
food tree). Spotlighting was unsuccessful in detecting any arboreal mammals.
Bats
A total of 848 recognisable calls were recorded throughout the 2014 survey.
Ten (10) bat species were identified. They include:

Long-eared bat (Nyctophilus sp.);

Eastern broad-nosed bat (Scotorepens orion);

Eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis);

Eastern forest bat (Vespadelus pumilus);

Eastern horse-shoe bat (Rhinolophus megaphyllus);

Gould’s wattled bat (Chalinolobus gouldii);

Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);

Little bent-wing bat (Miniopterus australis);

Little broad-nosed bat (Scotorepens greyii); and
Page 46

Little forest bat (Vespadelus vulturnus).
Three bat species recorded in 2014 are listed as vulnerable.
3.3.7.4 Fish
Fish species were recorded downstream from the study site on the
southern side of Woodburn-Evans Head Road (refer Figure 13).
Three (3) fish species were recorded in the 2010 survey and two (2) species
in the 2014 survey. The introduced mosquito fish, which was recorded in the
2010 survey, is listed as a threatening process pursuant to the Threatened
Species Conservation Act.
The striped gudgeon (Gobiomorphus australis) and the firetail gudgeon
(Hypseleotris galii) are both relatively common native species in east coast
Australian freshwater streams. Their presence suggests that the habitat
quality is high. These species are found in habitats where the Oxleyan pygmy
perch may occur.
The Oxleyan pygmy perch was recorded in 1998 and 1999 in a small drain
near the Woodburn-Evans Head Road. A more intensive survey of this area
in 2000 resulted in the capture of 566 pygmy perch from 25 water bodies in
and around Broadwater National Park. Surveys undertaken in 2001-02
recorded seven new locations close to Broadwater and Bundjalung National
Parks, including some on private property and on Aboriginal land.
While the Oxleyan pygmy perch was not recorded during the fish survey
conducted for this proposal, this may be explained by population fluctuations
rather than lack of habitat suitability. For example, the Oxleyan pygmy perch
was recorded in Lake Hiawatha, Tick Gate, Swamp and Wooli Creeks in the
1970s, but not again in those area until 1995 (NSW DPI, 2005). Similarly, it
was recorded in Blue Lagoon on Moreton Island in 1976, then not again until
2000, despite surveys in 1982, 1990 and 1993 (NSW DPI, 2005).
PPEC refers to an illustration within a report prepared by Geolink in 2010. The
report was for the ecological assessment for the Remediation Works at Evans
Head Aerodrome. This illustration shows the local distribution of known,
potential and unlikely Oxleyan pygmy perch habitat. The illustration is
reproduced herein as Figure 15.
Page 47
Figure 15: Local distribution of known, potential and unlikely Oxleyan pygmy perch
habitat
Page 48
3.3.7.5 Recorded Threatened Species
The surveys undertaken by Parker in 2001, 2004 and 2014 recorded the
following threatened species:

Two (2) frogs: the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) and the wallum
sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis);

Six (6) birds: the bush-hen (Amaurornis olivaceus) the glossy black
cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), the osprey (Pandion
haliaetus), the ground parrot (Pezoporus wallicus) the eastern
grass owl (Tyto capensis) the square-tailed kite (Lophoictinia isura);
and

Seven (7) bats: the hoary bat (Chalinolobus nigrogriseus), the little
bent-wing bat (Miniopteris australis), the large-footed myotis
(Myotis adversus), the yellow-the bellied sheath-tail bat
(Saccolaimus flaviventris), the eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus
tasmaniensis), the grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)
and the common blossom bat (Syconycteris australis).
The common planigale (Planigale maculate), was recorded on lands adjacent
to the aerodrome in 1998 and the endangered Oxleyan pygmy perch
(Nannoperca oxleyana) was recorded in 2000 in a drainage line south of the
Evans Head to Woodburn Road.
The locations of the recorded threatened species are depicted in Figure 16.
The number of threatened species is not surprising given that the Broadwater
National Park occurs within the study area.
Species recorded within the National Park but not within the site include the
ground parrot, the bush hen, the wallum froglet and the wallum sedgefrog.
Many of the species listed above are wide-ranging and were recorded while
passing over or through the site (e.g., the osprey, the square-tailed kite, the
glossy black cockatoo and the bats.
Moreover, the site does not provide critical habitat for any of the species
recorded during the 2001 or the 2014 fauna surveys. The habitat at the site
provides foraging sites, nesting sites, and sheltering sites and is part of a
larger area which includes the Broadwater and Bundjalung National Parks
and surrounding privately owned lands.
The Oxleyan pygmy perch was not recorded during the fish survey. This may
be explained by population fluctuations rather than lack of habitat suitability.
In NSW, the Oxleyan pygmy perch is recorded at sites with wide-ranging and
variable water quality.
Page 49
Figure 16: Threatened species recorded within study area
Page 50
Contamination
Several previous contamination reports have been carried out on the site. Mr.
Mark Imber of MTNKR Consulting was engaged to review previous reports
and identify any potential issues with the site.
3.4.1
Potentially Contaminating Activities
During the use of the aerodrome by the RAAF, several potentially
contaminating activities occurred, including:

10,000 gallon petrol tanks;

1,000 gallon oil tanks;

Petrol Bowser;

Incinerator;

Workshops;

Boiler house;

Pyrotechnics store;

Blacksmith; and

Armoury.
Following its use by the RAAF, the Richmond Valley Council took ownership
of the aerodrome in the 1950’s with parts of the site being utilised as a council
depot from 1983. During its use by council, potentially contaminating activities
include:

Vehicle storage;

Plant storage;

Offices;

Chemical storage – herbicides;

Paint and solvent storage;

Sand blasting;

Wash down bay;

Machinery workshop;

Bulk materials storage;

Machinery component storage;
Page 51

Pipeline storage;

Fuel storage and refuelling;

Waste oil storage; and

Temporary waste transfer location for construction materials.
A site walkover in 2005 by council noted the following:

Staining at the petrol bowsers, the waste oil handling area and the
historical waste oil area (southwest of the bowsers adjacent to the
workshop);

Pieces of timber, fill and concrete were stored at the boundary to
the airfield;

Surface water drainage lines were present at the site, leading the
water onto the Airfield Site;

The drainage network under the depot was connected to a sump
that had been used as general washdown for wastes such as oils,
solvents, paints etc at the depot. The sump was located at the
historical waste oil area to the southwest of the bowsers adjacent
to the workshop. The drainage network leads into the main drain
and goes into the SEPP14 Wetland;

Herbicides used were Round Up Bi Active (“frog friendly”); and

Stockpiles of road base material was stored on site.
Numerous site investigation reports and remediation plans have been carried
out for the site as seen in Table 3. The two primary testing areas were the
council depot with adjacent airfield which constitutes the ‘Aged Care Facility
Site’. The second area is the ‘Vacant Industrial Site’.
Page 52
Table 3: Summary of Site Investigations and Reports
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
RESULTS
RECOMMENDATION
PROPOSED AGED CARE FACILITY SITE
Richmond Valley Council, 2005
Preliminary InvestigationProvide background information
for further investigations

General site contaminants
Coffey, 2005
Phase 2 investigation and data
gap analysis

Identify remnant explosive
ordinance through digital
imaging
Coffey, 2007
Phase 2 Remedial Site
Investigation- Develop Remedial
Action Plan to facilitate proposed
retirement village
Coffey, 2007
PAH fingerprinting analysisDetermine if neighbouring
quarry fill was source of elevated
PAH’s on site
Coffey, 2007
Discussion paper- risks posed to
human health and the
environment discussed
G-tek, 2005 and 2006

Potentially contaminating
landuse had occurred
Further investigations through
intrusive sampling
Unavailable for review


Unexploded ordinance
(UXO)

No UXO were identified
No further UXO investigation
required

Hydrocarbons, PAH’s,
heavy metals, Acid Sulfate
Soils, pesticides

Contamination identified
Remediation suggested.

The quarry fill was
determined to not be the
source of elevated PAH’s on
site. It appears that coal-tar
used on site is responsible
for PAH’s.

PAH


Risks generally low to
moderate. Highest risk was
considered to be to aquatic
ecosystems
N/A
Site Management Plan should
be developed
Page 53
Coffey, 2007
Coffey, 2007
Coffey, 2007
Coffey, 2007
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
Provide management strategies
for the short-term
Remedial Option PaperDiscussion of most likely
remediation options
Review of previous
investigations and site history.
Remedial Option Paper- In
depth analysis and cost analysis
of remediation options




RESULTS
N/A

Four primary options:

Offsite disposal of soil

Capping of soil

Encapsulation of soil

Management of soil onsite

Hotspots of contamination
related to various sources
and landowners

Four options identified:

Whole site remediation

Fit for purpose remediation

Management and some
remediation

Minimal remediation and
manage risks
RECOMMENDATION
General site management
techniques such as dust
suppression, asbestos
clearance, excavation and soil
management
N/A
N/A
Off-site disposal of hot spots and
accessible soil and
management of residual
contamination was determined
to be best cost to benefit
Page 54
Environmental Management
Plan- Provide practical
management strategies to
protect users of the site in the
short term
Coffey, 2007
Further PAH fingerprinting
analysis- Determine if coal tar is
likely source of PAH
Coffey, 2007
HLA ENSR, 2008
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
Stage 2 environmental
investigations- Assess soil,
groundwater and surface water
contamination

Hydrocarbons

PAHs

Heavy metals

Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides

PAHs

Hydrocarbons

PAHs

Heavy metals

Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides
RESULTS

Shallow PAH contamination
above HILs present in some
locations.

Hotspots of lead and copper
above HILs present in north
west section of vacant land

Scattered asbestos cement
present

Hotspot contamination likely
near former USTs,
workshops and stores

Heavy metals, petroleum,
and pesticides above HILs
present in drainage lines

Both samples were coal tar
derived. The tarry material
contained no coal tar.
N/A
A more complete
understanding of the
contamination present was
gained
N/A


ENSR, 2009
Underground Storage Tank
removal
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Excavation where tanks
were known to be located
occurred. Evidence
suggested tanks had been
removed previously
N/A
Pit was left open to assist in
natural attenuation
Page 55
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
ENSR, 2009
Waste classification of insitu
material at location of sandblasting

Heavy metals
ENSR, 2009
Screening trials- Attempt to
reduce volume of material by
screening PAH material from
sands

PAH

Soils, pesticides

Soils, pesticides
ENSR/AECOM, 2009
AECOM, 2010
Stage 2 Environmental
Investigation- Assess extent of
contamination identified by
Coffey
Remedial Action Plan
RESULTS
RECOMMENDATION

Exceedances of EIL but no
exceedances of HIL.
Material may be suitable for fill
or disposal as general solid
waste

Screening PAH material was
unsuccessful
N/A

Contamination was identified
at the site
Land is not suitable for
residential landuse without
remediation or management. It
is recommended that a RAP be
compiled.

Several remediation options
were identified and
discussed
Primarily involved the
excavation of contaminated
material and removal.

Fill ranged from 0.1 metres
to 0.9 metres

Elevated copper and lead
found at former firing range

Elevated hydrocarbon levels
in one location

Elevated PAH levels at two
locations

Asbestos detected
Vacant Industrial Site
Coffey, 2005
Preliminary Contamination Site
Investigation- Identify potentially
contamination activities

General Site Contaminants
Additional sampling should
occur
Page 56
Coffey, 2007
ENSR, 2009
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessment- Undertake detailed
soil and groundwater
investigation
Supplemental Investigation and
Remedial Design- Assess the
extent of contamination
identified by Coffey
RESULTS

Elevated lead levels found at
former firing range

Elevated PAH levels were
found in surface soil
RECOMMENDATION

Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons identified

PAHs

Nitrocellulose was identified

Heavy metals


Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides
Elevated copper and
cadmium were identified in
groundwater

Ammonia was detected in all
wells

Elevated phosphorus in all
wells

Hydrocarbon hotspot

Elevated PAH’s

Elevated heavy metals
Additional groundwater
sampling

Asbestos sheeting identified
Development of RAP

Hydrocarbons

PAHs

Heavy metals

Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides
N/A
Additional sampling to assess
asbestos contamination
Page 57
CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
PURPOSE
RESULTS
RECOMMENDATION
Excavate, stockpile, classify and
dispose offsite soils that are
contaminated
AECOM, 2010
Manually remove asbestos
Remedial Action Plan- Set
remediation goals and identify
most appropriate action
N/A
N/A
Monitored Natural Attenuation
for hydrocarbons in groundwater
Develop an Environmental
Management Plan for heavy
metals in groundwater
AECOM, 2010
AECOM, 2011
Additional Supplemental
Investigation- An additional
untested section of land was
included in the industrial site
Updated Remedial Action Plan

Hydrocarbons

PAHs

Heavy metals

Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides

Hydrocarbons

PAHs

Heavy metals

Acid Sulfate Soils

Pesticides

Analysed samples were
below adopted criteria with
the exception of two
samples.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page 58
The previous site inspections have identified some portions of land are
contaminated to varying degrees.
Despite this, it is important to note that the Old Council Depot site and the
adjoining land to the south and south east are outside of the development
boundary. As such, no development will occur on this land.
3.4.2
Cultural Heritage
Reviews of World, Federal, State and Local Heritage databases and plans
have been consulted to identify and European or Indigenous heritage items
or places occurring in or adjacent to the proposal site.
3.4.2.1 Local Heritage
The Richmond Valley Local Environmental Plan 2012 has a list of identified
Heritage Items outlined in Schedule 5. Schedule 5 was consulted to
determine if there were any locally listed heritage items within the Evans Head
area. A total of seventeen (17) heritage places were identified, as detailed in
Table 4.
Table 4: Local Listed Heritage Places – Evans Head
HERITAGE PLACE
LOCATION
# Evans Head RAAF Aircraft Dispersal Site
Lot 503, DP 755624
Machine gun pit
Lot 481, DP 755624
“Rosolen” residence, former
Lot 14, DP 1001816
Evans Head Cemetery (including War
Cemetery)
Lot 7083, DP 1113395; Lot 7084, DP
1113386; Lot 7085, DP 1113389; Lot
7086, DP 1113391; Lot 7087, DP
1113392
Evans Head RAAF Fire Bell, (located at
entrance to Evans River K–12 School)
Lot 1, DP 1013194
Evans Head Fossil Coral
Crown land within bank of Evans River
and extending into Lot 139, DP 755624
“Paddon” Grave, iron gates
Lot 163, DP 831052
Evans Head Scout Hall
Lot 233, DP 755624
Evans Head Recreation Reserve, avenue of
pine trees and stands of paperbark trees
Lot 172, DP 755624; Lot 7303, DP
1136547; Lot 550, DP 1091080
Woodburn-Evans Head RSL Palm Tree,
adjacent to Club entrance on McDonald
Place
Lot 1, DP 315114
Page 59
HERITAGE PLACE
LOCATION
*Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome
(including runways, Bellman Hangar, timber
huts and machine gun pit)
Lot 141, DP 1067639
Illawong Hotel
Lot 8, DP 11489
Razor Back Lookout (including the
MacKinnon sandstone inscription)
Lot 7027, DP 1112996
Snowy Burns Cup (held within the Evans
Head Bowling Club)
Lot 1, DP 1148868
Evans Head Ambulance Station
Lot 433, DP 755624
Camp Koinonia former RAAF Cabins
Lot 1, DP 1044672
Evans Head Fire Station
Lot 3, Section 11, DP 758403
*
Listings within the proposed development site
#
Listings adjacent to the proposed development site
It is noted that the RAAF Aircraft Dispersal Site will not be impacted by the
proposed development.
3.4.2.2 State Heritage
Sites and places determined to be heritage items under the NSW Heritage
Act 1977 are listed on the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage NSW
Heritage Search Tool.
The search tool has been consulted for listings occurring within the Evans
Area. A single State listed heritage listing was returned for the Evans Head
Area – this being the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome. No other items of
State Heritage Significance in the Evans Head area have been identified.
Page 60
3.4.2.3 Federal Heritage
Sites and places determined to be heritage items under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are listed on the
Department of the Environment Australian Heritage Database. The database
has been consulted for listings occurring within the Evans Head area. Four
(4) commonwealth listed heritage places have been identified using the
search tool. The identified heritage places are outlined in Table 5.
Table 5: Commonwealth Listed Heritage Places – Evans Head
HERITAGE PLACE
SIGNIFICANCE
RELEVANT NOTES
Broadwater
National Park (1978
boundary) Pacific
Hwy
Natural – Register
of the National
Estate (Non
Statutory)
The sand plains of Broadwater National Park
stretching inland up to 10 km are of great
scientific interest in the study of the
geomorphology of the east coast. Research
has also been carried out on the paleobotany
of the area highlighting climatic change. There
is a great diversity of plant communities (five
scrub/heath, six swamp communities).
Indigenous Place
Indigenous–
Register of the
National Estate
(Non Statutory)
Limited details provided
Indigenous Place
Indigenous–
Register of the
National Estate
(Non Statutory)
Limited details provided
Natural– Register
of the National
Estate (Non
Statutory)
The Jerusalem Creek Area contains extensive
representations of coastal heath and scrub
vegetation and extensive swamp forest, as
well as a diversity of other vegetation types.
The area is valuable for its geological and
geomorphological features, distinctive
indigenous vegetation (mangroves,
sedgelands, heaths, woodlands, sclerophyll
forests) and pristine waterways.
Jerusalem Creek
Area
It should be noted that while the location of the two natural heritage items are
known (and do not occur within the proposed development area) the locations
of the indigenous listings have not been detailed. Indigenous Heritage is
discussed further in Section 3.4.2.5.
Page 61
3.4.2.4 World Heritage
Sites and Places deemed to be of world heritage significance are listed by the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNSECO).
The UNESCO World Heritage list was consulted to determine if there were
any listed heritage sites within the Evans Head area. It was determined that
there were no world heritage listings relevant to the Evans Head area.
3.4.2.5 Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Aboriginal sites within NSW are protected under the National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974 and National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009. Under this
Act, all Aboriginal objects are protected regardless of their significance or land
tenure. It also protects Aboriginal places that may or may not contain
Aboriginal objects.
This Act outlines the ‘Due Diligence’ process that serves to provide a
framework for identifying potential objects or sites of significance. This
process minimises the likelihood of Aboriginal objects or sites being damaged
or affected by development.
An Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database
search was undertaken on the 3rd February 2016. The search did not identify
any Aboriginal sites within a 200 metre radius of the proposed development
site. A copy of the search results is included in Appendix CAppendix A.
The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water Due
Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW
provides guidance as to when a cultural heritage consultant should be
engaged. The code details that proposed activities within 200 metres of
waters on land that is not disturbed land must be subject to specialist
assessment. The proposed development site is consistent with these criteria
and subsequently will be required to be subject to specialist assessment.
3.4.3
Coastal Surface Water
Evans Head township is part of the NSW Evans River Catchment. The Evans
River is a small coastal catchment of approximately 62 km2 and enters the
ocean at the township of Evans Head. Most of the catchment area is located
within the Bunjulung and Broadwater National Parks and is largely unmodified
(NSW Office of Water, 2010). Flows into the river during dry periods are
generally low. Daily tidal currents flush the lower reaches of the river and
results in generally good quality water near the river mouth (Hartley
Associates International, 2006). However, water quality can be affected by
the flow inputs from the Richmond River catchment via the Tuckombil Canal
upstream.
Page 62
The Evans River surface water is managed under the Water Sharing Plan for
the Richmond River Area Unregulated, Regulated and Alluvial Water Sources
2010. There are no surface water entitlements current for the subject site
under this Plan.
The subject site is positioned in the low-lying areas of the catchment, where
wetlands and flooding is prevalent. The topography of the subject site can be
classified as relatively flat with an average elevation of six (6) metres and
negligible slope.
Surface water from the airport site does not flow freely from the site. The
north-western corner of the site is an ephemeral wetland area that captures
runoff from the northern part of the site. The southern part of the site flows to
the south of the site to a low-lying area near Woodburn-Evans Head Road. In
the event of heavy rainfall and flood conditions, the site drains to the Evans
River to the south of the site.
3.4.4
Wetlands
There is a wetland located to the north of the development site. This will
remain outside the development footprint with no plans to alter or encroach
upon the wetland.
3.4.5
Coastal Groundwater
The groundwater sources within the Evans Head region are dominated by
porous rocks of the Woodburn Sand Units and the South Casino Gravel
aquifers that are part of the regional flow system of the Clarence Moreton
Basin. The sand and gravel geology of the area facilitates large volumes of
groundwater flows and effective infiltration after rainfall events. Groundwater
around the Evans Head township is generally very shallow and fluctuates due
to local rainfall infiltration and regional groundwater movement (Hartley
Associates International, 2006).
Based on prior fieldwork, local groundwater is expected to be perched in
natural sand. Groundwater was estimated to flow mainly in an easterly – north
easterly direction and be located at approximately 1 – 2 mbgs. The estimated
gradient was 0.005 metres per minute (m/m) and the non-retarded
groundwater flow was estimated to be 0.025 metres per day
The Evans River groundwater is managed under the Water Sharing Plan for
the Richmond River Area Unregulated, Regulated and Alluvial Water Sources
2010. There are no groundwater entitlements current for the subject site
under this Plan. There are no identified high priority groundwater dependant
ecosystems located on the subject property as outlined by this document.
Page 63
A desktop hydrology study was undertaken to identify the groundwater bore
receptors in proximity to the proposed subject site. The findings of this
investigation are summarised below in Table 6. The groundwater works
summaries for these bores can be found in Appendix A.
There is one groundwater bore located on the subject site that was used as
a dewatering bore. This groundwater bore is 3 m deep, and no water bearing
zones were reported on the groundwater works summary. A number of the
other groundwater bores listed are monitoring bores for the Evans Head
Sewage Treatment Plant (GW305384, GW306411, GW306412, GW306413,
GW306414, and GW306415).
Table 6: Groundwater Bore Receptors
GROUNDWATER
BORE NUMBER
GW306946
DISTANCE AND
DIRECTION FROM
DEVELOPMENT
SITE
FINAL DEPTH
(M)
WATER
BEARING
ZONES (M)
(THICKNESS )
West
3.00
N/A
GW018190
South
15.80
N/A
GW018191
South
15.90
N/A
GW304941
South
14.60
6.30-14.60m
(8.20m)
GW305384
North East
N/A
N/A
GW305385
North East
N/A
N/A
GW306411
North East
9.00
3.00-7.00m
(4.00m)
GW306412
North East
7.60
1.40-4.00m
(2.60m)
GW306413
North
7.00
0.80-4.70m
(3.90m)
GW306414
East
9.00
2.80-6.20m
(3.40m)
GW306415
East
7.70
1.60-4.90m
(3.30m)
(Airport Site)
Page 64
3.4.6
Flooding
The Evans River is used as a flood mitigation strategy for the Rocky Mouth
Creek and mid-Richmond River. Tuckombil Canal was constructed in the
early 1900’s and enlarged in 1965 to reduce the flood impacts on the
Richmond River downstream areas. The Evans River significant flood events
are dominated by large events on the Richmond River overtopping the
Tuckombil Canal weir. Significant flood events have occurred in 1954 and
1974. The 1974 flood was noted as being particularly severe as it occurred
during high spring tides.
Generally, flooding occurs within the Evans Head township area due to local
catchment runoff, storm surge and Richmond River overflow. High intensity,
short duration rainfall has the potential to cause localised flooding within the
township area. The flooding is generally short-term and due to the waters
draining into the Evans River. Large storm surges from low pressure systems
can result in flooding of low-lying areas due to the proximity of the area to the
ocean (BMT WBM, 2014).
The site is not specifically identified as a flood prone area as per the
Richmond Valley Flood Mapping map (BMT WBM, 2010) or the Evans River
Flood Study (BMT WBM, 2014). The Richmond Valley LEP 2012 also does
not specifically identify the subject site as flood prone. However, due to the
site’s proximity to the ocean and to the Evans River, flooding will be
considered as part of this assessment.
3.4.7
Bushfire
The site is identified as bushfire prone land as per the NSW Rural Fire Service
mapping for the Richmond Valley LGA (July 2003).
A full Bushfire Assessment Report has been included in Appendix I of this
document for referral to the NSW Rural Fire Service.
The vegetation type within the proposed development site is characterised by
‘tall heath (scrub)’. There are large areas which are free of canopy or shrub
vegetation and the groundcover is maintained (predominantly in areas
surrounding the existing runways). Vegetation formations immediately
surrounding (within 140 metres) the proposed development areas range from
saline wetlands (a single, small patch) to tall heath and forests.
There are a number of areas within the proposed development site that are
identified as non-vegetated areas and areas of reduced vegetation. These
areas are not considered to pose a bushfire hazard. Non-vegetated areas
and areas of reduced vegetation within 140 metres of the proposed
development site include:

Runways and associated grassed buffer areas;

Bitumen aprons and taxi-ways;
Page 65

Residential dwellings and associated gardens;

Roads and managed road reserves; and

Industrial development and associated gardens.
The subject site has been identified as a potential bushfire risk (Category 1 –
greater than 1 hectare of vegetation type 1 or 2). A number of mitigation
measures have been discussed in further detail within the Bushfire
Assessment report.
Page 66
Planning Regulatory
Framework
Background
This section outlines the environmental and planning legislative framework
relevant to the proposed development. This section describes the
environmental assessment process under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and other relevant environmental planning
instruments pertaining to the development.
The approval pathway is identified under Part 4 of the EP&A Act and is
outlined in more detail in Section
Project Definition
The Richmond Valley LEP 2012 dictionary defines an airport to mean:
a place that is used for the landing, taking off, parking, maintenance or repair of
aeroplanes, and includes associated buildings, installations, facilities and movement
areas and any heliport that is part of the airport
The site is referenced in the Richmond Valley LEP 2012 (RVLEP 2012) in cl
6.11 Airspace operations and cl 6.12 Development in areas subject to aircraft
noise as Evans Head Airport.
The current land usage for the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome can
therefore be defined as an airport.
Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) is administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment
(DOE) and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally
important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined as
matters of national environmental significance (MNES).
The existing site has been subject to an ecological assessment to determine
the presence of MNES within the site (refer to Section 5.6 Ecology). It has
been determined that impacts on MNES resulting from the development are
deemed to be unlikely. Subsequently, referral of the project under the EPBC
Act is not required.
Page 67
Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979
The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the NSW
Government’s key piece of legislation for the management of our environment
and resource use, in relation to planning and development.
The proposed development requires consideration under S. 79C of the EP &
A Act.
4.4.1
Objectives of the EP&A Act 1979
The objects of the EP&A Act are:
(a) To encourage:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial
resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities,
towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the
community and a better environment,
(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development
of land,
(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services,
(iv) the provision of land for public purposes,
(v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and
(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of
native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological
communities, and their habitats, and
(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and
(viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and
(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the
different levels of government in the State, and
(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in
environmental planning and assessment.
Through the preparation of this Statement of Environmental Effects, the
project’s consistency with the objectives of the Act has been clearly
demonstrated.
Page 68
Permissibility & Consent
4.5.1
State Environmental Planning Policy
(Infrastructure) 2007
The site is a functioning aerodrome. The NSW State Environmental Planning
Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 permits construction works, fencing, drainage,
and vegetation management by or on behalf of a public authority. It also
permits development if the development is ancillary to the air transport facility
for: passenger terminals; freight storage, receival and forwarding; hangars for
aircraft storage, maintenance and repair; and premises for retail, business,
recreational, residential or industrial use.
The development specifically seeks approval as an ancillary development to
an air transport facility.
SEPP Infrastructure allows for ancillary business, residential and industrial
uses to an air transport facility to be permitted with consent. The SEPP
therefore permits all of the intended airpark activities on Lot 3 in DP 1217074.
4.5.2
Lot size
Reference to the lot size maps for the RVLEP 2012 indicate two minimum lot
size areas for RU1 and E3 zoned land and for IN1 and R1 zoned land:

RU1 and E3 minimum lot size is 40 ha for AB land; and

IN1 and R1 minimum lot size is 750m2 for R land.
4.5.3
LEP Heritage Incentive Clause
Whilst SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 permits the airpark development,
subdivision of the site is not permitted unless the minimum lot size conforms
to Clause 4.1 of the RVLEP 2012 and the Minimum Lot Size Map for the
relevant zone.
The heritage incentive clause 5.10(10) of the RVLEP 2010 permits any use
of the land if it leads to the conservation of the heritage item. Allotments are
mentioned in heritage management plan. As the proposed community title
subdivision will create a funding source, via annual levies, to pay for the use
and management of the air facilities, the subdivision of the land is deemed to
be permissible.
Page 69
Assessment Regulation 2000
The following is an assessment of the possible triggers for designated
development under Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000.
4.6.1.1 Clause 2 Aircraft facilities – Part 1
This clause does not apply as the development is not for a proposed aircraft
facility. Development approval is sought for an integrated residential,
industrial and commercial aviation development as ancillary development to
an existing air transport facility.
4.6.1.2 Clause 37A Ancillary development – Part
3
This part of Schedule 3 of the regulation addresses what is excepted from
designated development. Development of a kind specified in Part 1 is not
designated development if (a) it is ancillary to other development, and (b) it is
not proposed to be carried out independently of that other development.
For this development, development approval is sought for an integrated
residential, industrial and commercial aviation development as ancillary
development to the existing air transport facility.
4.6.1.3 Clause 15 Contaminated soil treatment
works – Part 1
It is our understanding a stockpile of approximate 3,000 to 4,000 cubic metres
in volume is located on the site. We have sought confirmation of this volume
from Mr Mark Imber from MTNKR Consulting the author of the initial
contamination review (2010).
We further understand the material originated from the remediation works
undertaken on the Council controlled site to the southeast (now Lot 1 in DP
1193927). As the land parcel was formerly part of the airfield site, it can be
classified as having originated from the site.
Sub-clause (a) refers to material not originating from the site on which the
development is proposed. The listed thresholds within this sub-clause do not
apply due to the origin of the material.
Similarly sub-clause (b) is not applicable. There is no intention for the
development to treat 1,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil not originating
from the site.
Page 70
The last sub-clause (c) is the most relevant. Contaminated soil is located on
the site that originated from the site.
The development will:

Not incinerate 1,000 cubic metres of contaminated store per year;

Not treat and store more than 30,000 cubic metres of contaminated
soil; or

Not disturb more than an aggregate area of 3 hectares of
contaminated soil.
Finally, it is noted that the development is not a Contamination Soil Treatment
Works but rather an integrated residential, industrial and commercial aviation
development as ancillary development to an existing air transport facility.
4.6.2
Integrated development – s91
Assessment Act 1979
It is understood integrated development approval will need to be obtained
from other public authorities (e.g. the EPA) before consent can be granted
for:

Heritage Act 1977;

Road Act 1993; and

Rural Fires Act 1997.
NSW Environmental Planning
Instruments
There is a number of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) that are
considered relevant to the project which includes:

SEPP Infrastructure 2007;

SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat;

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land; and

SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection.
SEPP Infrastructure has been discussed in Section 4.5.1 whilst SEPP 44 is
addressed in Section 5.6 Ecology. The remaining SEPPs are addressed in
the following sections.
Page 71
4.7.1
55 – Remediation of Land
It is understood that several contamination assessments and remedial action
plans have been developed for the site.
An Initial Contamination Review was undertaken by MTNKR Consulting’s Mr
Mark Imber. We have engaged Mr Imber to address contamination especially
with respect to designated development triggers. Mr. Imber has also reviewed
all previous site works and remedial plans to assist in the development of an
appropriate course of action.
This is discussed further in Section 5.7.
4.7.2
71 – Coastal Protection
SEPP 71 applies to the area declared as the NSW Coastal Zone under the
Coastal Protection Act 1979.
The NSW coastal zone can generally be described as a special transition
area between land and water. Outside the greater metropolitan region the
coastal zone extends from approximately one kilometre inland of any
coastline, bay, estuary, lake or lagoon three nautical miles out to the edge of
the State’s coastal waters (NSW Planning, 2016).
The eastern boundary of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome is
approximately 550 metres from the mean high water mark at Airforce beach.
Hence SEPP 71 is deemed to apply.
Clause 18 of this SEPP requires a masterplan for subdivisions located in a
residential zone within sensitive coastal zones or, if not located in a sensitive
coastal location zone that create 25 lots or more.
The Minister may waive the need for a master plan to be adopted because
of the nature of the development concerned, the adequacy of other planning
controls that apply to the proposed development or for other such reasons
as the Minister considers sufficient
As the proposed development will create allotments in excess of this
number, an application for ministerial approval or an application for an
exemption is required.
An application for exemption has been made with the Grafton office of NSW
Planning.
Page 72
Regional Environmental Plans
No Regional Environmental Planning Policies apply to the proposed
development.
Richmond Valley Local
Environmental Plan 2012
4.9.1
Current Zoning
The proposed site falls under the Richmond Valley Local Environmental Plan
2012 (RVLEP 2012). The site is identified as a ‘spilt zone’ parcel of land i.e.
the site contains more than one zoning.
The site is zoned:

RU1
Primary Production;

E3
Environmental Management;

IN1
General Industrial; and

R1
General Residential.
The current zoning of the land and the overlaid development concept is
shown in Figure 17 (p11).
Page 73
Figure 17: Site Zoning
The RVLEP defines each zone as follows:
Zone RU1 Primary Production
The general objectives of the RU1 Zone are reproduced here from the
RVLEP 2012.
(1) Objectives of the Zone
The objectives of the RU1 Primary Production Zone are:
(a) To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and
enhancing the natural resource base.
(b) To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate
for the area.
(c) To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.
(d) To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within
adjoining zones.
(e) To ensure that development does not unreasonably increase the demand for
public services or public facilities
(2) Permitted Without Consent
Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home occupations; Horticulture; Viticulture.
(3) Permitted With Consent
Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments;
Aquaculture; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boat launching ramps; Boat
sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cellar door premises; Cemeteries;
Charter and tourism boating facilities; Community facilities; Correctional centres;
Crematoria; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational
establishments; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Extractive
industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Flood mitigation works;
Funeral homes; Group homes; Helipads; Home-based child care; Home
businesses; Home industries; Home occupations (sex services); Hospitals;
Information and education facilities; Intensive livestock agriculture; Intensive plant
agriculture; Jetties; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Moorings; Open cut
mining; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries;
Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (outdoor); Restaurants or cafes; Roads;
Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; Service
stations; Signage; Turf farming; Veterinary hospitals; Water recreation structures;
Water supply systems.
Page 75
(4) Prohibited
Advertising structures; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3.
Zone E3 Environmental Management
(1) Objectives of the Zone
The objectives of the E3 Environmental Management Zone are:
(a) To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural
or aesthetic values.
(b) To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse
effect on those values.
Home occupations.
(3) Permitted With Consent
Agriculture; Animal boarding or training establishments; Bed and breakfast
accommodation; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Cellar door
premises; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Child care centres; Community
facilities; Dual occupancies (attached); Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities;
Electricity generating works; Emergency services facilities; Environmental facilities;
Environmental protection works; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Flood
mitigation works; Group homes; Health consulting rooms; Home-based child care;
Home businesses; Home industries; Home occupations (sex services); Hostels;
Information and education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks; Marinas; Mooring pens;
Neighbourhood shops; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research
stations; Respite day care centres; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Rural
workers’ dwellings; Signage; Water recreation structures; Water reticulation
systems; Water storage facilities.
(4) Prohibited
Advertising structures; Agricultural produce industries; Industries; Intensive livestock
agriculture; Livestock processing industries; Multi dwelling housing; Residential flat
buildings; Retail premises; Sawmill or log processing works; Seniors housing;
Service stations; Stock and sale yards; Turf farming; Warehouse or distribution
centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3.
Page 76
Zone IN1 General Industrial
(1) Objectives of zone
The objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone are:
(a) To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.
(b) To encourage employment opportunities.
(c) To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.
(d) To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.
(e) To enable development that is associated with, ancillary to, or supportive of,
industry or industrial employees
Nil.
Depots; Freight transport facilities; Funeral homes; Garden centres; General
industries; Hardware and building supplies; Heavy industrial storage establishments;
Industrial training facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries;
Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Roads; Rural supplies; Take away
food and drink premises; Timber yards; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse
or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4.
(4) Prohibited
Airstrips; Amusement centres; Bee keeping; Camping grounds; Caravan parks;
Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Child care centres; Commercial
premises; Community facilities; Eco-tourist facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition
villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Function centres; Health
services facilities; Heavy industries; Highway service centres; Home-based child
care; Home businesses; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services);
Information and education facilities; Moorings; Recreation facilities (outdoor);
Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Restricted
premises; Schools; Tourist and visitor accommodation.
Zone R1 General Residential
(1) Objectives of zone
The objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone are:
(a) To provide for the housing needs of the community.
(b) To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.
Page 77
(c) To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to
day needs of residents.
(d) To ensure that housing densities are generally concentrated in locations
accessible to public transport, employment, services and facilities.
(e) To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within
adjoining zones.
Home occupations.
Attached dwellings; Boarding houses; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Car parks;
Caravan parks; Child care centres; Community facilities; Dual occupancies; Dwelling
houses; Emergency services facilities; Environmental facilities; Environmental
protection works; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extensive agriculture; Flood
mitigation works; Function centres; Group homes; Highway service centres; Homebased child care; Home businesses; Home industries; Hostels; Information and
education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops;
Office premises; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Public
administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation
facilities (outdoor); Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Roads; Semidetached dwellings; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Signage; Tourist and visitor
accommodation; Transport depots; Veterinary hospitals; Water recreation
structures.
(4) Prohibited
Advertising structures; Bee keeping; Dairies (pasture-based); Farm stay
accommodation; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3
4.9.2
Conservation incentives
Clause 5.10(10) of the RVLEP 2012 provides for the following:
The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a
building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or
for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though
development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the
consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance
is facilitated by the granting of consent, and
(b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management
document that has been approved by the consent authority, and
Page 78
(c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary
conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried
out, and
(d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance
of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the
Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and
(e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the
amenity of the surrounding area.
COMMENT:
The site is subject to a Heritage Management Document
approved by the NSW Heritage Council. Whilst SEPP
(Infrastructure) 2007 permits the development, the subdivision
of the site is not. The heritage incentive clause 5.10(10) of the
Richmond Valley LEP 2010 permits any use of the land if it
leads to the conservation of the heritage item. Allotments are
mentioned in heritage management plan. A community title
subdivision will create a funding source, via annual levies, to
pay for the use and management of the air facilities.
The development of the Facility is permitted under Clause 5.10.10 of the
RVLEP 2012.
4.9.3
Acid Sulfate Soils
Clause 6.1 of the RVLEP 2012 sets requirements for development on lands
affected by acid sulfate soils.
1. The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb,
expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.
2. Development consent is required for the carrying out of works described in the
Table to this subclause on land shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being
of the class specified for those works.
Class of land
1
2
3
4
Works
Any works.
Works below the natural ground surface.
Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered.
Works more than 1 metre below the natural ground surface.
Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more
than 1 metre below the natural ground surface.
Works more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface.
Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more
than 2 metres below the natural ground surface.
Page 79
5
Works within 500 metres of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land
that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by
which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre
Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land.
3. Development consent must not be granted under this clause for the carrying
out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared
for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and
has been provided to the consent authority.
4. Despite subclause (2), development consent is not required under this clause
for the carrying out of works if:
(a) a preliminary assessment of the proposed works prepared in accordance
with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual indicates that an acid sulfate soils
management plan is not required for the works, and
(b) the preliminary assessment has been provided to the consent authority and
the consent authority has confirmed the assessment by notice in writing to
the person proposing to carry out the works.
for the carrying out of any of the following works by a public authority (including
ancillary work such as excavation, construction of access ways or the supply of
power):
(a) emergency work, being the repair or replacement of the works of the public
authority required to be carried out urgently because the works have been
damaged, have ceased to function or pose a risk to the environment or to
public health and safety,
(b) routine maintenance work, being the periodic inspection, cleaning, repair or
replacement of the works of the public authority (other than work that
involves the disturbance of more than 1 tonne of soil),
(c) minor work, being work that costs less than $20,000 (other than drainage
work).
to carry out any works if:
(a) the works involve the disturbance of less than 1 tonne of soil, and
(b) the works are not likely to lower the watertable.
for the carrying out of works on land for the purpose of agriculture if:
(a) a production area entitlement is in force in respect of the land when the
works are carried out, and
Page 80
(b) the works are carried out in accordance with a drainage management plan,
and
(c) the works are not carried out in respect of a major drain identified on the
Acid Sulfate Soils Map, and
(d) the works are not carried out on land within Zone E2 Environmental
Conservation or on land to which State Environmental Planning Policy No
14—Coastal Wetlands applies.
8. In this clause:
drainage management plan means an irrigation and drainage management
plan that:
(a) is prepared in accordance with the NSW Sugar Industry Best Practice
Guidelines for Acid Sulfate Soils (2005), and
(b) is endorsed by the Sugar Milling Co-operative as being appropriate for the
land.
NSW Sugar Industry Best Practice Guidelines for Acid Sulfate Soils (2005)
means the guidelines approved by the Director-General of the Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources on 25 May 2005.
production area entitlement means a contractual arrangement between the
Sugar Milling Co-operative and a grower member of that Co-operative for the
production of sugar cane for milling.
Sugar Milling Co-operative means the New South Wales Sugar Milling Cooperative Limited (ACN 051 052 209) or its succe
COMMENT:
As it is likely trenching works of up to one (1) metre in depth
will occur for sewer and/or water mains, Clause 6.1 of the
RCLEP 2012 will apply.
Page 81
4.9.4
Airport provisions
Clauses 6.11 and 6.12 of the RVLEP 2012 provides for the following:
-
6.11 Airspace operations
-
6.12 Development in areas subject to aircraft noise
Clauses 6.11 Airspace operations
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
(a) to provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Casino and Evans
Head Airports by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by
proposed development that penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface
for that airport,
(b) to protect the community from undue risk from that operation.
(2) If a development application is received and the consent authority is satisfied
that the proposed development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations
Surface, the consent authority must not grant development consent unless it has
consulted with the relevant Commonwealth body about the application.
(3) The consent authority may grant development consent for the development if
the relevant Commonwealth body advises that:
(a) the development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface but it
has no objection to its construction, or
(b) the development will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface.
(4) The consent authority must not grant development consent for the development
if the relevant Commonwealth body advises that the development will penetrate
the Limitation or Operations Surface and should not be constructed.
(5) In this clause:
Limitation or Operations Surface means the Obstacle Limitation Surface or
the Procedures for Air Navigation Services Operations Surface as shown on
the Obstacle Limitation Surface Map or the Procedures for Air Navigation
Services Operations Surface Map for the Casino and Evans Head Airports.
Relevant Commonwealth body means the body, under Commonwealth
legislation, that is responsible for development approvals for development that
penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface for the Casino and Evans Head
Airports.
Page 82
6.12 Development in areas subject to aircraft noise
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
(a) to prevent certain noise sensitive developments from being located near the
Casino and Evans Head Airports and its flight paths,
(b) to assist in minimising the impact of aircraft noise from that airport and its
flight paths by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in noise
sensitive buildings,
(c) to ensure that land use and development in the vicinity of that airport do not
hinder or have any other adverse impacts on the ongoing, safe and efficient
operation of that airport.
(2) This clause applies to development that:
(a) is on land that:
i)
is near the Casino and Evans Head Airports, and
ii) is in an ANEF contour of 20 or greater, and
(b) the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by aircraft
noise.
(3) Before determining a development application for development to which this
clause applies, the consent authority:
(a) must consider whether the development will result in an increase in the
number of dwellings or people affected by aircraft noise, and
(b) must consider the location of the development in relation to the criteria set
out in Table 2.1 (Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones) in AS
2021—2000, and
(c) must be satisfied the development will meet the indoor design sound levels
shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of
Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS 2021—2000.
(4) In this clause:
ANEF contour means a noise exposure contour shown as an ANEF contour
on the Noise Exposure Forecast Contour Map for the Casino and Evans Head
Airports prepared by the Department of the Commonwealth responsible for
airports.
AS 2021—2000 means AS 2021—2000, Acoustics—Aircraft noise intrusion—
Building siting and construction.
Page 83
COMMENT:
The development will not inhibit the continued operation of
the Evans Head airport. There will be an increase in
dwellings at the airport but they will be related to the Facility
and for the use of the occupants must have an aviation use.
The ANEF 20 contour does not extend onto existing
residential areas.
4.9.5
RVLEP 2012 Mapping
Table 7 details the RVLEP 2012 mapping that applies to the site.
Table 7: RVLEP 2012 Mapping
MAP SHEET
MAP NAME
ITEM
Sheet LZN_010A
Land Zone Map
RU1 Rural, E3 Environmental, IN1
Industrial and R1 Residential
Sheet LSZ_010A
Lot Size Map
750 m2 and 40 ha
Sheet ASS_010
Acid Sulfate
Soils Map
Class 3 soil
Wetlands Map
Wetland identified at the northern
section of the site
Sheet _CL1_010
Riparian Land
and Waterways
Map
Key fish habitat identified at the
northwest section of the site and part
of the eastern section.
Sheet DWE_010
Dwelling
Opportunity Map
Sheet HER_010A
Heritage Map
Sheet HOB_010A
Height of
Buildings
Maximum height of 8.5 metres
Sheet BIO_010
Terrestrial
Biodiversity Map
Affects all of the site except for the
airfield
Affects the majority of the site
Affects the entire site
Classified as General
Page 84
4.9.6
Other Local Development Standards
/ Provisions
It is noted that, the development is required to show compliance with the
relevant clauses within Part 4 (Principal Development Standards), Part 5
(Miscellaneous Provisions) and Part 6 (Additional Local Provisions) of the
Richmond Valley Local Environmental Plan.
Richmond Valley
Development Control Plan
2012
4.10.1 Part A – Residential development
The proposed facility includes development of land to permit standalone and
medium density residential dwellings.
4.10.2 Part B – Commercial development
This section of the DCP does not apply as the proposed facility will not be
undertaking commercial activities.
4.10.3 Part C – Industrial development
The proposed facility includes land intended for industrial use. This will be in
the form of hangars and sheds which will be used for aviation related
activities.
4.10.4 Part D – Rural land uses
This section of the DCP does not apply as the proposed facility does not
include land for rural land uses.
4.10.5 Part E – Accommodation, Caravan
Parks and Manufactured Home
Estates
This section of the DCP is in respect to Caravan Parks and Manufactured
Home Estates.
The masterplan for the facility makes allowance for hotel accommodation.
Page 85
4.10.6 Part F – Signage
Minor signage will be erected to promote the site and to notify construction
stages.
4.10.7 Part G – Subdivisions
The site will be subdivided to allow effective management of the facility.
A community lot will be created to contain the airfield. The industrial, museum
and residential parts of the facility will be subdivided to allow the effective
collection of annual contributions for the maintenance of the communal land.
4.10.8 Part H – Natural Resources
The land is not flood affected.
Bushfire prone land mapping indicates the land is classified as Bushfire Prone
Land – Vegetation Category 1. The airfield is classified as Bushfire Prone
Land – Vegetation Buffer. This is a trigger for integrated development, hence
approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service under Planning for Bushfire
Protection will be required.
RVLEP 2012 Acid Sulfate Soil mapping classifies the site as Class 3. The
map represents where acid sulfate soils may be present from and below a
metre of the nature ground surface. An acid sulfate soil management plan is
recommend when the nature of development poses an acid sulfate soil risk.
This section of the DCP will apply as it is likely trenching works up to one (1)
metre in depth will occur for sewer and/or water mains.
The existing wetlands located in the northern section of the site will not be
developed.
4.10.9 Part I – Other Considerations
4.10.9.1 Heritage conservation
The site is subject to a heritage listing. A conservation management plan has
been prepared and accepted by the NSW Heritage Council.
A heritage impact assessment report has been prepared by Weir Phillips.
4.10.9.2 Building In, On, Over or Under a Road
Access roads will be constructed to and on the Woodburn-Evans Head Road
and Currajong Street. The former is a classified road under the Roads Act
1993 and concurrent consent will be required from the NSW Roads and
Maritime Authority.
Page 86
4.10.9.3 Building Lines
The development will comply with all relevant setbacks from public roads. It
will also comply with the maximum 8.5 metre building height limitation.
4.10.9.4 Car Parking
Sufficient car parking will be provided for each industrial hangar, the
residential areas, and at the museum precinct. The rates will be as follows:

Residential
2 per dwelling

Medium density:
1 per dwelling + 1 per every 4 dwellings

Industrial:
1 per 50 m2 of GFA
The museum precinct will have a small number of carparks with overflow
parking.
Car parking will be addressed further when development applications are for
the various building works.
4.10.9.5 Noise Impact
The facility has the potential to have a noise impact on adjoining land users.
A noise impact assessment has been undertaken to determine the likely
impact on adjoining lands.
4.10.9.6 Social Impact
The development will have an impact on the Evans Head and wider
Richmond Valley Community. Additional aviation related activity will occur
and there will be a corresponding increase in local economic activity.
The facility’s dedicated industrial hangar areas will attract aviation related
industry. There will be a corresponding increase in the skill base in the region.
There is expected to be increase employment from the likely increase in
demands for local services such as trades.
The new museum precinct will be able to house additional aircraft and
associated aviation related paraphernalia. There is likely to be an increase in
tourism traffic to Evans Head to view the aircraft display and the role the
airport played in training Australia’s bomber crews during World War II.
The heritage-listed aerodrome will be maintained from levies collected from
the members of the community scheme thereby contributing to the social
wellbeing of the families of those men and women who participated in the
training programmes.
The DCP recommends a high level social impact assessment.
Page 87
Section 5.10 addresses socio-economic impact issues relating to the
development. The assessment by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting is located in
Appendix H.
4.10.9.7 Water Sensitive Urban Design
Water Sensitive Urban Design integrates land use and water management
(water supply, stormwater and wastewater) planning with the aim of
minimising the impacts of urban development on the natural water cycle.
Stormwater management is addressed in Section 5.11.5.
4.10.9.8 Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design
The site has been design with the principles of CPTED.
The facility will have community ownership and be managed accordingly. The
landscaped areas will be maintained as will the airpark infrastructure.
Each residential precinct will be a naturally closed environment. Through
traffic will not be possible.
The public will generally be restricted to the museum and industrial precincts.
4.10.9.9 Land Use Conflict
Land use conflict has been assessed for noise and the judicious location
selection. The proposed aviation industrial hangars are located adjacent to
the existing industrial precinct whilst the proposed museum has been located
on the Woodburn-Evans Head Road.
Page 88
Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Introduction
A number of specialist environmental studies prepared for the site from which
an assessment has been made of the proposed development. These studies
comprised:

Servicing Strategy (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting);

Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon
Consulting);

Traffic Impact Assessment (prepared by Seca Solutions);

Noise Impact Assessment (prepared by Vipac Scientists and
Engineers);

Flora and Fauna Assessment (prepared by Peter Parker
Environment Consultants Pty Ltd);

Contaminated Land Assessment (prepared by MTNKR Consulting);

Heritage Due Diligence Assessment (prepared by Weir Phillips
Heritage);

Bushfire Assessment (prepared by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting); and

Socio-economic
Consulting).
Assessment
(prepared
by
Mitchel
Hanlon
Page 89
Acid Sulfate Soils
5.2.1
Introduction
Acid sulfate soils are a major environmental issue for coastal areas, and can
impact on the sustainability of local landscapes and waterways. Effective
management is imperative to protect coastal water systems from the potential
negative impacts caused by acid sulfate soils (ASS).
Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are characterised by their high concentration of pyrite
minerals (iron sulphide) and chemical by-products of pyrite oxidation. This
oxidation process can occur naturally when pyrite is exposed to oxygen
during times of prolonged drought or changes in tidal regimes. ASS can also
be accelerated by human activities such as dredging, surface drainage
changes and lowering of the local watertable.
Acid sulphate soil disturbance can cause environmental impacts such as fish
kills, increased mobility of acid, aluminium and iron within estuaries, fish
disease, habitat degradation and human and animal health issues related to
drinking of aluminium-rich groundwater.
Potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) are characterised by:

Contain iron sulfides or sulfidic material that has not been exposed
to air and oxidised;

Field pH in an undisturbed state is pH greater than 4;

Presence of waterlogged soils;

Presence of reduced sulphur odours; and

Presence of shells.
Actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) that have been disturbed and exposed to
oxygen are characterised by:

Soil pH of less than or equal to 4;

Presence of shells;

Jarosite deposits (pale yellow mottles); and

Iron oxide deposits (orange to red secondary mottles).
The potential activities to occur as part of the proposed development that may
impact on PASS and AASS include:

Water and sewer pipe installation;

Site drainage works;
Page 90

Road construction and runway construction; and

Building and structure foundation preparation and excavation.
This section aims to outline the key results of the preliminary site assessment,
discuss the potential impacts of the development on PASS and AASS, and
proposed management strategies that may be implemented to ensure
effective management of ASS onsite.
5.2.2
Preliminary Site Assessment
5.2.2.1 Desktop Study
A desktop study of the site was undertaken to identify the potential for ASS to
exist within the proposed development areas. The relevant documents
identified to provide guidance for this assessment include:

Richmond Valley Council Local Environmental Plan 2012;

Richmond Valley Council Development Control Plan 2012 – Part H
Natural Resources and Hazards (H3 Acid Sulphate Soils);

Richmond Valley Council – Acid Sulphate Soils – Guidance for
Construction Activities (June 2007);

Ahern et. al.(1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment Guidelines;

Stone et. al.(1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Manual; and

Stone and Hopkins (1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines.
The proposed subdivision development may require works to be undertaken
below 1 metre of the natural ground surface. It is not envisaged that the local
watertable will be affected by the proposed subdivision. However, in the
interest of identifying all potential environmental issues of the site, a
preliminary site assessment was undertaken.
The Ahern et. al. (1998) ASS assessment guidelines were consulted for the
appropriate preliminary assessment pathway as per the Richmond Valley
LEP 2012. A desktop assessment based on Table 2.2 of the guidelines was
undertaken.
Similarly, the Richmond Valley Council – Acid Sulphate Soils – Guidance for
Construction Activities (2007) document was consulted for council specific
information.
The proposed assessment will outline the key components required by the
relevant documents including:

Understanding the characteristics of ASS;

Project planning in relation to ASS;
Page 91

Undertaking a preliminary ASS assessment for the site; and

Identify suitable management strategies to be implemented during
the construction and operation phases.
5.2.2.2 Existing Site Environment
The ASS Assessment Guidelines identify a number of steps required to
perform an ASS assessment of the proposed development site.
A review of the acid sulfate soils planning maps for the Richmond Valley
Council area was undertaken. The Richmond Valley Council LEP mapping
indicates the proposed development site is identified as Class 3 acid sulfate
soils. This classification requires development consent for:

Works beyond 1 metre below the natural ground surface; and

Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more than 1
metre below natural ground surface.
At this planning stage of the project it is not clear whether works will extend
more than 1 metre below the natural ground surface. Foundations for
buildings, excavation of trenches for water and sewer piping, and road
construction activities as part of the project may require the need for
excavation greater than 1 metre below the natural ground surface. More
detailed engineering information will be available during the construction
certificate phase of the project.
However, for the purposes of providing a comprehensive environmental
assessment of the site, a preliminary ASS assessment was undertaken as
per the ASS Assessment Guidelines (Ahern C R, Stone, Y, and Blunden B,
1998).
An assessment of the geomorphic and site criteria to refine the broadscale
mapping of the Richmond Valley Council LEP was undertaken. The
geological criterion for potential ASS was reviewed. The site is located within
a coastal wetland area and there are waterlogged areas on the site. The
geological sediments are of recent geological age. OEH soil mapping
undertaken on the site in 1993 indicate soil profiles approximately to 2 metres,
and the lithology is described as aeolian sands (OEH, 1993).
It was determined by the desktop assessment that the site was likely to disturb
ASS as it is in a mapped Class 1-4 category as per the Richmond Valley LEP
ASS mapping, however it is considered to have a lower probability of ASS
being present based on the site geomorphology.
The assessment option was to undertake step 3 (analyse soil and water
indicators) and 4 (Chemical analysis to confirm ASS and action levels) as per
the ASS Guidelines.
The field sampling and analysis results are discussed further in Sections
5.2.2.3 and 5.2.2.4.
Page 92
5.2.2.3 Site Sampling
Soil sampling was undertaken at the site on the 13th February 2014 by Ms
Catherine Lockyer, Environmental Scientist at MHC. A visual inspection of
the site was undertaken to confirm the geophysical characteristics in terms of
predicting area of ASS.
Site characteristics of wetland and poorly drained areas, and swamp-tolerant
vegetation was observed on the site and indicate the potential for ASS to
occur. There was no jarosite or iron mottling observed during the soil
sampling. There was no shell material or scalded areas observed during the
soil sampling.
Six (6) test pits were sampled at 2 depths, 0-10 cm and 20-30 cm. A total of
twelve (12) samples were taken from the site. The samples were submitted
to East West EnviroAg laboratory in Tamworth for analysis.
5.2.2.4 Analysis Results and Discussion
The soil samples were analysed for Total Oxidisable Sulfur (TOS) and
Peroxide Oxidisable Combined Acidity and Sulfate (POCAS) laboratory
methods as per the ASS Guideline recommendations.
The results are summarised in Table 8. Appendix B provides the full analysis
results. Table 9 outlines the action criteria from Table 4.4 of the ASS
guidelines that triggers the requirement for an ASS Management Plan.
Table 8: Soil Analysis Results
TEST
PIT
TP 1
0-10cm
TP 1
20-30cm
TP 2
0-10cm
TP 2
20-30cm
TP 3
0-10cm
PH
TOTAL
OXIDISABLE
SULFUR
(STOS)
PEROXIDE
OXIDISABLE
SULFUR (SPOS)
TITRATABLE
PEROXIDE
ACIDITY
(MOLES
H+/TONNE)
TITRATABLE
SULFIDIIC
ACIDITY
(MOLES
H+/TONNE)
4.3
0.01
<0.005
<5
<5
4.2
<0.01
<0.005
30
17
4.3
0.07
0.02
80
65
4.2
0.05
0.02
270
240
4.0
0.09
0.04
280
210
Page 93
TEST
PIT
TP 3
20-30cm
TP 4
0-10cm
TP 4
20-30cm
TP 5
0-10cm
TP 5
20-30cm
TP 6
0-10cm
TP 6
20-30cm
PH
TOTAL
OXIDISABLE
SULFUR
(STOS)
PEROXIDE
OXIDISABLE
SULFUR (SPOS)
TITRATABLE
PEROXIDE
ACIDITY
(MOLES
H+/TONNE)
TITRATABLE
SULFIDIIC
ACIDITY
(MOLES
H+/TONNE)
4.2
0.07
0.03
340
260
3.9
0.06
0.02
300
240
4.2
0.04
0.01
220
190
4.6
<0.01
0.005
32
25
4.8
0.01
<0.005
25
15
4.1
0.05
0.01
220
190
4.4
0.03
0.01
110
82
Shaded cells indicate above ASS action criteria levels if more than 1000 tonnes of material is to
be disturbed
Table 9: Action Criteria for ASS Management
TEXTURE RANGE
CLAY
CONTENT
(%)
SULFUR TRAIL
ACIDITYTRAIL
(STOS OR SPOS)
(TPAORTSA)
Coarse Texture
(Sand)
≤ 5%
0.03 %S
18 moles H+/ tonne
ASS action criteria levels if more than 1000 tonnes of material is to be disturbed
From the analysis results, there are a number of samples that indicate the
potential for ASS onsite. The soil pH ranges from 3.9 to 4.8 and indicates
strongly acidic soils. Similarly, the oxidisable sulphur and titratable acidity
results also indicate potential for ASS on the site.
The analysis results trigger the requirement for ASS management on the site.
Page 94
5.2.3
Potential Impacts and Issues
The preliminary desktop assessment and site soil sampling indicate there
may be potential or actual ASS on the site. Preliminary soil sampling results
are above the action criteria that trigger the need for an ASS Management
Plan and ASS management on the site.
The potential impacts that ASS could have on construction and operational
activities includes:

Type of engineering and landscaping works required;

Design of roads, buildings, drainage systems, and material
specifications;

Maintenance programs for drains, water and sewage pipelines;

Management of extracted ASS soil; and

Affect biodiversity and aquatic systems.
Potential impacts of ASS will be managed by implementing a number of
management strategies throughout the construction and operation phases of
the project.
5.2.4
Management Strategies
Potential management strategies during construction include:

Risk assessment of construction activities and potential for ASS
disturbance;

Prevent ASS oxidation by avoiding ASS hotspot areas, restricting
watertable fluctuations, and removal or capping of ASS material
once disturbed;

Acid and pH control by using lime application to insitu and
excavated soil;

Containment and management of excavated ASS material onsite;

Define a specific stockpile area for suspected ASS material;

Dispose excavated ASS to landfill as a contaminated soil;

Site layout adjustments to avoid construction activities on ASS hot
spot areas;

Drainage design adjustments to avoid construction activities on
ASS hot spot areas;

Source clean fill as construction material and not use onsite ASS as
fill material; and
Page 95

Environmental monitoring of surface water, groundwater and soils
during construction.
5.2.5
Monitoring
Environmental monitoring is proposed during the construction phase of the
project. A detailed monitoring plan will be prepared prior to construction
works, and location of ASS areas will be taken into consideration.
Environmental monitoring may include:

Mapping of ASS hotspots;

Effective communication with site construction employees about the
risks of ASS disturbance and location of ASS hotspots;

Daily inspections of the site;

Visual inspections of excavated soil material for physical indications
of ASS;

Regular field testing and laboratory analysis of excavated soil
material where ASS are suspected; and

Regular laboratory analysis of surface waters and groundwater for
changes in pH, electrical conductivity, chloride and sulphate
concentrations which may indicate ASS impacts.
All monitoring data will be compiled and reviewed regularly by the site
manager. Soil monitoring data will be compared to the ASS Guidelines and
recommended trigger concentrations for ASS indicator parameters. Water
monitoring data will be compared to ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines
(2000) and any indications of negative impacts on water quality will be further
investigated.
Where monitoring data indicates that potential contamination issues have
occurred from ASS disturbance, works will be suspended until remedial
actions are prepared and implemented.
5.2.6
Contingency Planning
Contingency planning will be implemented onsite during the construction
phase of the project. A number of measures will be implemented to ensure
effective understanding of the potential ASS impacts on the environment.
Procedures will be prepared for the management of ASS onsite and regular
field/laboratory testing.
Procedures for the site may include:

Field testing of excavated soils for ASS potential;

Laboratory testing of suspected ASS;
Page 96

Liming and treatment of ASS onsite (if this is an option);

Handling of ASS and equipment requirements;

‘Toolbox’ information sessions on ASS management;

Emergency measures for ASS management in adverse climatic
conditions;

WHS requirements for employees exposed to ASS; and

Work method statements for onsite management of ASS.
5.2.7
Summary
Acid sulfate soils can adversely affect coastal waterways if disturbed and not
managed effectively. A preliminary desktop assessment was undertaken and
indicated that ASS potentially occurs on the site. The geological and soil
landform features suggest that ASS could exist and preliminary soil sampling
confirmed that ASS may be present onsite.
The extent of the ASS was not determined in the preliminary soil sampling. It
is recommended that further soil analysis be undertaken to confirm the
location of ASS hotspots.
Broad management strategies and monitoring have been outlined, however
more detailed management strategies and a site-specific monitoring plan will
be prepared prior to construction works being undertaken. A detailed ASS
Management Plan will also be prepared prior to construction to mitigate the
potential impacts of ASS onsite.
Page 97
Climate Change
Sea level rise is expected to increase the average depth in the estuary and
extend tidal propagation up the estuary with potential changes in salinity
regime. It is anticipated that sea level rise will naturally result in the landward
recession of fringing estuarine wetland systems.
The location of estuarine habitats such as mangrove forests and salt marsh
are controlled principally by tidal range and salinity influence and will gradually
respond to changes in increases in average water levels and salinity. There
is a risk that natural upslope migration of these wetlands will be curtailed by
anthropogenic constraints such as roads, levees, agriculture and urban
development on the landward side (Department of Climate Change, 2009).
Increased estuary water levels due to sea level rise will also affect riparian
and other low-lying vegetation in the freshwater reaches of the estuary. While
the location of estuarine vegetation communities in the Evans River has been
mapped by DPI-Fisheries, it is not currently known to what extent barriers to
upslope migration will affect the wetlands and vegetation communities. Due
the existing high level of riparian vegetation cover along the Evans River and
the planning protection afforded by environmental zoning along most of the
river, it is likely that upslope migration of estuarine communities will proceed
naturally for most of the estuarine extent. Exceptions may exist in the lower
estuary where urban development could curtail migration of communities
such as mangroves and small pockets of communities may be lost.
The endangered Oxleyan Pygmy Perch (OPP) is found in the vicinity of Evans
Head in low-lying freshwater habitats in wallum heathland. Significant efforts
to identify and map habitat, restore and enhance habitats of the species have
been undertaken in recent times. Due to the low-lying nature of OPP habitat,
it is likely that at some point in the future, this habitat may be impacted by sea
level rise.
Page 98
Traffic and Access
All traffic will be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. All internal
roads will meet Council requirements and allow for 2-way traffic movements.
It is anticipated that the development will have a minimal impact on road
safety. The current roads have good visibility and the traffic flows are
expected to remain low.
5.4.1
Access
New access to the site will be provided from Woodburn-Evans Head Road.
This access will be in accordance with relevant council requirements.
A second access will be provided from Currajong Street near Tuckeroo
Crescent and will be developed as a roundabout.
5.4.2
Sight Distance
Under the Austroads guidelines, a road operating under a posted speed limit
of 80km/h requires a minimum sighting distance of at least 160 metres. The
onsite sighting distance measured by Seca Solutions is in excess of 200
metres for both directions.
Access from Currajong Street requires a sighting distance of at least 80
metres. The onsite distance measured is in excess of 200 metres in both
directions.
The sighting distances comfortably meet sighting requirements.
5.4.3
Parking
Parking will be determined as part of the DA process. Residential parking will
be at least one garage space and driveway space to allow for at least two
vehicles.
Page 99
5.4.4
Traffic Generation
Seca Solutions implemented the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments to determine the worst case traffic movements. It should be
noted that due to the nature of the development being targeted to retired
people, traffic movements may be much less than predicted. The results can
be seen in Table 10. It is anticipated that this added traffic will have minimal
overall impact on the locality.
Table 10: Predicted Traffic Movements
ELEMENT
NUMBER
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
Residential off Evans Head Road
27 lots
23
243
Residential off Currajong Street
90 lots
77
810
Hotel off Currajong
90 beds
36
270
Page 100
Noise
A noise impact assessment was carried out by Vipac Engineers and
Scientists Ltd (Vipac). This was to determine the potential impacts of noise
generated from aircraft movements from the Evans Head Aerodrome and to
provide recommended minimum building requirements to minimise any
potential impacts.
5.5.1
Modelling
The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is a widely used prediction tool developed
by the United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Further, the model is
approved for use in Australia by Air Services Australia, the governmentowned corporation responsible for endorsing ANEF contours at civilian
airports. The INM was utilized in evaluating the noise levels of the
development.
Two flight movement scenarios were modelled:

Current (2015-2016): Movements based on flight numbers at Evans
Head Aerodrome; and

Future (2019-2020): Movements based on the current scenario and
extrapolated for increased use of the Aerodrome. The future
scenario movements include all projected movements from the
proposed development. The projected numbers were provided to
Vipac. The projected numbers can be seen in Appendix D.
5.5.2
Results
Both the current and future scenarios were modelled via the INM. The results
for each are discussed further in the following sections.
5.5.2.1 Current Scenario (2015-2016)
The ANEF contours as seen in Figure 18 show that the 20 ANEF line runs
through the residential zone. Three dwellings and the proposed high-density
residential area are within the 25 ANEF contour. AS 2021 recommends that
residential uses within the 20-25 ANEF contour are conditional when internal
noise levels are compliant. The Hotel sits below the 20 ANEF contour thus
complies.
Page 101
Figure 18: ANEF Contours for the Residential Zone for 2015-2016
As seen in Figure 19, the ANEF 20 contour runs through the middle of the
museum precinct. Five dwellings on the front row of the museum precinct will
sit in the 20-25 ANEF contour.
Figure 19: ANEF Contours for the Museum Precinct for 2015-2016
Page 102
Table 11: Summary of ANEF Acceptability for 2015-2016
DEVELOPMENT
ZONE/PRECINCT
BUILDING TYPE
ANEF CONTOUR RESULTS
High Density
>25 (unacceptable)
>25 (unacceptable for three dwellings)
Residential Zone
Residential Lots
20-25 (conditional for two rows)
<20 (acceptable for back five rows)
Hotel
<20 (acceptable)
20-25 (conditional for five dwellings)
Residential Lots
<20 (acceptable for remaining
dwellings)
Museum
20-25 (acceptable)
Museum Precinct
5.5.2.2 Future Scenario (2019-2020)
The ANEF contours as seen in Figure show that the 25 ANEF line runs
through the residential zone. The proposed high density area will sit in the 3525 ANEF contour. AS 2021 recommends that residential uses within the 2025 ANEF contour are conditional when internal noise levels are compliant.
The Hotel sits below the 20 ANEF contour thus complies.
Figure 20: ANEF Contours for the Residential Zone for 2019-2020
As seen in Figure, the ANEF 20 contour runs through the middle of the
museum precinct.
Page 103
Figure 21: ANEF Contours for the Museum Precinct for 2019-2020
Page 104
Table 12: Summary of ANEF Acceptability for 2019-2020
DEVELOPMENT
ZONE/PRECINCT
BUILDING TYPE
High Density
>25 (unacceptable)
>25 (unacceptable for five dwellings)
Residential Zone
Residential Lots
20-25 (conditional for three rows)
<20 (acceptable for back four rows)
Hotel
Residential Lots
Museum Precinct
Museum
<20 (acceptable)
20-25 (conditional for front row)
<20 (acceptable for back two rows)
25-30 (acceptable)
Events Per Day – One Helipad
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework criteria as seen in Section
3.3.6.2 indicates that as there are less than 50 anticipated movements per
day. Only events greater than 70 dB(A) are applicable.
As seen in Figure 22 it can be seen that:

No residential lots in the high density residential area are within the
ANEF contour line;

Eight residential lots in the museum precinct are within the ANEF
contour lines; and

No existing residences are within the ANEF contour line.
Page 105
Figure 22: Contour Line for 20 Events >70dB LASmax for 2019-2020
5.5.2.3 Future Scenario with Second Helipad
Modelling was carried out with the addition of a second helipad which will be
utilised by recreational helicopters. The existing helipad will remain but would
only be utilised by emergency helicopters due to its proximity to the road.
The ANEF contours as seen in Figure 23 show that the 20 ANEF line runs
through the residential zone. The proposed high density area will sit in the 30
ANEF contour which is considered unacceptable per AS 2021.
Page 106
Figure 23: ANEF Contours for 2019-2020 with a Second Helipad
The ANEF contours shown in Figure 24 indicate that two rows of residential
dwellings sit below the 20 ANEF contour and one row of dwellings sit between
the 20-25 ANEF contours. The museum site between the 20-25 ANEF
contour which indicates compliance.
Page 107
Figure 24: ANEF Contours for 2019-2020 with a Second Helipad- Museum Precinct
Table 13: Building Type and ANEF Criteria
DEVELOPMENT
ZONE / PRECINCT
BUILDING TYPE
High Density
Residential
Zone
25-30 (unacceptable)
>25 (unacceptable for one
dwelling)
Residential Lots
20-25 (conditional for two rows)
<20 (acceptable for back five rows)
Hotel
Museum
Precinct
Residential Lots
Museum
<20 (acceptable)
20-25 (conditional for front row)
<20 (acceptable for back two rows)
20-25 (acceptable)
Page 108
Events Per Day- Two Helipads
National Airports Safeguarding Framework criteria as seen in Section 3.3.6.2
indicates that as there are less than 50 anticipated movements per day, only
events greater than 70 dB(A) are applicable.
As seen in Figure 25 it can be seen that:

No residential lots in the high density residential area are within the
contour line;

Eight residential lots in the museum precinct are within the contour
lines; and

No existing residences are within the contour line.
Figure 25: Contour Line for 20 Events >70dB LASmax for 2019-2020 with two helipad
Page 109
5.5.3
Impacts on Existing Receptors
Noise modelling was carried out in order to determine impacts on existing
receptors. The LAeq contours for the current scenario can be seen in Figure
26. The LAeq contours for the future scenario with one helipad and two
helipads can be seen in Figure 27 and Figure 28 respectively.
The modelling indicates that increased aerodrome activity will extend the 60
dB(A) contour line by approximately 40 metres, the 55 dB(A) contour by 50
metres, and the 50 dB(A) contour by 80 metres. This shows:

There is no increase in the number of residences in the 60-65 dB
LAeq, day contour band;

There is no increase in the number of residences in the 55-60 dB
dB LAeq, day contour band; and

The number of residences that will sit between the 50-55 dB LAeq, day
contour band increases from five (5) to approximately seventeen
(17).
Page 110
5.5.3.1 ANEF Contours
A comparison of the ANEF current scenario and the future scenario both with
one helipad and two helipads indicate that all receptors sit below the 20 ANEF
contour. This suggests no negative impacts when compared to the current
scenario.
Figure 26: LAeq, day (2015-2016) (dB(A))
Page 111
Figure 27: LAeq, day (2019-2020) (dB(A)) - One Helipad
Figure 28: LAeq, day (2019-2020) (dB(A)) - Two Helipdads
Page 112
5.5.4
Summary
There appears to be very little difference between the ANEF for 2015-2016
and 2019-2020.
When comparing the future ANEF with one helipad against the ANEF with a
second helipad, it is apparent that there is a significant reduction in the
impacted dwellings. Six dwellings as well as the high density area are
impacted with one helipad compared to just the high density area with two
helipads.
The modelling indicates that some dwellings may be classified as
‘unacceptable’ or ‘conditional’ per AS 2021. Where dwellings are classified as
‘conditional’, it is suggested that the building methods be utilised to minimise
noise impacts. The recommendations made in the Vipac report are not final
and will need to be assessed once each dwelling has been designed
correctly.
Where dwellings are classified as ‘unacceptable’ Clause 2.3.3 states that
development can proceed in special cases. As the impacted dwellings will be
inhabited by aviation enthusiasts, who will utilise the aerodrome for leisure, it
is considered that this is a special case.
Page 113
Ecology
5.6.1
Statutory Considerations
An assessment of the site was undertaken by Peter Parker Environmental
Consultants (PPEC) in accordance with the following:

NSW State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat;

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995;

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994; and

Environmental Protection of the Environmental Conservation Act
1999 (Commonwealth).
5.6.1.1 SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat
As the site triggers prescribed thresholds within SEPP 44 Koala Habitat, an
assessment of potential koala habitat was undertaken. The aim of SEPP 44
is to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural
vegetation that provide habitat for koalas. This is to ensure a permanent freeliving population over their present range and to reverse the current trend of
koala population decline.
For potential koala habitat to occur, a minimum of 15% of the total number of
trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component need to be koala food
species listed under Schedule 2 of the SEPP. Forest redgum was recorded
at the site but was considerably less than the 15% requirement for potential
koala habitat to occur. Thus potential koala habitat within the meaning of the
SEPP does not occur at the site and therefore a koala plan of management
is not required. Further, ecology field work failed to identify any evidence of
koala activity on the site.
5.6.1.2 Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979
The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) commenced on
1st January 1996. This Act, inter alia, amended s4, s110, s111 and s112 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) with regard
to the protection of plants and animals.
S5A of the EPA Act (the “7-part test”) must be taken into account in deciding
whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species,
populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. In regards to each,
the relevant section and comment is provided.
Page 114
5A Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or
their habitats:
a) In the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local
population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.
The following factors have been considered in assessing the
likelihood that a viable local population of the species is likely to be
placed at risk of extinction from this proposal:
o the proposal’s likely impact upon the key habitat components
essential to the species’ lifecycle; and
o The size of the local population in comparison with that which
is proposed to be removed/modified.
No threatened plant species was recorded at the site. Accordingly,
the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of
the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely
to be placed at risk of extinction.
Fauna:

Wallum froglet: The development will not threaten a local
population as the core habitat in banksia and paperbark
woodlands and sedgelands within the Broadwater
National Park will not be disturbed. Recommended
mitigation measures include the treatment of stormwater
in bio-retention swales.

Wallum sedgefrog: No wallum sedgefrog habitat occurs
within the area proposed for development and drainage
from the site will not be directed into its habitat.
Accordingly, the development will not threaten a local
wallum sedgefrog population.
Birds:

Glossy black cockatoo: The glossy black cockatoo was
recorded flying over the site by Parker in his 2001 survey.
Hence, it will not be impacted as no feeding or nesting
resources will be significantly removed or modified

Bush hen: Impacts on this species are likely to be minimal
due to the extensive areas of suitable habitat within the
Broadwater National Park and Salty Lagoon to the north.

Osprey: No suitable habitat is located at the site.
Page 115

Ground parrot: Play-back calls in 2014 did not detect this
species and it is considered that the area where it was
previously recorded is now marginal habitat as it has
regenerated extensively after fires in 2000.

Eastern grass owl: This species was recorded by Parker
(2001) west of the site in the Broadwater National Park.
The proposal is unlikely to impact on this species as no
suitable habitat occurs at the site.

Square-tailed kite: The proposal is unlikely to significantly
impact on this species due to its extensive range and the
availability of large tracts of suitable habit in the Evans
Head region.
Mammals:

Hoary wattled bat: The habitat at the site is sub-optimal
and the understorey vegetation is dense and senescent.
Thus, the proposal is unlikely to result in any significant
loss of foraging or roosting habitat.

Yellow-bellied sheath-tailed bat: This species was
recorded by Parker (2001) to the north of the site. The
proposal is unlikely to result in any significant loss of
foraging or roosting habitat.

Large-footed myotis: This species was recorded near the
site by Parker in 2001. However, no roosting sites or water
bodies suitable for foraging occur at the site, thus this
species will not be impacted by the proposal.

Little bent-wing bat: The proposal will have little impact on
this species as no roosting areas occur at the site.

Common blossom bat: The proposal is unlikely to impact
on this species roosting habitat as rainforest does not
occur at the site.

Eastern false pipistrelle: Suitable roosting locations were
not recorded and it is unlike that roosting sites will be
impacted.

Grey-headed flying-fox: The proposal will require the
clearing of potential sources of blossom which this species
may utilise. However, the heath-leaf banksia and broadleaved paperbark woodlands and shrublands are common
in the locality and the proposal is unlikely to pose a
significant impact on this species.
Page 116

Common planigale: The common planigale is threatened
by habitat clearing and burning and predation by feral
animals, especially cats and foxes. The proposal is
unlikely to impact on this species as it is not considered to
occur at the site.
Fish:

Oxleyan pygmy perch: The major impacts on this species
include the habitat modification, agricultural pesticides or
fertilisers and introduced species such as the mosquito
fish and possibly the cane toad. It is recommended that
water quality control measures are incorporated into the
site design to ensure water quality is not compromised.
Provided that suitable measures are implemented it is
unlikely that this species will be impacted by the proposal.
The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle
of any fauna species such that a viable local population of the
b) In the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely
to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the
endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is
likely to be placed at risk of extinction.
No endangered populations listed under Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the
TSC Act occur within the vicinity of the site. Thus, the action
proposed is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of
the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a
viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of
extinction.
c) In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered
ecological community, whether the action proposed:
i.
Is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction, or
ii.
Is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of
the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to
be placed at risk of extinction,
No endangered ecological community was recorded at or in the
vicinity of the site. Thus, the proposal is unlikely “to have an adverse
effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local
occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.” Nor will the
proposal “substantially and adversely modify the composition of the
ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be
placed at risk of extinction.”
Page 117
d) In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological
community:
i.
the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a
result of the action proposed, and
ii.
whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or
isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed
action, and
iii.
the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented
or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or
ecological community in the locality,
Habitat modification or removal
Threatened species and threatened species habitat has been
recorded within the study site and study area. However, this habitat
is conserved within the Broadwater and Bundjalung National Parks.
Habitat isolation or fragmentation
The area of habitat proposed to be removed lies adjacent to the
Broadwater-Evans Head Road. Its removal is not likely to fragment
or isolate other areas of habitat.
In conclusion, the habitat of a threatened species, population or
ecological community will not be modified, fragmented or isolated
any extent as a result of this proposal.
The importance of habitat to be removed
The proposal will not require the removal of any habitat of particular
significance to threatened species or the removal of an EEC. Thus,
the proposal will not affect the long-term survival of the species,
The long-term survival of the species, population or ecological
community in the locality
Section 5A(d)(iii) requires an assessment with respect to the
importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or
isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or
ecological community in the locality. This site is located in proximity
to habitats which are recognised for their high conservation value
(e.g., the Broadwater National Park). The proposal will not require
any habitat to be removed, modified or fragmented to the extent that
it will significantly affect the long-term survival of the species,
Page 118
e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical
habitat (either directly or indirectly),
The site does not contain any area which has been identified and
declared as critical habitat under Part 3 of the TSC Act. Therefore,
critical habitat will not be affected by the proposal.
f)
Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Wallum sedgefrog and other Wallum-dependent frog species
The National Recovery Plan for the Wallum sedgefrog and other
Wallum-dependent frog species and the Oxleyan pygmy perch is
relevant for the purpose of an assessment under s5A(f).
The National Recovery Plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other
wallum-dependent frog species identifies the relevant threats to
these frog species. These are: habitat loss; habitat degradation;
changes in hydrology; habitat eutrophication and pollution; habitat
fragmentation as a result of land clearing; inappropriate fire
regimes; predation by mosquito fish Gambusia holbrooki; and use
of biocides in weed and mosquito control.
The following is noted:

Habitat loss: surveys with respect to the proposed
development have identified the prime wallum froglet and
wallum sedgefrog habitat and it does not occur within the
development footprint.

Habitat degradation: the proposed development is isolated
from important Wallum sedgefrog and Wallum froglet;

Changes in hydrology: it is recommended that runoff from
the site passes through bio-retention filters and be directed
away from sensitive areas. In order to compensate for the
increase in hard surfaces and lower percolation rates water
tanks should be used to collect stormwater for later
discharge during dry weather

Habitat eutrophication and pollution: accumulation of these
toxicants in wetland areas could also have a negative impact
on Wallum frog species in areas adjacent to developed
areas. It is recommended that runoff from the site passes
through bio-retention filters and be directed away from
sensitive areas

Habitat fragmentation as a result of land clearing: The
proposed development will not result in the fragmentation of
an isolated population of either the wallum froglet or wallum
sedgefrog.
Page 119

Inappropriate fire regimes: This report identifies that asset
protection zones can be suitably provided on the site.

Predation by mosquito fish Gambusia holbrooki: Wallum
frog species may therefore be highly susceptible to
predation by this species. The mosquito fish was recorded
in downstream receiving waters in the fish survey conducted
for this proposal and is likely to be widespread in the locality.

Biocides use for weed and mosquito control: there is no
proposal to use pesticides to control mosquitoes at the site.
Oxleyan pygmy perch
An Oxleyan pygmy perch recovery plan has been prepared by the
NSW Department of Primary Industry (2005). Specific objectives of
recovery planning are as follows:

Increase scientific knowledge and understanding about the
distribution, habitat, life history, ecology and genetics of
pygmy perch;

Increase community awareness and support of pygmy
perch recovery actions;

Protect and restore essential habitats for pygmy perch;

Minimise the impacts of introduced fish on pygmy perch;

Reduce the illegal collection of pygmy perch by encouraging
and involving aquarium enthusiasts to support recovery
efforts; and

Establish a program to monitor the status of pygmy perch
and assess the effectiveness of recovery actions.
With respect to the above, the recommended water quality
management controls will “restore essential habitat”. None of the
other specific recovery objectives are relevant with respect to this
g)
Whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key
threatening process.
Threatened Species Conservation Act
Potential threatening processes as defined under the TSC Act
which may occur at the site include predation by foxes, introduced
garden weeds, cane toad impacts, introduction of Phytophthora
and the exotic rust fungi. However, the site will be landscaped using
native species of local origin, and potential breeding sites for the
cane toad will be minimised to the extent practicable and possible.
Page 120
This proposal includes the removal of woodland and shrubland. The
extent of tree removal will destroy a sufficient proportion of one or
more strata (layers) within a stand or stands of native vegetation so
as to result in the loss, or long-term modification, of the structure,
composition and ecological function of a stand or stands. The tree
removal proposed is within the meaning of “clearing of native
vegetation” as described above, this threatening process will
increase as a result of this development proposal.
Fisheries Management Act 1994
The proposal is unlikely to lead to any change or significant
increase in any of the listed threatening processes, most of which
are not relevant in the circumstances.
5.6.1.3 Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1979
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) is a Commonwealth Act administered by the Department of the
Environment.
A search of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act) protected matters database for the area was conducted on
1st December 2014. Parker has reported one (1) threatened ecological
community, fifty-five (55) threatened species and forty-five (45) migratory
species. The threatened ecological community is lowland subtropical
rainforest which does not occur at the site.
The fifty-five (55) threatened species listed includes shorebirds, marine fish,
turtles, whales and sharks thus leaving fourteen (14) terrestrial species and
one (1) fish, the Oxleyan pygmy perch, as the only fauna species which
potentially may occur at or in the vicinity of the site.
These are listed in Table 14 together with their likelihood of occurrence.
Page 121
Table 14: Species listed under the EPBC Act in protected matters search
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
LIKELIHOODOFOCCURRENCE
Anthochaera phrygia
Regent Honeyeater
Migratory species no local records
Botaurus poiciloptilus
Australasian bittern
Occurs in permanent freshwater
wetlands, no suitable habitat
Erythrotriorchis
radiatus
Red goshawk
Prefers subtropical rainforest and
eucalypt forest, which does not
occur at site
Lathamus discolor
Swift parrot
Nests and breeds in Tasmania, no
suitable breeding habitat
Turnix melanogaster
Black-breasted
button-quail
No suitable habitat unlikely to
occupy
Litoria aurea
Green and golden
bell frog
No suitable habitat unlikely to
occupy
Litoria olongburensis
Wallum sedge frog
Occurs in Broadwater National Park
Chalinolobus dwyeri
Large-eared pied bat
A cave roosting species found in
well-timbered areas. No suitable
habitat.
Dasyurus maculatus
maculatus
Spotted-tail quoll
A wide ranging species. Suitable
habitat at site.
Phascolarctos
cinereus
Koala
Suitable habitat, addressed in the
report
Potorous tridactylus
tridactylus
Long-nosed potoroo
Potential habitat but no local
records
Pseudomys
novaehollandiae
New Holland mouse
Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed flying fox
Potential habitat recorded
Suitable habitat, addressed in the
report
Xeromys myoides
False water rat
No suitable habitat
Nannoperca oxleyana
Oxleyan pygmy perch
Suitable habitat to south of site,
addressed in this report
Acronychia littoralis
Scented acronychia
A rainforest species which does not
occur at the site
Allocasuarina defungens Dwarf heath casuarina
Unlikely to occur, no suitable habitat
Arthraxon hispidus
Hairy joint grass
Cryptocarya foetida
Stinking cryptocarya
A rainforest species which does not
occur at the site
Page 122
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Cryptostylis hunteriana Leafless tongue orchid
LIKELIHOODOFOCCURRENCE
Heaths on sandy soils, potential
habitat at the site
Phaius australis
Lesser swamp orchid
Rutidosis heterogama
Heath wrinklewort
Unlikely to occur addressed in this
report
Streblus pendulinus
Siah’s backbone
A rainforest species unlikely to occur
Thesium australe
Austral toadflax
Unlikely to occur
Two fauna species highlighted in Table 14, the spotted-tail quoll Dasyurus
maculatus maculatus and the New Holland Mouse Pseudomys
novaehollandiae have not been recorded at the site but may occur based on
habitat suitability.
The spotted-tail quoll occurs in rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal
heath and inland riparian forest. Individual animals use hollow-bearing trees,
fallen logs, small caves, rock outcrops and rocky-cliff faces as den sites, none
of which occur at the site. Thus, the site contains marginal habitat for this
species.
The New Holland mouse occurs in open heathlands, woodlands and forests
with a heathland understorey and vegetated sand dunes. It has been
captured in the Broadwater area by this consultant in similar habitat to that
which occur at the site.
The leafless tongue orchid Cryptostylis hunteriana occurs in swampy
heathland, the margins of coastal swamps and sedgelands, coastal forest,
dry woodland, and lowland forest. It was not recorded at the site but suitable
habitat occurs.
The EPBC Act requires a person to not take an action that has, will have or
is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of environmental
significance without approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the
Environment. An action is a project, a development, an undertaking, an
activity or a series of activities, or an alteration of any of these things.
Guidance is provided in the Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s
significant impact guidelines as to whether the proposal is likely to have a
significant environmental effect pursuant to the EPBC Act:
A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having
regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant
impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is
impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the
impacts.
Page 123
To be ‘likely’, it is not necessary for a significant impact to have a greater than 50%
chance of happening; it is sufficient if a significant impact on the environment is a real
or not remote chance or possibility.
If there is scientific uncertainty about the impacts of your action and potential impacts
are serious or irreversible, the precautionary principle is applicable. Accordingly, a lack
of scientific certainty about the potential impacts of an action will not itself justify a
decision that the action is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment.
To determine whether or not to refer an action to the Minister, the following
criteria is required to be considered. Comments for each criteria with respect
to the development and the site impact are provided:
Are there any matters of national environmental significance located in the area
of the proposed action (noting that ‘the area of the proposed action’ is broader
than the immediate location where the action is undertaken; consider also
whether there are any matters of national environmental significance adjacent
to or
Comment:
The EPBC Act protected matters search tool was used to ascertain
matters relevant to the site. Three (3) species, the spotted-tail quoll,
the new Holland mouse and the leafless tongue orchid were
considered to have potential habitat at the site.
However, the spotted-tail quoll is unlikely to be impacted given its
wide-ranging nature and the large expanse of suitable habitat
available in the area. Similarly, an abundance of suitable habitat is
available for the new Holland mouse in both the Broadwater
National Park and nearby privately owned lands.
The leafless tongue orchid was not recorded and no local records
are known. It is unlikely that this species will be significantly affected
by the proposal.
Considering the proposed action at its broadest scope (that is, considering all
stages and components of the action, and all related activities and
infrastructure), is there potential for impacts, including indirect impacts, on
matters of national environmental significance?
Comment:
Indirect impacts on the Oxleyan pygmy perch are considered to be
negligible provided that the implementation of the recommended
water quality controls is undertaken.
Are there any proposed measures to avoid or reduce impacts on matters of
national environmental significance (and if so, is the effectiveness of these
measures certain enough to reduce the level of impact below the ‘significant
impact’ threshold)?
Page 124
Comment:
There are no proposed measures to avoid impacting on the
vegetation but the vegetation associations are not listed as matters
of national environmental significance.
Are any impacts of the proposed action on matters of national environmental
significance likely to be significant impacts (important, notable, or of
consequence, having regard to their context or intensity)?
Comment:
The impacts of the proposal are not considered to be significant
within the meaning of the definitions provided in the significant
impact guidelines.
5.6.2
Recommendations
The Oxleyan pygmy perch habitat south of the site is considered to be typical
of wallum habitat; low salinity, low magnesium, low calcium hardness and a
pH range of >3 to <7. The creek flows over siliceous sands and through
aquatic vegetation and plant debris. The high organic acid content of this
water body is derived from leachates from riparian vegetation.
Parker recommends that the drainage waters from the site do not alter these
characteristics. To this extent, it is recommended that engineering structures
be designed and established and their efficacy modelled.
It is recommended that road runoff is directed into pits with gross pollutant
traps installed and a portion of the road runoff be treated by permeable
pavers. With this system, roof water enters pits via roof water drainage lines,
above the gross pollutant traps where possible.
Runoff water then flows through vegetated open space (vegetated or bioretention swales) via surcharge pits for further treatment.
Runoff water is then fed into the pygmy perch habitat rehabilitation area for
final polishing.
Page 125
Contamination
As previously mentioned the Old Council Depot site and the adjoining land to
the south and south east are outside of the development boundary. As such,
no development will occur on this land. The following sections detail the
proposed course of action regarding the development and options regarding
contamination.
5.7.1
Industrial/Commercial Hangar Area
The proposed industrial/commercial hangar area is to be developed on the
vacant industrial land. No further intrusive testing is proposed.
Extensive investigations have already been carried out and appropriate
Remedial Action Plans developed have identified the following areas
requiring remedial action to bring the site within HILF Commercial/Industrial
landuse criteria:

TPH hotspot located on the western portion of the site;

Heavy metal hotspot located in the northern portion of the site;

PAH hotspots located in the western portion of the site;

Asbestos fragments located on surface soils site wise; and

PAH hotspot located in the north-west portion of the site.
Due to changes in the NEPM in 2013, portions of the RAP may not be
relevant. As such the recommendations of the existing RAP will be
considered in light of the changes to the (NEPM 2013) and implemented as
deemed necessary as part of the development of this precinct. This will
include the preparation of an undated RAP Management Plan to Council
advising of the proposed management approach.
As the areas to be remediated are likely to be much less than 5 ha in total
area, the remediation action is not anticipated to trigger Designated
Development provisions.
5.7.2
Private Residential Airpark/High
Density Area
The Private Residential Airpark/High Density Area precinct proposed for the
northern section of the Vacant Industrial Land has undergone contamination
investigations associated with the Additional Supplemental Investigation of
the Vacant Industrial Land and the associated Updated Remedial Action
Plan, along with earlier intrusive investigations. As such no further intrusive
investigations are proposed.
Page 126
The investigations identified elevated heavy metals associated with the
previous land use which will require remedial action to minimise the potential
risk of harm.
The investigations also identified Benzo(a)pyrene at depths of between 0.10.2 m at TP-01 in exceedance of the NEPM (2013) criteria for high density
residential use. This area will require further delineation to determine the
spatial extent of the contamination; however, given the density of sampling
within the immediate vicinity and the surficial extent of the contamination it is
expected that volume of contamination will be minimal.
The recommendations of the Updated RAP will be considered and
implemented as deemed necessary as part of the development of this
precinct. This will include the preparation of a Management Plan to Council
advising of the proposed management approach.
5.7.3
Private Residential Airpark
The Private Residential Airpark precinct that joins the eastern edge of the
Vacant Industrial Land has undergone contamination investigations
conducted as part of the Additional Supplemental Investigation of the Vacant
Industrial Land and the associated Updated Remedial Action Plan along with
earlier intrusive investigations.
Of these intrusive investigations no samples returned results that exceeded
residential land use criteria (HILA Standard residential with garden/accessible
soil (NEPM, 2013)). As such no further intrusive investigations are proposed
for this portion of the Private Residential Airpark precinct.
The contamination investigations undertaken to date within the Private
Residential Airpark precinct that overlays the Vacant Industrial Land
confirmed no exceedances of residential land use criteria (HILA Standard
residential with garden/accessible soil (NEPM, 2013)). As such, it is
considered that the remainder of the Private Residential Airpark precinct
presents a low risk of contamination being present that exceeds residential
land use criteria HILA Standard residential with garden/accessible soil
(NEPM, 2013).
It is recommended that preliminary intrusive investigations be undertaken
within the precinct to confirm the absence or otherwise of contamination
occurring that exceeds residential land use criteria. The suggested sampling
regime is located in Appendix F.
Page 127
5.7.4
Remediation
The Updated Remedial Action Plan (AECOM, 2011) provides a range of
remediation options to address contamination exceedances within the Vacant
Industrial Land. As discussed above, the relevance of the RAP will be
revisited after a review of the existing data for the Vacant Industrial Land
against NEPM 2013 to determine the relevance of the recommendations.
Due to the superficial nature and anticipated small volume of impacted
material identified at the site the following general remediation options
remediation options have been suggested by AECOM (2011) and still remain
relevant if exceedances still exist when compared to NEPM 2013:

PAH (soil): Excavate, stockpile and bio-remediate to re-use on site;

Heavy metals (soils): Excavate, stockpile, classify on-site and
dispose off-Site;

TPH/BTEX (soils): Excavate, stockpile and bio-remediate to re-use
on site; and

Asbestos (soils): Manually hand pick - Emu Pick.
The appropriateness of any particular option will vary depending on a range
of local factors associated with the staging of the Airpark development and
the prevailing site conditions.
Page 128
Heritage
5.8.1
Introduction
Weir Phillips was engaged to prepare an assessment of the heritage impact.
The assessment is located in refer Appendix C.
A s60 application must be made to the NSW Heritage Council once approval
has been obtained from Richmond Valley Council.
5.8.2
Background
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome has its origins as an emergency landing
strip constructed in 1936. During World War II, the Aerodrome played a
pivotal role in Australia’s contribution to the Empire Air Training Scheme
(EATS). From August 1940 until December 1943, it operated as No. 1
Bombing and Gunnery School (No. 1 BAGS). No. 1 BAGS trained 5,500
RAAF personnel, over 1,000 of who were later killed in active service.
In December 1943 No. 1 Air Observers School was relocated to Evans Head.
Before the school was disbanded on 15 August, 1945 (Victory in the Pacific
Day), over 630 personnel had been trained using Ryan, Tiger Moths, Wackett
and Anson aircraft.
The EATS programme came to an end in June 1944. From 1940 until 1944,
the Aerodrome operated as a self-contained village that could accommodate
up to 1,400 people. The Aerodrome returned to civilian use following World
War II.
The site is listed on the State Heritage Register (Item 01649), under the
auspices of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, under the name ‘Evans Head
Memorial Aerodrome.’
The site is also listed by Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Richmond Valley Local
Environmental Plan 2012. The site is identified as ‘Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome (including runways, Bellman Hangar, timber huts and machine
gun pit).’
5.8.3
Impacts
The proposed works are assessed under the controls provided by the Plan of
Management for the site and by the Heritage Agreement between Richmond
Valley Council and the Minister responsible for the administration of the
Heritage Act 1977.
The impacts are then summarised using the questions raised by the NSW
Heritage publication Statements of Heritage Impact (2002 update). The
following conclusions are drawn.
Page 129
Question 1:
The following aspects of the proposal respect or enhance the heritage
significance of the item or conservation area for the following reasons:

Use as an aerodrome is the original and best use for the site.

Provision is made for a museum to interpret and commemorate the
site’s WWII history.

The proposed lots are located outside of the areas of primary
significance identified by the POM for the site.

A sufficient curtilage is retained around surviving WW II fabric.

There will be no impact on items in the vicinity of the site or the
surrounding area.
Question 2:
The following aspects of the proposal could detrimentally impact on heritage
significance. The reasons are explained as well as the measures to be taken
to minimise impacts:

Lengthening runway 18/36 will have no additional impact on the
significance of the site.

The creation of lots and the construction of buildings will alter the
appearance of the site from the ground and from the air. Large
groups of buildings are not an alien element to this site. During
World War II, there were numerous huts, hangars etc on site.
Building in the proposed areas, which is outside areas of primary
significance, will not interrupt significant view corridors into, within
or out of the site or important visual spatial relationships.
5.8.4
Plan of Management
For the effective management of the heritage items onsite, a Plan of
Management (PoM) was prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (2009). The PoM divides
the site into five management zones. These zones are:

Hangar conservation and aviation operation zone;

Runway conservation and aviation operation zone;

Aerodrome open space zone;

Southern hangar/works depot zone; and

Southern runway zone.
Page 130
The proposed residential lots will be located outside of the heritage zones.
Further, the placement of buildings will not interfere with spatial relationships
or views into or out of the site.
A Section 60 Application will be required to NSW Heritage Council.
5.8.4.1 Hangar Conservation and Aviation
Operation Zone
The hangar conservation and aviation operation zone consists of the Bellman
Hangar and the sites of five adjacent hangars together with the surrounding
tarmac areas.
The hangar sites may be used as sites for new buildings that have been
designed to respect the ‘hangar aesthetic’ of the remaining hangar and World
War II visual character of the complex.
The tarmac areas surrounding the hangar will be retained, repaired or
reconstructed where required.
5.8.4.2 Runway Conservation and Aviation
Operation Zone
The runway conservation and aviation operation zone consists of the four
runways and immediately adjacent cleared grass strips and drainage
systems.
All of the runways are culturally significant and should be conserved as
features in the aerodrome landscape.
If runways are to be utilised for aviation operations, the strips are to be
maintained to their current level. If they are no to be utilised, the strips will be
managed as mown grass landscape elements, with no requirement to
maintain the sealed surface to operational condition.
5.8.4.3 Aerodrome Open Space Zone
The aerodrome open space zone consists of the existing open space
between and adjacent to the runways. The landscape of this open grassland
should be maintained to conserve the historic and cultural landscape values
of place.
Page 131
5.8.4.4 Southern Hangar/Works Depot Zone
The southern hangar/works depot zone consists of the sites of eleven former
hangars, which have been extensively disturbed by post-World War II
activities, to the point where very little evidence of their existence is discernible
on the ground. Future development of the area should reflect the orientation,
scale, and spatial arrangement of the World War II hangar complex without
slavishly recreating hangar forms.
5.8.4.5 Southern Runway Zone
The southern runway zone consists of the southern section of Runway 14/32
and associated taxiways, disturbed to varying degrees. The heritage
significance in this zone relates to the role of the runways in the aerodrome
landscape, but redevelopment for new uses could be allowed while still
conserving that value. The alignment of runway 14/32 and the two taxiways
should be retained in some recognisable form in the landscape. This may
include the retention of open space, alignment of roads and adjacent building
development, landscape treatment or some other approach that stresses the
lineal nature of the runways and taxiways.
5.8.5
Recommendations
It is proposed to retain and upgrade the facilities at the Aerodrome to create
a residential airpark and associated community facilities. This proposal both
continues the long use of the site for aviation, which is essential to its
significance, and provides a viable source of funding to ensure its future
viability. Provision of an aviation museum provides an opportunity to explore
and interpret the significance of the site.
The proposed lots are located outside of the heritage zones identified by the
Plan of Management for the site. A full understanding of the orientation of,
and relationships between, the runways is maintained. This is key to
understanding the site from the ground and the air. Groups of buildings on
this site are not a new phenomenon; large groups of buildings existed on this
site during World War II. The proposed location of buildings will not interfere
with any significant spatial relationships or view corridors into, within or out of
the site.
Page 132
Bushfire
5.9.1
Introduction
The site is identified by Richmond Valley Council as a bush fire prone area
as per the NSW Rural Fire Service bushfire mapping for the region.
Given the bushfire risk to the development a Bushfire Assessment has been
prepared by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting in accordance with NSW Rural Fire
Service’s (RFS) Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) 2006. The
requirements and objectives of PBP 2006 have subsequently been applied to
the proposed development.
The bushfire assessment is contained with Appendix I of this document. A
summary of the methodology utilised and the findings of the assessment has
been provided below.
5.9.2
Bushfire Hazard Assessment
Properties considered to be affected by possible bushfire impact are
determined from the local Bushfire Prone Land Map as prepared by Council
and / or the Rural Fire Service. All property development within affected areas
is subject to the conditions detailed in the document ‘Planning for Bushfire
Protection – 2006’ (PBP). Set back distances for the purpose of creating
Asset Protection Zones (APZs) must be applied and any buildings must then
conform to corresponding regulations detailed in Australian Standard 3959 –
2009 ‘Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas’ (AS 3959 – 2009).
Planning for Bushfire Protection – 2006, (PBP) provides for the protection of
property and life (including fire-fighters and emergency service personnel)
from bushfire impact.
The thrust of the document is to ensure that developers of new properties or
subdivisions include the constraints associated with the construction of
buildings in bushfire prone areas within their proposed development sites.
PBP is applicable to proposed development inside a determined Category 1
or 2 areas and also inside a buffer zone radius of 100 metres from a Category
1 bushfire area or 30 metres from a Category 2 bushfire area.
Bushfire mapping for the site indicates that a majority of the site is identified
as being bushfire prone. The mapping obtained delineates the western
residential and museum precinct as Category 2 vegetation while the
remainder of the bushfire vegetation is identified as Category 1.
Page 133
5.9.2.1 Predominant Vegetation Type
An assessment of the predominant vegetation types were undertaken in
accordance with NSW Rural Fire Service’s Planning for Bushfire Protection
2006.
The vegetation type within the proposed development sites is predominantly
characterised by ‘tall heath (scrub)’. There are large areas which are free of
canopy or shrub vegetation and the groundcover is maintained
(predominantly in areas surrounding the existing runways). Vegetation
formations immediately surrounding (within 140 metres) the proposed
development areas range from saline wetlands (a single, small patch) to tall
heath and forests.
Following the vegetation classification, fuel loads were determined for the
identified community type, as detailed in the table below. The formation
descriptions detailed within the NSW RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection
have also been included.
Table 15: Community Fuel Loads
VEGETATION
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
FUEL LOAD
Managed Lands
Not defined as a vegetation formation that poses as
a bushfire hazard
N/A
Tall Heath
(Scrub)
Heathlands greater than 2m tall. Includes
Hawkesbury Sandstone Vegetation with scattered
overstorey trees and predominantly healthy
understorey and coastal heath. May include some
mallee eucalypts in coastal locations.
Dry Sclerophyll
Forests
(Shrubby subformation)
Understorey dominated by shrubs including
waratahs, banksias, spider flowers, pea flowers,
gum trees, tea trees, native fuschias, boronias and
wax flowers. Sparse groundcover comprised mainly
of hard leaved sedges. Found on sandy infertile
soils on exposed sites.
20/25 t/ha
Saline Wetlands
Distinguished by an abundance of salt. Halophytes
abundant. Eg: mangrove swamps, salt marshes and
seagrass meadows. Coast (tidal estuaries) and
western plains (salt lakes).
N/A
25 t/ha
5.9.2.2 Slope
The proposed development area is located on the coastal flats (slightly
sloping) of Evans Head. Field work was undertaken to determine the specific
relative slope of the proposed development area with reference to
surrounding areas.
It was determined, using a clinometer, that the slope within 140 metres of the
development area ranges from approximately 0 - <1 degrees. Table 2 below
lists the directional slope adjacent to each development area.
Page 134
Table 16: Site Land Slopes
DEVELOPMENT
AREA (DA)
Museum /
Residential
Precinct (Area 1)
Residential Area /
Hotel Area (Area
2)
Northern Potential
Future
development Area
(Area 3)
Western Potential
Development Area
(Area 4)
Nursing Home
Area (Area 5)
Commercial /
Industrial Hanger
Area (Area 6)
ADJACENT
SLOPE
LAND
(DEGREES)
POSITION
RELATIVE TO
DEVELOPMEN
T AREA
POSITION
RELATIVE
TO DA
SUBSEQUENT
SLOPE FOR
ASSESSMENT
(DEGREES)
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
0
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
0
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
0
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
0
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
0
North
0
Flat
0
East
<1
Down Slope
<1
South
0
Flat
0
West
<1
Up Slope
<1
The results of the slope assessment have been used to calculate the required
asset protection zones in Section 5.9.2.4 of this report.
Page 135
5.9.2.3 Bushfire Risk
The site has been identified by Richmond Valley Council as a bushfire prone
area as per the NSW Rural Fire Service bushfire mapping for the region.
The following factors have been taken into consideration for this risk
assessment:
(a)
Lot 3 in DP 1217074 has been identified as a site with a potential
bushfire risk (Category 1 – greater than 1 hectare of vegetation
type 1 or 2). The site is located within an area shown to be bushfire
prone on the Richmond Valley LGA Bushfire Mapping published
by NSW RFS; and
(b)
The proposed development area contains both category 1 and
category 2 vegetation.
The vegetated area mentioned is required to be assessed to determine the
overall fire hazard.
5.9.2.4 APZ
A significant area of the proposed development has been identified as having
a potential risk of bush fire. The development area proposed, adjacent to each
of the risk areas, requires an Asset Protection Zone (APZ).
Asset Protection Zones for residential subdivisions are determined from Table
A2.4 of PBP 2006 or radiant heat modelling not exposing the closest part of
a dwelling to greater than 29 kW/m2. As the proposed development does not
contain a habitable component there are no minimum required Asset
Protection Zones.
The APZ is required to ensure compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy
arrangements under the Building Code of Australia (i.e. the provisions for
Level 3 building construction of AS 3959 and Planning for Bushfire Protection
2006).
An Asset Protection Zone constitutes an Inner Protection Area (IPA)
immediately surrounding the building and an optional Outer Protection Area
(OPA) which adjoins the IPA and the bush land. For forest and woodland
vegetation, the IPA manages the heat intensities at the building surface and
incorporates the surrounding defendable space whilst the OPA reduces the
potential length of flames by slowing the rate of spread, filtering embers and
suppressing the crown fire.
Page 136
The APZs for the development precincts 1-4 have been determined based
upon the following values:

FDI Rating (80);

Slope; and

Vegetation Type.
Table 17 (p139) demonstrates the APZ calculations for each side of the
development sites.
APZs have not been calculated for Development Area 5 as the potential future
nursing home is not a part of the proposed EHAP development. This area
was included in the vegetation assessment for the purpose of completeness
of information and providing greater environmental context.
Special Fire Protection Purposes
In NSW, a hotel or other tourist accommodation is identified as a type of
Special Fire Protection Purpose (SFPP) development. SFPP developments
are required to be assessed as ‘Integrated Development’ under S.91 of the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and will require a Bushfire
Safety Authority from the NSW Rural Fire Service (as per S.100B of the Rural
Fires Act 1997). Special Fire Protection Purpose requirements apply to
developments where the occupants may be more vulnerable to bushfire
attack for reasons including age, physical limitations, mental limitations,
unawareness of the local area etc.
As the proposed museum and hotel are identified as potentially being Special
Fire Protection Purposes (SFPPs) and the evacuation challenges associated
with these types of development, the Asset Protection Zone requirements are
based on keeping radiant heat levels at buildings below 10kW/m2. It is noted,
however, that Planning for Bushfire Protection states that ‘...for some SFPPs,
such as tourist accommodation… are occupied by able-bodied persons and
that evacuation plans or refuge are appropriate alternative options”.
Additionally, PBP states that where the proposed building is in excess of 100
metres from bushfire prone vegetation, radiant heat levels are not required to
comply with the 10kW/m2.
It is noted that the proposed Museum building will not be located within 100
metres of any bushfire prone vegetation. Subsequently the required APZ will
be determined by applying the 29kW/m2 APZ specifications.
As a result of the Museum Precinct of the development being identified as a
SFPP, an emergency evacuation plan has been prepared for the site
(Included as Appendix B in the attached Bushfire Assessment).
Page 137
It should be noted that while the external potential nursing home site has been
included in this assessment for the purpose of completeness of information,
an emergency evacuation plan for the proposed facility has not been
compiled. The nursing home site does not comprise a part of the EHAP
proposal and subsequently, should it be developed in the future by another
proponent, should be subject to a separate bushfire assessment and
preparation of an associated emergency evacuation plan.
A preliminary concept plan has not yet been designed for the proposed hotel
area (which is also a SFPP). APZs have been calculated based on keeping
radiant heat levels at less than 29kW/m2.
Page 138
Table 17: Calculated Asset Protection Zones
DEVELOPMENT
AREA (DA)
Museum/Residential
Precinct (Area 1)
Residential
Area/Hotel Area
(Area 2)
Northern Potential
Future development
Area (Area 3)
Western Potential
Development Area
(Area 4)
ADJACENT LAND
POSITION RELATIVE
TO DEVELOPMENT
AREA
FDI RATING
SLOPE
(DEGREES)
VEGETATIONTYPE
(POSING GREATEST
HAZARDWHERE MORE
THAN ONE)
POSITION RELATIVE
TO DA
CALCULATED APZ
(M)
North
80
0
Forest
Flat
20
East
80
<1
Managed Land
Down Slope
0
South
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
West
80
0
Forest
Up Slope
20
North
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
East
80
<1
Forest
Down Slope
25
South
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
West
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Up Slope
15
North
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
East
80
<1
Tall Heath (scrub)
Down Slope
15
South
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
West
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Up Slope
15
North
80
0
Tall Heath (scrub)
Flat
15
East
80
<1
Managed Land
Down Slope
0
South
80
0
Forest
Flat
20
Page 139
DEVELOPMENT
AREA (DA)
Commercial /
Industrial hanger
Area (Area 6)
ADJACENT LAND
POSITION RELATIVE
TO DEVELOPMENT
AREA
FDI RATING
SLOPE
(DEGREES)
VEGETATIONTYPE
(POSING GREATEST
HAZARDWHERE MORE
THAN ONE)
POSITION RELATIVE
TO DA
CALCULATED APZ
(M)
West
80
0
Forest
Up Slope
20
North
80
0
Managed Land
Flat
0
East
80
<1
Managed Land
Down Slope
0
South
80
0
Managed Land
Flat
0
West
80
<1
Managed Land
Up Slope
0
Page 140
Based on the analysis of vegetation and slope undertaken, the proposed
development areas are calculated to require Asset Protection Zones ranging
from 0 metres to 25 metres, as depicted in Figure 29: Required Asset
Protection Zones (Planning for Bush Fire Protection, 2006 – Appendix 2,
Table A2.5).
Given the nature of the proposed development it is recommended that the
entire APZ be managed as an IPA (Inner Protection Area). This area will
require:

Fuel at ground level to be kept at a minimum;

Trees and shrubs do not overhang buildings;

The placement of vegetation does not provide a path for the transfer
of fire;

The placement of vegetation does not allow for direct ignition, or
ignition by radiant heat, of a building; and

Stored combustible material is not kept within the IPA.
The APZ is discussed further in relation to building requirements in Section
10 of the attached Bushfire Assessment.
It should be noted that the APZ on the southern side of the Hotel/residential
precinct is only required to be extended the stated amount into areas of forest.
PBP does not state required APZs for saline wetlands; subsequently the APZ
for a freshwater wetland has been adopted. Sensitive areas of saline
wetlands are deemed to only require an APZ of 10 metres which is
accommodated by the proposed road.
5.9.2.5 Property Access – Fire Services &
Evacuation
Access to the subdivision for fire fighting vehicles is provided through newly
constructed roads via Woodburn-Evans Head Road, Memorial Airport Drive
and Currajong Street. The internal access roads within the development will
be two-wheel drive, all weather roads.
Fire Trails
To increase access and defense mobility for fire trucks, it is recommended
that fire trails be constructed along the northern boundary of the
museum/residential precinct and along the northern boundary of the
residential/hotel precinct. In this instance, fire trails are required to be used
instead of perimeter roads as a result of the multiple crossings of aviation
taxiways (a gravel fire trail will not inhibit the movement of aircrafts).
Page 141
The proposed fire trails and access points are deemed to comply with the
access requirements Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.
As such, access for Fire Service’s and staff evacuation is considered
satisfactory.
5.9.3
Building and Construction
Considerations
Australian Standard AS 3959-2009 Construction of buildings in bushfireprone areas contains six Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) each with a prescribed
suite of design and construction specifications aimed at preventing ignition
during the passing of a bushfire front. The BALs are introduced below:

BAL-LOW: The threat does not warrant application of construction
standards. Developments with BAL-LOW are generally not within
bushfire prone land (greater than 100 metres from bushland);

BAL-12.5: Addresses background radiant heat at lower levels and
ember attack;

BAL-19: Addresses mid-range radiant heat and ember attack;

BAL-29: Addresses high range radiant heat and ember attack;

BAL-40: Addresses extreme range of radiant heat, potential flame
contact and ember attack; and

BAL-FZ: Addresses construction within the flame zone.
The BALs under have been mapped in Figure 30, Figure 31and Figure 32.
N.B. If the stated APZ maintained to the minimum standard as stated in PBP,
these BALs are deemed adequate. However, if these APZs are not
maintained then a higher level of BAL may be required.
Page 142
5.9.4
Recommendations
A bushfire assessment has been undertaken to determine the presence and
degree of bushfire threat applicable to the proposed development. The result
of the assessment is to create a series of recommendations which will seek
to create a safe environment for the future users of the proposed
development. If the minimum recommended building requirements, Asset
Protection Zone and Asset Protection Zone maintenance is carried out as
required, then the development has the ability to manage and survive the
potential for bushfire attack present within the area.

Asset Protection Zones (APZs) as depicted in Figure 29 be adopted
for the proposed development to ensure protection from Bushfire;

Building envelopes, as depicted in Figure 29, Figure 31and Figure
32 be enforced through a section 88b instrument community title
scheme.

Minimum AS 3959-2009 building and construction requirements, be
enforced through a section 88b instrument community title scheme;

Asset Protection Zones should be regularly maintained to ensure
the APZ is effective in providing an adequate protection area
between assets and any potential bush fire events. APZ
maintenance should include regular mowing of any grass. The
requirements for Asset Protection Zone maintenance are set out in
Planning for Bushfire Protection, 2006;

Any future landscaping within the development should take into
consideration the type of shade trees used to ensure the genus of
tree planted does not contribute to any fuel load build-ups within the
future landscaped areas of each allotment. Any future landscaping
should comply with the principles within Appendix 5 of PBP
(‘Bushfire Provisions – Landscaping and Property Maintenance’);

Emergency fire trails be constructed as per Figure 33 to ensure
emergency exits routes for residents, and ease of access for fire
fighters in the event of a bushfire. Emergency fire trails will be
required to be constructed to a standard which allows a fully loaded
fire tuck to be able to navigate them. Construction Should be in
accordance with ‘Access (3) – Fire Trails’ in the NSW Rural Fire
Service Planning for Bushfire Protection; and

All internal roads associated with the development are constructed
in accordance with Table 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the NSW Rural Fire
Service Planning for Bushfire Protection (minimum width
requirements).
Page 143
Figure 29: Required Asset Protection Zones
Figure 30: Required Building Envelope & Relevant BALs- Hotel Area
Figure 31: Required Building Envelopes & Associated BALs- Residential Area
Figure 32: Proposed Building Envelopes & Associated BALs- Museum Precinct
Figure 33: Proposed Fire Trails
Socio-Economic
An Economic and Social Impact Statement was prepared by Mitchel Hanlon
Consulting Pty Ltd. The report identifies potential social and economic issues
arising as a result of the proposed development, and recommends mitigation
measures to address these issues..
5.10.1 Existing Conditions and Expected
Impacts
The identified potential economic and social impacts, both positive and
negative, arising from the development generally includes:

Demographic changes to the area through employment of
permanent and casual staff;

Positive economic impacts of new employment and flow on effects
to the surrounding area;

Social amenity impacts on neighbouring properties from potential
impacts on amenity:

Increased traffic flow;

Increased aircraft movements;

Increased demand on utility services; and

Increase in tourist visitor numbers.

Economic and social impact from the following elements of the
proposed airpark, residences, industrial precinct and museum:
o Preservation of the heritage and unique history of the
aerodrome;
o Support, enhancement and promotion of the region and of
existing events;
o Bring sustainable investment opportunities to the region
o Raising the profile of the Richmond Valley for future
investment;
o Support of region as place to invest and grow;
o Employment and training opportunities;
o Increasing the business diversity in the region by expansion
into the aviation and hospitality industries;
Page 149
o Provide an improvement to business confidence; and
o Provide an increase in the accessibility of Evans Head and
visitors.
5.10.2 Population
The coastal township of Evans Head is part of the Richmond Valley in the
Northern Rivers region of NSW. The Richmond Valley LGA spreads from the
coastline at Evans Head to the rural hub of Casino, a total area of
approximately 3,050 sq. km.
The region has a population of over 22,600 (Census, 2011) with the coastal
township of Evans Head comprising around 2,600 people.
The population is continuing to grow with the population of Richmond Valley
increasing at an annual rate of 0.5% over the past five years which is the
same as the average annual growth rate for the Northern Rivers (0.5%) but
lower than NSW (1.4%) over the same period.
The Richmond Valley LGA can be further divided into the ‘Casino’ region, and
the ‘Balance’ of the LGA which includes the township of Evans Head. For the
‘Balance’ the growth rate is significantly less, with an annual rate for the period
2006-2011 of only 0.1% (refer Table 18).
Over the period to 2036, the population of Richmond Valley is expected to
increase by an average annual rate of 0.4% whereas the forecast for the
Northern Rivers is 1.0% and New South Wales is 0.9%.
Future forecasts for continuing population growth in the Richmond Valley
require an estimated 9,900 new homes to be built by 2031, particularly for
Casino, which will be the main growth centre.
Given current projections it is unlikely that the population of Evans Head will
substantially alter in the foreseeable future.
Page 150
Table 18: Population
POPULATION
REGION
2011 LEVEL
ANNUAL %
CHANGE
AVERAGE
ANNUAL %
CHANGE (200611)
Richmond Valley
22,697
0.2
0.5
Richmond Valley –
Casino
11,430
1.0
0.9
Richmond Valley –
Balance
11,267
-0.5
0.1
Northern Rivers
287,809
0.2
0.5
NSW
7,302,174
1.1
1.4
5.10.3 Regional Economy
The Richmond Valley has historically been dependent on primary industries
and food manufacturing enterprises supported by a number of agricultural
businesses. There is also an active retail and tourism sector with growth in
the creative industries, building and construction sectors.
Traditionally, Evans Head has relied primarily on the Fishing Industry.
However, by 2006 the professional fishing fleet operating from Evans Head
had decreased to around 18 vessels from over 80 vessels based in the
harbour in the 1960s. This industry has diminished considerably.
The local economy lacks diversify scoring low across a number of standards.
There has been some diversity within the local economy with the
development of residential subdivisions, a response to the “Sea Change”
effect, an industrial estate and a commercial precinct predominately providing
retail and property services. The result is greater year round activity.
Evans Head remains a popular holiday destination with tourism and support
services. It has a number of attractions, natural assets and State Heritage
Listed sites as well as annual events. Tourism remains a focus of Richmond
Valley Council and is viewed as a key mechanism to attract visitors and
revenue to the region.
Events such as Primex, Beef Week and the Evans Head Fishing Classic and
Fly-in attract out-of-region income.
Page 151
5.10.4 Socio-Economic Performance
Richmond Valley Council is actively looking for opportunities “for developing
a robust and resilient economy that can cater for future population growth.”
(Richmond Valley Council website). This is a clear priority given that the
Richmond Valley LGA has also been identified as a region with diminished
social and economic performance. It has a low socio-economic base and is
among one of the most disadvantaged LGAs in NSW.
5.10.4.1 Key Socio-Economic Indexes
Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) is a product developed by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that ranks areas in Australia according
to relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage.
Table 19: Socio-Economic Indicators
INDICATOR
RICHMOND
VALLEY
SCORE
STATERANK
(OUT OF 153)
NATIONAL
RANK
(OUT OF 564)
Socio-Economic Advantage &
Disadvantage
887.63
7
56
Socio-Economic Disadvantage
899.55
8
62
Economic Resources
939.69
18
97
Education and Occupation
877.24
1
27
The low rankings indicate relative disadvantage for the Richmond Valley LGA
across all key indexes. Regionally, statistical information from the 2011
Census shows that the Richmond Valley Council local government area rates
well below the other NSW councils in the northern region (refer Table 20).
Table 20: 2011 ABS population figures for regional LGAs
Decile 1 is the most disadvantaged compared to other Deciles. Percentage 1
is the most disadvantaged compared to other percentiles.
Page 152
5.10.4.2 Economic Profile
The region has low economic diversity. The Index of Economic Diversity
measures economic or industrial diversity within a region. When the index
value is close to one, the industrial profile of a region more closely mirrors that
that the national economy and is considered more diverse.
Using this comparative benchmark, the Richmond Valley LGA is significantly
less diverse than all seven northern NSW councils and NSW more generally.
Table 21: Economic Diversity Index
INDICATOR
ECONOMIC DIVERSITY INDEX
Richmond Valley LGA
0.408
Northern Rivers
0.804
NSW
0.980
Richmond Valley Economic Brief, February 2013
The Gross Regional Product (GRP) of the Richmond Valley LGA for 2011/12
was an estimated $823.6 million, with real annual growth of 7.3%. This was
significantly higher than the average annual growth for NSW (2.4%).
In terms of business numbers, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing is the largest
industry in the Richmond Valley, accounting for 37.3% of all businesses in the
region. At only 4.3% manufacturing is one of the smallest industries in actual
business numbers yet is the region’s most significant producer of income at
21.6% of GRP. Health Care and Social Assistance contributes 7.5% of GRP.
The manufacturing sector is the largest employer in the Richmond Valley in
2011, with 19.2% (1,184 persons) of the total workforce. The total working
population (2011) was 6,152 persons, a slight decrease of 115 persons from
the 2006 census.
5.10.4.3 Employment
The unemployment rate in the Richmond Tweed area was 5.2% in the April
2016 quarter (Dept of Employment. 2016). The unemployment rate remained
only marginally higher than the Northern Rivers (5.6%), NSW (5.2%) and
Australia (5.2%).
May 2016 quarterly unemployment figures from the Department of
Employment indicates the Richmond – Tweed region had an unemployed
rate of 5.2% and a youth unemployed rate of 14.3%. The state average was
5.3% and 11.9% respectively.
Page 153
5.10.4.4 Summary
Richmond Valley Council’s low socio-economic base coupled with
fundamental weaknesses in the diversity of the economy, presents a number
of challenges for the region if it is to improve prosperity, achieve sustainable
economic growth and enhance the liveability of the region.
A competitive LGA is more likely to deliver sustainable economic growth
resulting in vibrant social communities. However this depends upon current
economic performance and what demographic advantages one LGA has
compared to others.
5.10.5 Economic Impacts
At present the aerodrome is supported by voluntary organisations and the
local council with very little income being derived for its own upkeep. As a
consequence it is a somewhat neglected and high maintenance asset.
The conversion of the aerodrome to a medium-sized airpark will not only
conserve the heritage and environmental values of the site, but bring
economic opportunities for the local community whilst simultaneously
reducing the cost burden on Council.
The economic values of the project are primarily achieved through the
delivery of a range of service businesses attracted to the project due to its
importance as an aviation hub and the scope of its tourism potential. These
will generate economic and diverse employment opportunities for the local
community. In addition to the direct opportunities, it is anticipated there will be
indirect flow-on effects of benefit to the community. The ‘multiplier effect’ of
both direct and indirect businesses contributing to goods and services within
the local region will create subsequent employment opportunities
5.10.5.1 Aviation Related Business Opportunities
The proposal aims to establish significant aviation businesses by the
provision of:

Commercial aviation hangar sites and

Light Industrial allotments with priority for aviation related
businesses.
To-date there are four (4) businesses interested in establishing themselves
at the airpark:

Curry Kenny Aviation Group;

Aircraft Maintenance Specialists;

Matt Hall Racing/Inverted Down Under; and

Thrillion Air.
Page 154
There are indications that an aviation cluster will develop. The proponent has
received enquiries from a number of parties interested in establishing a
presence once development is complete.
Thus it is expected there will be an immediate boost to the local economy
from these and other businesses with a corresponding positive effect.
5.10.5.2 Employment
The proposed enterprises would stimulate employment via the provision of
specific opportunities in the aviation field. This would be an additional and
diverse offering to the range of jobs and occupations currently available in the
local area. It would be expected that some of these opportunities would be
available for the youth of the Evans Head community. To-date, the potential
number of positions available can be determined as follows:
Table 22: Employment
ENTERPRISE
INITIAL
FURTHER POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL
IDENTIFIEDTODATE
+42 if relocate Caloundra
Curry Kenny
Aviation Group
9
+ 4 if setup small remote
relocation of helicopter and
fixed wing charters
55
13
Additional support
services in local
community e.g. welding,
electrical etc
13 plus
Matt Hall Racing
3
Plus support services
3
Thrillion Air
3
Aircraft
Maintenance
Specialists
Expressions of
Interest
Total
3
Up to 33 staff
28
79
33
107
This is an anticipated initial employment opportunity of up to 30 jobs with an
identified potential of over 100.
Page 155
5.10.5.3 Local Economy
In addition to the direct employment and economic activity generated by the
new businesses, many will rely on local suppliers and skills to provide goods
and service critical to their specific product delivery. This will have broad
positive effects on commercial businesses currently in Evans Head providing
a multiplier effect for stimulating the rest of the local economy.
5.10.5.4 Tourism and Hospitality Related
Business Opportunities
Tourism features as one of the key focus areas for Richmond Valley Council
to stimulate the region and help provide a comparative advantage over other
areas. The Airpark proposal will stimulate tourism via the establishment of a
number of attractive and compelling tourist and visitor opportunities. This
includes:

The restoration of the Bellman Hanger as the first home for an
Aviation /Historic Museum;

A boutique hotel/ convention centre with 60-90 rooms;

A future museum precinct; and

The Aeroclub, eatery and community recreation facilities.
The redevelopment would also support and facilitate events and functions
such as the Great Eastern Fly-in and “the low level activity linked to the
museum and resident historic exhibits.
Tourism trade would thus be increased and the local economy boosted via
new business investment and the resultant impact on employment, visitor
numbers, and enhancement of the competitive advantage of the region.
Page 156
5.10.5.5 Employment
There are a number of employment opportunities that would arise from the
proposed tourism businesses.
Table 23: Employment
BUSINESS
INITIAL
FURTHER
POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL
IDENTIFIEDTODATE
Hotel Convention Centre
9
Plus ancillary
contractors
22
Museum
1

1
Aeroclub – Café/Restaurant
1
2

Total
23
2
23
That is an initial employment opportunity of over 20 positions.
5.10.5.6 Local Economy
With the expectation of a substantial boost to tourism in area there would be
an anticipated flow-on to all ancillary business supplying tourism services in
the region. This would provide security and opportunities for the local supply
chain with a resultant multiplier effect.
In addition, by supporting the use and maintenance of the existing aerodrome
infrastructure, it would enable more fly-in activity in addition to the commercial
and residential usage of the airport, and enhance the opportunity for more
visitors to the area.
5.10.5.7 Construction Phase
Additional contribution and stimulus during the construction phase is
estimated to have a value of $157,535,997. Estimates for the construction of
the civil component of the development and the estimated build costs are
detailed in Table 24.
Page 157
Table 24: Civil and building works cost estimate
ITEM
EASTERN PRECINCT
(AUD)
WESTERN PRECINCT
(AUD)
Civil works 1
Construction total
6,840,239
3,666,970
Fees and Charges
4,870,720
984,267
Survey and Design
742,700
385,100
12,453,659
5,036,337
2,490,731
1,007,267
Revised Total
14,944,391
6,043,605
Sub Total
20,987,997
Total
Contingency 20%
Building works 2
Dwelling
28,320,000
12,480,000
Dwelling
28,320,000
12,480,000
Hangar
4,720,000
2,080,000
High Density Residential
5,400,000
Hotel (60 bedroom)
24,180,000
Industrial Sheds (18)
17,280,000
4,000,000
3,240,000
1,200,000
Museum complex
10,800,000
Museum carpark
90,000
Total
88,340,000
25,450,000
Contingency 20%
17,668,000
5,909,000
Revised Total
106,008,000
30,540,000
Sub Total
136,548,000
TOTAL
157,535,997
1.
Construction costs from internal Mitchel Hanlon Consulting database
2.
Unit costs from Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook with country loading
Page 158
5.10.5.8 Council Revenue and Expenditure
Council will realise the direct economic benefit from the elimination of the cost
burden of maintaining the aerodrome and its associated liabilities.
With the re-development Council would also realise the additional income
from the increase to the number of active ratepayers once occupancy is
achieved.
5.10.6 Social Impacts
Social indicators have determined that the Evans Head area is one of the
most disadvantaged economically and socially in NSW. Some of the
perceived issues are:

Opportunities for youth particularly regarding employment;

Education and training;

Educational advancement; and

Accommodation for a growing population.
And a sustainable and robust local economy that provides for its residents.
There is arguably a very strong link between the vitality of a local economy
and the social standards realised in any location, with indicators such as
employment providing the platform for social advancement.
5.10.6.1 Employment
Without adequate employment, the maintenance of any community’s social
fabric is at risk. One of the main drivers for impacts on community
fundamentals is employment. Any opportunity to provide more and better jobs
will help promote and sustain economic and social development.
The proposal would help bolster employment during the construction and
operational phase. Construction work will be available for both the civil and
building phases. Post construction employment opportunities will be available
with the hotel, aviation industry, and aerodrome maintenance and operation.
Increased employment opportunities will have consequent positive social
impact.
5.10.6.2 Education and Training
The new businesses attracted to the Airpark development will not only
generate employment opportunities but will require ongoing training and skills
development.
Page 159
Skill levels, the type of jobs and roles, gaining of qualifications and potential
career paths are other important employment factors crucial to the overall
social and financial well-being of a regional centre. Specifically in the Evans
Head area there is an identified need to recruit and retain skilled employees
and the challenge of retaining youth.
The new businesses attracted to the Airpark development will not only
generate employment opportunities but will require on-going training and
valuable skills development.
With the introduction of the skilled employment opportunities in aviation and
hospitality, there is a desire to also promote subjects locally with the high
school and not only improve prospects for employment at the aerodrome but
also within industry more generally.
5.10.6.3 Housing
The Richmond Valley LGA has been identified for major population growth
with the requirement for substantial new homes to be built to meet the
demand.
Niche housing will be required at the airpark. The estimated build can be
considered is surplus to the trend estimates within Council commissioned
economic studies.
5.10.6.4 Infrastructure/Isolation
The site would continue as a working aerodrome. Upgrade of the facilities
would increase usage from aviators resident to the aerodrome and the Evans
Head community whether residential or with commercial interests. Some
usage will occur as a result of tourism and commercial visitors to the
Aerodrome. This could help reduce the relative isolation of the township via
the improvement of infrastructure for aviation users.
The upgraded facilities would also provide availability at no cost to emergency
services such as airborne bush firefighting, air ambulance and air evacuation.
5.10.6.5 Community Facilities
The community would also benefit from enhanced amenity via the provision
of new and improved facilities.
Page 160
Museum
“The proposal to establish a sizeable museum at the aerodrome has drawn
interest from various private collectors interested in placing their rare
machines in the building for visitors to appreciate. Over time the museum will
become a key tourist feature for the town attracting increasing numbers of
visitors which will no doubt have positive benefits for the local community”.
Open Space
The proposed environmental open space as part of the development will
create a natural area for both local residents and tourists. Preserving the
natural space in the north-west of the site is paramount and emphasis has
been made to retain vegetation habitat. Environmental education will be
implemented by using interpretive signage throughout the conservation area.
Providing cycle ways and pathways throughout the complex, connecting
residential areas to the beach and township, will enhance community access
5.10.6.6 Promotion and Pride
A new exciting and innovative airpark development should bolster community
pride and facilitate promotion of the area. The development provides an
opportunity for Council, community groups and the general public to explicitly
and actively market the Airpark and other local attractions to a wide range of
potential visitors, future investors and new residents. Both business and
household confidence should be boosted as a result and further encourage
the spending and investment that helps drive economic growth.
5.10.6.7 Net Community Benefit
In order for the project to proceed it must demonstrate a net benefit for the
community as a result of the development. In addition to the many benefits
detailed above the proposal can be reviewed against outcomes of the SWOT
analysis conducted by Richmond Valley Council and published in the
Economic Development Strategy 2010-2015.
This enables a reconciliation of the deliverables of the project against
perceived key inherent prospects and limitations of the region
Those most relevant items are tabled in Table 25.
Page 161
Table 25: Net Community Benefit
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
Lifestyle and climate
Low socio-economic
base
Showcase unique
history
Loss of major
employers
Natural assets and
beauty
Lack of employment
experience for youth
Sustainable industry
development
Dislocated
communities –
Evans Head/Casino
History – State
Heritage Listed Site
Low level of
business confidence
to compete
regionally
Promote the
Richmond Valley
Good events
Lack of business
diversity
Facilitate Richmond
Valley as a regional
industry destination
Specifically in comparison to the proposal’s deliverables, the development
would provide the outcomes detailed in Table 26
Table 26: Development Outcomes – Strengths and Opportunities
STRENGTHS:
OPPORTUNITIES:
OUTCOMES

Lifestyle and
Climate

Showcase unique
history

Natural Assets
and beauty

Sustainable industry
development

History – State
Heritage Listed
Site

Promote the Richmond
Valley



Good events
Facilitate Richmond
Valley as a regional
industry destination
Preservation of the Heritage
and unique history of the
aerodrome

Support, enhancement and
promotion of the region and of
existing events

Lifestyle and recreational
development with parks,
wetlands, tennis, cycle way
access to the beach

Bringing sustainable investment
opportunities to the region

Raising the profile of the
Richmond Valley for future
investment
Clearly the proposal takes
advantage of and maximises the
relative Strengths and
Opportunities by recognising and
by building upon:
Page 162
Table 27: Development Outcomes – Weaknesses and Threats
WEAKNESSES:
THREATS:

Low Socioeconomic base

Loss of major
employers

Lack of
employment
experience for
youth

Dislocated
communities

Evans Head/Casino


Low level of
business
confidence to
compete
regionally
Lack of Business
diversity
OUTCOMES
The proposal helps redress various
Weaknesses and mitigates some
key Threats identified for the region
by providing:

Support of region as place to
invest and grow

Employment and training
opportunities

Increasing the business
diversity in the region by
expansion into the aviation
industry

Improvement to business
confidence

Increase to the accessibility
Evans Head and visitors
Page 163
5.10.7 Conclusion
The Evans Head Airpark proposal would have an overall net benefit to Evans
Head and the Richmond Valley LGA in terms of socio-economic outcomes.
Richmond Valley Council is actively looking for opportunities to develop a
resilient economy that can cater for future population growth and provide
employment opportunities for local people. Moreover, RVC is seeking higher
utilisation of the existing asset in the heritage listed Evans Head Memorial
Aerodrome and to minimise maintenance costs.
The project is well aligned with the priorities outlined in the Richmond Valley
Council’s strategic plans to facilitate a robust economy and provide for
community priorities.
The proposal development will assist with diversification of the local and
industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing and on manufacturing.
There will be a lift in the aviation and hospitality related sectors. Tourism
activity will also increase upon the completion of the museum complex.
facilities.
Page 164
Servicing Strategy
The proposed development will have a significant demand on utility services
and on stormwater. The following sections quantify the demand for services
and address the identified impacts. The full servicing strategy is located in
Appendix I.
5.11.1 Water Supply Capacity
The water supply to the site will be supplied from the extension of the existing
network.
Presently, the industrial and residential areas to the south and east are
serviced by via 150 mm diameter main and a 100 mm internal pipe.
Section D11.09.7 of the Northern Rivers Local Government, Development
and Design Manual, requires a minimum of 100 mm diameter main and 150
mm diameter pipe for commercial, industrial and high-rise building areas.
Though the fire-fighting requirements are met by the existing system, it is
proposed to install 100 mm and 150 mm diameter pipe in the subdivision.
Maximum unassisted pressure at the highest elevation in the development
site is approximately 534 kPa. The following pressure requirements have
been met for a fire brigade pumping appliance:

250 kPa for Attack fire hydrant, unassisted; and

150 kPa for Feed fire hydrant, unassisted
The 10.5 L/s flow rate for the 100mm diameter water main is marginally above
the 10 L/s hydrant flow rate criteria
5.11.1.1 Internal Water Supply
The internal water supply will have the following characteristics:

The eastern residential, industrial and medium density precinct
areas will be serviced via the extension of the existing 150 mm
diameter water supply main located within Memorial Airport Drive.
The new 150 mm main will be installed in the footpath of the
proposed new road running from Memorial Airport Drive to
Currajong Street. The new 150 mm main will connect to the existing
100 mm diameter water supply main in Currajong Street;

A new 100 mm main will be installed throughout the residential area
(including the proposed future hotel) and connect back on to the
proposed 150 mm main. This will ensure hydraulic connectivity
thereby reducing the incidence of air pockets in the line;
Page 165

The western museum precinct will be serviced via a new 150 mm
connection to the 200 mm water main located on the northern side
of Woodburn-Evan Heads Road. The new 150 mm main will be
installed in the footpath of the proposed roads and extended
throughout the residential / museum area and reconnect to the
existing 200 mm diameter water supply main in Woodburn-Evan
Heads Road. Negotiations will be held with Rous Water following
the issue of development consent;

The exact location and depth of the water mains will need to be
confirmed prior to formalising the proposed connection points
above;

The main will provide water supply to each of the residential lots via
water standard water service connections. Each connection will be
metered and have a non-return valve to prevent backflow
contamination;

External fire hydrants will be installed in the water main at 70 metre
intervals. Hydrants will also be installed at high and low points in
the line;

Stop valves will be installed in the water main to permit
maintenance; and

Services to be in accordance with Council requirements. Typically
20mm diameter services are required.
It is should be noted that the above mentioned provisions are concept only
and are subject to significant change as a result of the design phase.
5.11.2 Electricity
present, there is extensive electricity infrastructure exists within the local area.
It is our understanding that at present electricity power supply is supplied to
the site and nearby industrial lands via overhead reticulation. However, future
electrical servicing will be provided via underground reticulation.
electrical design upon the issue of Development Consent. Subsequent
confirmation that suitable electrical services are available for the development
will be obtained from Essential Energy following the construction of the
infrastructure and forwarded to Council.
Page 166
5.11.3 Telecommunications
present, there is extensive telecommunication infrastructure exists within the
local area.
All telecommunication services will be provided via the extension of the
existing telecommunication infrastructure located within the vicinity of the site.
telecommunication design upon the issue of Development Consent.
Subsequent confirmation that a suitable telecommunications supply is
available for each lot will be obtained from Telstra/NBN following the
construction of the infrastructure and forwarded to Council.
5.11.4 Natural Gas
present, there is no existing natural gas connections located within the
development site. As such, no allowance has been made to supply the
development with reticulated gas.
5.11.5 Stormwater Drainage
Pipe flow within the industrial site will be determined for the 5-year and 10year (where necessary) ARIs.
It is intended to develop a network of pits and drainage lines to carry all
developed runoff from the proposed development during a 5-year (residential
areas) and 10-year (commercial/industrial/hotel and museum areas) ARI
rainfall event.
A series of overland flow paths have will also be designed to cater for
stormwater surcharging for the piped network in the event of a 1 in 100 year
storm event. It is intended that all internal roads and taxi ways will function as
overland channels directing flows to existing discharge points. The capacity
of these discharge points will be confirmed during the design phase. Should
these points be found to be at capacity or ‘under-sized’ suitable
augmentations or upgrades will be undertaken.
The principal discharge point for the eastern portion of the site has been
identified as the existing channel located on the eastern side of BroadwaterEvans Head Road / Flame Street whilst the secondary discharge point is the
existing culvert beneath the intersection Evans Head Road / Flame Street and
Currajong Street.
The principal discharge point for the western portion of the site has been
identified as the existing culvert located beneath Woodburn-Evans Head
Road.
Page 167
It is should be noted that the above mentioned provisions are concept only
and are subject to significant change as a result of the design phase.
5.11.5.1 Stormwater Quality
Stormwater from the proposed allotments will be partially captured by on-site
rainwater tanks. Dwellings harvest rainwater and potentially re-use that
rainwater for toilet flushing and gardens and in some cases laundry. In
addition to the obvious resource efficiency outcome the rainwater tanks also
mitigate the effect of urbanisation on the flow regime of the waterways. By
reducing the peak flows the aquatic ecosystems within the waterways are
better conserved.
Due to the flat nature of the site, runoff discharged from the lots, access roads
and taxiways will flow via overland flow paths to the existing channels and
waterways. These flow-paths will consist of road kerb and gutters, swale
drains and table drains. Some site regrading will be required to ensure flow
efficacy. The regrading will consist of cut-and-fill to achieve maximum falls of
0.3 to 0.5%. As a result, changes in elevation are expected to be minimal.
Water quality will be controlled via gross-pollutant traps and bio-retention
units located within the drains and at the point of discharge to the existing
waterways. The bio-retention units will be designed to work in conjunction
with a traditional kerb and guttering approach preferred by residents. The bioretention units will be positioned on the border of the riparian reserve treating
stormwater before it enters the waterway.
The riparian areas will be maintained and managed as functioning waterways
in an urban context. The intent is for the waterways to be to be a feature of
the subdivision. A riparian buffer will be maintained to ensure the
sustainability of the aquatic ecosystems. Walkways will be incorporated into
the design to allow public access.
Erosion and sediment control will be installed and maintained in accordance
with NRLG’s requirements and Landcom’s Managing Urban Stormwater,
Soils and Construction (‘Blue Book’).
Page 168
5.11.6 Sewer
Sewer for the site will connect to the existing rising (pressure) sewer main
which traverses the site.
The projected Equivalent Tenements (ET’s) for the proposed development in
relation to sewerage has been calculated in accordance with the ‘AUSSPEC#1 Development and Design Manual’.
Section D12.06 states that initial design may assume that one Equivalent
Tenement (ET), which equates to a standard single dwelling unit, is equal to
3.2 equivalent persons (EP), i.e. 1 ET = 3.2 EP. Based upon the relevant
design loading criteria, the number of ETs for the development are detailed in
Table 28.
Table 28: Calculation of Development Design Loading
CATEGORY
ADOPTED
LOADING
NUMBER
OF UNITS
NUMBER OF
ETs
NUMBER OF
EPs
Precinct 1A (Residential/Hotel)
Proposed
Residential Area
1 ET / Dwelling
25 Lots /
Dwellings
26.45
84.64
Proposed High
Density Area
50 ETs / Gross
Ha
1.35 Ha
67.50
216.00
Proposed Hotel
1/8 ET / Bed
90 Rooms
17.78
56.89
111.73
357.53
Total
Precinct 1B (Commercial/Private Hangers)
Proposed
Commercial
Hanger Area
10 ETs / Built
up Ha
1.95 Ha
19.50
62.40
Proposed
Private Hanger
Area
10 ETs / Built
up Ha
0.20 Ha
5.00
16.00
24.50
78.40
Total
Precinct 2 (Residential/Museum)
Proposed
Residential Area
1 ET / Dwelling
50 Lots /
Dwellings
52.90
169.28
Proposed
Museum Area
10 ETs / Built
up Ha
0.72 Ha
7.62
24.38
60.52
193.66
Total
Page 169
Table 29 details the sewerage flows from the site using the methodology
detailed in the Department of Public Work’s Sewer Design Manual Appendix
B.
Table 29: Sewerage Flows from the Development
FLOW TYPE
SEWAGE FLOWS
Precinct 1A (Residential/Hotel)
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
0.011 L/s/tenement x 112 ET
= 1.23 L/s
PDWF = r x ADWF where
Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF)
r = √[1.74 + 56/T0.4] for T>30
= 3.93 L/s
√ [1.74+56/1120.4] x 1.23
Minimum Dry Weather Flow (Min
DWF)
Min DWF = 1/r x ADWF
Storm Allowance (SA) – Residential
Lots & Hotel
SA = 0.058 L/s/Tenement
Storm Allowance (SA) – High
Density Area
SA = 0.58 L/s/Ha
Storm Allowance (SA) – Total
Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF)
1/(3.20 x 1.23)
0.58 L/s/Ha x 1.35Ha
SA (Res & Hotel Area) + SA
(HD Area)
PWWF = PDWF + SA
3.94 L/s + 3.35 L/s
= 0.25 L/s
= 2.57 L/s
= 0.78 L/s
= 3.35 L/s
= 7.28 L/s
Precinct 1B (Commercial/Private Hangers)
= 0.33 L/s
4.01 x 0.33
= 1.32 L/s
DWF)
1/(4.01 x 0.33)
= 0.76 L/s
Storm Allowance (SA)
0.58 L/s/Ha x 2.15Ha
= 1.25 L/s
1.32 L/s + 1.25 L/s
= 2.57 L/s
Precinct 2 (Residential/Museum)
= 0.67 L/s
Page 170
FLOW TYPE
SEWAGE FLOWS
3.54 x 0.67
= 2.38 L/s
DWF)
1/(3.54 x 0.67)
= 0.42 L/s
Storm Allowance (SA) – Residential
Lots
SA = 0.058 L/s/Tenement
Storm Allowance (SA) – Museum
Area
SA = 0.58 L/s/Ha
Storm Allowance (SA) – Total
SA (Res) + SA (Museum Area)
= 3.51 L/s
2.38 L/s + 3.51 L/s
= 5.87 L/s
0.58 L/s/Ha x 0.72 Ha
= 3.07 L/s
= 0.44 L/s
It is proposed to sewer the development via the following:

Where possible all lots within Precinct 1A and 1B will be serviced
via new gravity sewer mains, these mains will transfer sewage to a
centralised pump station located to the south of the site (EHPS08).
This pump station discharges to the existing 300mm rising main
which traverses the site;

Should the servicing of these areas not be possible (due to
minimum grade restrictions etc), the areas will be serviced via a
combination of gravity and pressure sewer systems;

It is understood that due to recent development within the area the
existing pressurised sewer main that traverses the site (north to
south) is expected to be at capacity;

As such, it is proposed to construct a new suitably sized pump
station located towards the center of the site. A new suitably sized
rising main will also be constructed to convey sewage to the sewage
treatment plant to the north of the site;

It is proposed to relocate the length of rising main fronting proposed
lots 14 – 28;

Lots 14 – 28 (industrial hanger lots) will be serviced via new gravity
sewer mains, these mains will transfer sewage to a grinder pump
station (or similar) which will feed to the proposed pump station; and

All lots within Precinct 2 will be serviced via new gravity sewer
mains, these mains will transfer sewage to the new pump station
which will feed to the proposed the rising main.
Page 171
It should be noted that the above mentioned provisions are concept only and
are subject to significant change as a result of the design phase.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion control will be implemented at this site during construction activities
to minimise soil erosion and protect surface water quality.
Sedimentation of surface flows will be minimised by ensuring stockpiles are
located within the construction zone and sediment fencing is installed around
the downslope area of the stockpile. Rock line energy dissipaters will be
installed and allow sediment to settle out of surface water prior to moving
offsite.
Detailed erosion and sediment controls measures will be detailed in the
construction drawings at the Construction Certificate stage.
Landscaping
The site will be significantly landscaped to enhance the amenity of the site.
Landscaping will need to be cognisant of aviation criteria.
A landscaping plan will be submitted with the construction drawings at the
Construction Certificate stage.
Page 172
Justification of the Proposal
It is necessary to consider the reasons for carrying out of this proposed
development and having regard to the biophysical, economic, and social
considerations of the proposal, and the principles of ecologically sustainable
development (ESD).
Biophysical Considerations
The various significant components of the biological and physical
environment have been well documented and discussed in the previous
sections of this statement, and the associated appendices.
Social and Economic
Considerations
From an economic perspective, the proposed development will benefit the
Evans Head area through stimulation of the local economy and by providing
job opportunity for local people.
The development also represents the opportunity for cost reductions in the
operation and maintenance cost of the local aerodrome.
Local construction business will benefit during the construction phase and
utilise local labour and materials. The local economy will benefit from
increased consumer spending by local businesses supplying labour and/or
goods and services during construction.
Once completed, the airpark, hotel, aviation enterprises and museum will
benefit the local economy by providing directed sustainable employment and
local business spending on goods.
The development will help alleviate the low diversity in the Richmond Valley
LGA economy.
Page 173
Principles of Ecologically
Sustainable Development
The principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) are found in
Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
(EPA Regulation 2000) and in s6 of the Protection of the Environment
Administration Act 1991 (PEA Act),
They are defined as follows:

The “precautionary principle”, namely that if there are threats of serious or
irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation;

“Inter-generational equity”, namely that the present generation should ensure
that the health, diversity, and productivity of the environment is maintained or
enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

“Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity”; that conservation
of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental
consideration, and

“Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms”, namely that
environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and
services.
Evans Head Airpark is committed to the use of environmentally friendly
practices in the development of the airpark. Furthermore, in considering this
application, it needs to be remembered that ESD requires the effective
integration of economic and environmental considerations in the decisionmaking process [s.6(2) Protection of the Environment Administration Act,
1991].
This Statement of Environmental Effects has outlined the current
environmental qualities of the site and mitigation measures to minimise
environmental impact from the proposed development.
Page 174
7.3.1
The Precautionary Principle
The EPA Regulation 2000 defines the precautionary principle as:
…if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
Further, the EPA Reg states that, in applying the precautionary principle,
decisions should be guided by:
i.
Careful evaluation to, wherever practicable, avoid serious or irreversible
damage to the environment;
ii.
An assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options
In the preparation of the proposed development of the airpark, the
Precautionary Principle has been adhered to, as evidenced by:

Pre–Development Application consultations and meetings with
Richmond Valley Council;

Discussions by the local museum and various adjoining neighbours;

Careful evaluation of the perceived threats of environmental
damage, as well as comprehensive planning, evaluation, and
development of the implications of the proposal;

Consideration of the aerodrome’s considerable heritage value;

Assessment of the impact of noise on the local community and

The objective and comprehensive environmental assessment of the
This application is the result of a thorough assessment and evaluation of the
environmental impacts which may result as a consequence of this proposal.
Issues such as: noise, traffic, flora and fauna, site contamination and coastal
sensitivity have been examined and reported in conformance with the
requirements of this principle.
Based on implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed
development will not contribute to serious or irreversible damage to the local
environment.
Page 175
7.3.2
Intergenerational Equity
The EPA Regulation 2000 defines Intergenerational Equity as
…the present generation ensuring that the health, diversity and productivity of the
environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.
The proposed development is in accordance with the principles of intergenerational equity on the following basis:

It will result in a significant and sustained stimulus to the local and
regional economies;

It will improve the economic viability of many of the region’s existing
grain producing land holdings;

The burden upon the utility for infrastructure upgrades and
electricity supply will diminish; and

The carbon footprint of the facility will be significantly reduced.
7.3.3
Conservation of Biodiversity and
Ecological Integrity
The EPA Regulation 2000 states:
…conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental
consideration.
Biological diversity is defined by the Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995 (TSC Act) as:
…the diversity of life and is made up of the following 3 components:
(a) genetic diversity - the variety of genes (or units of heredity) in any population,
(b) species diversity - the variety of species,
(c) ecosystem diversity - the variety of communities of ecosystems
The proposed development will preserve the variety of biodiversity and
ecological integrity on the site by:

The introduction and implementation of erosion and sediment
control measures;

Maintenance of the existing waterways and dams on the site for
aquatic species;

Sustainable wastewater irrigation with minimal impact on soil
structure and nutrient loads; and
Page 176

Maintenance of native vegetation via landscape screening. This has
great potential to maintain native flora and fauna in the area once
established.
7.3.4
Improved Valuation, Pricing and
Incentive Mechanisms
The principle of Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms
deems that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of
assets and services. The EPA Regulation 2000 identifies the following
methods to achieve this:
(i)
Polluter pays: those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of
containment, avoidance or abatement;
(ii)
The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle
of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources
and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste; and
(iii)
Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most
cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market
mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise
costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problem
The triple bottom line analysis includes costs associated with using or
impacting upon environmental resources. Such costs should be factored into
development proposals so that the value of the end-product and/or service in
seen in the broader context of the natural environment.
In terms of the proposed development, Evans Head Airpark will bear the full
costs associated with:

The maintenance of the heritage items at the aerodrome. This will
be achieved via the use of a sinking fund and levies raised from the
community title scheme. A life-cycle plan will be developed to
determine the value of the levy.

The maintenance of all non-heritage items at the aerodrome and its
compliance with all aviation safety requirements.

The avoidance, abatement, containment and management of any
incident that results in or has the potential to result in environmental
pollution during the construction and operation of the development;

The appropriate management of all waste streams generated by the
development except those considered to be more appropriately
collected and managed by Richmond Valley Council;

The upgrade and/or extension of infrastructure to service the
proposed development; and
Page 177

Fulfilling and complying with the conditions of consent applied by
Richmond Valley Council.
The proposed airpark development will result in an improvement in the
maintenance and environmental performance of the aerodrome.
Analysis of Alternatives
The applicant has considered the alternatives to investing considerable
finances into the proposed development. These include:
a) The do nothing option.
The developer Evans Head Airpark is solely committed to the development
of the Evans Head Aerodrome. If development consent cannot be achieved,
it is unlikely the company will seek a similar site either locally or further afield.
Moreover, the opportunity to take over the cost of maintaining the aerodrome,
enhancing its infrastructure, providing local job and business opportunities
would be lost.
b) Discontinue operations.
This is unlikely as Council has a commitment to maintaining the aerodrome’s
operational capability for local operators and for the Great Eastern Fly In.
Moreover, the site is heritage listed and as such requires ongoing care and
maintenance in accordance with the site’s Heritage Management Plan.
7.4.1
Consideration of Alternative Sites
Due to the nature of the proposed development, there is no similar sites
available in the region.
Councils are generally examining means to enhance the economic
opportunities for their local communities through the development of Council
owned aerodromes. Examples include:

Temora Shire Council: development of their aerodrome into an
airpark and heritage museum. Like Evans Head, Temora provided
aircrew training during the Second World War.

Glen Innes Shire Council: development of the Glen Innes
Aerodrome into a 600 student flying college. Development consent
has been granted and funding is being sought to finance the
development.

Tumut Shire Council: development of 70 aviation industrial lots.

Armidale Dumaresq Council: development of aviation industrial lots.
Page 178
Potential sites would need to satisfy a number of criteria: satisfy ANEF noise
criteria, have access to utility services, be located in an attractive setting,
provide suitable amenities and access to local commercial centre.
Because of the time required to locate and acquire a suitable site that
complies with the criteria plus the cost of development, this option is not
considered viable
7.4.2
Consequences of the Development
Not Proceeding
If the development were not to proceed, it is likely Richmond Valley Council
will be required to continue funding the maintenance of the aerodrome.
Council may elect to reissue expressions of interest for the use of the
aerodrome. It is possible a commercial or not-for-profit organisation may
come forward and be willing to invest funds.
It is almost equally possible no entity will emerge who is willing to undertake
any activity at the aerodrome.
It is more likely Council will undertake or facilitate development of the area in
piecemeal. The area adjacent to the industrial estate would likely be
developed to allow expansion of the industrial precinct.
The existing Bellman hangar will remain the base for the museum.
The Great Evans Head Fly In will continue and there may be organic growth
in the number of visitors to the event. It is unlikely to be a significant increase
in tourism revenue unless additional aviation or related events are scheduled.
The foreseeable future will see Richmond Valley Council needed to allocate
both monetary and human resources to the aerodrome.
Page 179
Conclusion
As this Statement of Environmental Effects outlines, the proposed
development of an integrated residential, industrial and commercial aviation
hub is well suited to Evans Head Aerodrome.
The Evans Head Aerodrome is an active aerodrome and is a state listed
Heritage item. This listing is courtesy of its important role as a training facility
in World War II. Recently, the last remaining onsite Bellman Hangar has been
refurbished by the developer.
As the development is being carried out by aviation enthusiasts, it will respect
the aesthetic of the aerodrome and honour the role it played in World War II
with the development of a museum.
The site, currently owned by Richmond Valley Council, is maintained by
volunteers and generates very little income for its upkeep. This development
would see an increase in revenue so that the site can be maintained and
enjoyed by the community. It also offers the Evans Head region an
opportunity to gain a unique development that will lead to increased tourism.
Several specialist investigations were carried out to ensure minimal impact to
the site and surrounding areas. It was determined that no significant impacts
are likely to occur as a result of the development.
Further, through this development, it is likely that several associated benefits
will occur such as increased employment opportunities, strengthening of the
aviation industry and improved physical management of the site.
During the construction process it is intended to use local businesses where
possible. Once construction has been completed jobs will be created onsite
in a range of industries. This will improve economic viability for the local
economy through increases in employment opportunity, tourism opportunity
and diversification of the local region.
The installation and management of sediment and erosion control devices will
aid in protecting local waterways around the site. Additionally, the planting
and maintenance of native vegetation will assist with establishing and
maintaining flora and fauna around the site.
Based on implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the development
will not contribute to serious or irreversible damage to the local environment.
Page 180
References
Acid Sulfate Soils Management Advisory Committee, 1998, Acid Sulfate
Soils, Assessment Guidelines,
Ahern C R, Stone, Y, and Blunden B (1998). Acid Sulfate Soils
Assessment Guidelines, Published by the Acid Sulfate Soil
Management Advisory Committee, Wollongbar, NSW, Australia.
ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000, National Water Quality Management
Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and
Marine Water Quality – Primary Industries (ANZECC/ARMCANZ)
2000
BMT WBM, 2014, Evans River Flood Study, Draft Report,
R.B20500.001.01, 1st February 2014.
BMT WBM, 2010, Richmond River Flood Mapping Study, Final Report,
R.B16784.002.03 Volume 1, April 2010.
CSIRO (2006) Australian Soil Resource
http://www.asris.csiro.au/index_ie.html;
Information
System,
Hartley Associates International, 2006, Working Paper: Evans Head
Wastewater Management Study – Potential Use of Reclaimed
Water for Land Irrigation, December 2006,
http://www.richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au/icms_docs/137402_Working
_Paper_Potential_Use_of_Reclaimed_Water_for_Land_Irrigation_H
artley_Associates_International.pdf
NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2010,
NSW Wetlands Policy, March 2010,
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/water/10039wetland
spolicy.pdf
NSW Department of Industry Resources and Energy, 1973, ‘New England
1:500
000
Geological
Map’,
First
Ed
1973,
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-andexplorers/geoscience-information/products-and-data/maps/geologicalmaps/1-500-000/new-england-500k-geological-map2
NSW Office of Water (2010) Water Sharing Plan for the Richmond River
Area Unregulated, Regulated and Alluvial Water Sources,
Background Document, December 2010, State of New South Wales
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.
NSW Planning, NSW Coastal Zone,
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-andLegislation/Coastal/NSW-Coastal-Zone, accessed 15 June 2016.
NSW Rural Fire Service & Department of Planning NSW (2006).
Page 181
Planning for Bushfire Protection: A Guide for Councils, Planners,
Fire Authorities, Developers and Home Owners. ISBN 0 9751033 2
6.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 1993, Evans Head
Urban Resource Survey (1000509), July 1993.
Richmond Valley Council (RVC) 2012, Richmond Valley Local
Environmental Plan 2012,
http://www.richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au/page/Planning__Developme
nt/Local_Environment_Plan/,
Richmond Valley Council (RVC) 2012, Minutes Ordinary Meeting 17 July
2012.
Richmond Valley Council (RVC) 2013, Minutes Ordinary Meeting 19
February 2013.
Stone, Y, Ahern, C R, and Blunden, B (1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Manual
1998, Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee,
Wollongbar, NSW, Australia.
Stone, Y, and Hopkins, G (1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines,
Published by the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory
Committee, Wollongbar, NSW, Australia.
Page 182
Appendix A
General Search
Information
NSW Land and Property Information
AIHMS Search
Groundwater Work Summaries
Page A-1
InfoTrack
An Approved LPI NSW
Information Broker
Title Search
Information Provided Through
Aussearch
Ph. 02 9267 9728 Fax. 02 9267 9226
LAND AND PROPERTY INFORMATION NEW SOUTH WALES - TITLE SEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------
FOLIO: 3/1217074
-----SEARCH DATE
----------7/6/2016
TIME
---6:46 PM
EDITION NO
---------1
DATE
---7/4/2016
LAND
---LOT 3 IN DEPOSITED PLAN 1217074
AT EVANS HEAD
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA RICHMOND VALLEY
PARISH OF RILEY
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
TITLE DIAGRAM DP1217074
FIRST SCHEDULE
-------------RICHMOND VALLEY COUNCIL
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SECOND SCHEDULE (9 NOTIFICATIONS)
--------------1
AG689921 CAVEAT BY PAUL REGINALD MITCHELL AS REGARDS "GREEN
HANGAR", EVANS HEAD AIRPORT, MEMORIAL AIRPORT DRIVE,
EVANS HEAD
AH558877 ORDER OF COURT
AH673751 CAVEATOR CONSENTED
2
AG971676 CAVEAT BY HALDEN BOYD, TOM CADET & JOHN SAUNDERS AS
REGARDS "NORTHERN HANGAR', EVANS HEAD AIRPORT,
MEMORIAL DRIVE, EVANS HEAD
3
AH418557 CAVEAT BY EVANS HEAD AIRPARK PTY LIMITED
4
AH673751 HERITAGE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO S.43 HERITAGE ACT
1977
5
DP1217074 EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE VARIABLE WIDTH AFFECTING THE
PART(S) SHOWN SO BURDENED IN THE TITLE DIAGRAM
6
DP1217074 EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE 17.1 METRE(S) WIDE AND VARIABLE
AFFECTING THE PART(S) SHOWN SO BURDENED IN THE TITLE
DIAGRAM
7
DP1217074 EASEMENT FOR SEWER RISING MAIN 5, 7, 10, 15 METRE(S)
WIDE AND VARIABLE WIDTH AFFECTING THE PART(S) SHOWN SO
BURDENED IN THE TITLE DIAGRAM
8
DP1217074 RESTRICTION(S) ON THE USE OF LAND
9
DP1217074 POSITIVE COVENANT
END OF PAGE 1 - CONTINUED OVER
14004
PRINTED ON 7/6/2016
LAND AND PROPERTY INFORMATION NEW SOUTH WALES - TITLE SEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------
FOLIO: 3/1217074
------
PAGE
2
NOTATIONS
--------UNREGISTERED DEALINGS: NIL
***
14004
END OF SEARCH
***
PRINTED ON 7/6/2016
* Any entries preceded by an asterisk do not appear on the current edition of the Certificate of Title. Warning: the information appearing under
notations has not been formally recorded in the Register. InfoTrack an approved NSW Information Broker hereby certifies that the information
contained in this document has been provided electronically by the Registrar General in accordance with Section 96B(2) of the Real Property
Act 1900.
AHIMS Web Services (AWS)
Search Result
Purchase Order/Reference : 14004
Client Service ID : 209964
Tim Mclean
Date: 03 February 2016
PO Box 1568
Tamworth New South Wales 2340
Attention: Tim Mclean
Email: tmclean@mitchelhanlon.com.au
Dear Sir or Madam:
AHIMS Web Service search for the following area at Lot : 2, DP:DP1193927 with a Buffer of 200 meters,
conducted by Tim Mclean on 03 February 2016.
The context area of your search is shown in the map below. Please note that the map does not accurately
display the exact boundaries of the search as defined in the paragraph above. The map is to be used for
general reference purposes only.
A search of the Office of the Environment and Heritage AHIMS Web Services (Aboriginal Heritage Information
Management System) has shown that:
0 Aboriginal sites are recorded in or near the above location.
0 Aboriginal places have been declared in or near the above location. *
If your search shows Aboriginal sites or places what should you do?
You must do an extensive search if AHIMS has shown that there are Aboriginal sites or places recorded in the
search area.
If you are checking AHIMS as a part of your due diligence, refer to the next steps of the Due Diligence Code of
practice.
You can get further information about Aboriginal places by looking at the gazettal notice that declared it.
Aboriginal places gazetted after 2001 are available on the NSW Government Gazette
(http://www.nsw.gov.au/gazette) website. Gazettal notices published prior to 2001 can be obtained from
Office of Environment and Heritage's Aboriginal Heritage Information Unit upon request
Important information about your AHIMS search
The information derived from the AHIMS search is only to be used for the purpose for which it was requested.
It is not be made available to the public.
AHIMS records information about Aboriginal sites that have been provided to Office of Environment and
Heritage and Aboriginal places that have been declared by the Minister;
Information recorded on AHIMS may vary in its accuracy and may not be up to date .Location details are
recorded as grid references and it is important to note that there may be errors or omissions in these
recordings,
Some parts of New South Wales have not been investigated in detail and there may be fewer records of
Aboriginal sites in those areas. These areas may contain Aboriginal sites which are not recorded on AHIMS.
Aboriginal objects are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 even if they are not recorded
as a site on AHIMS.
This search can form part of your due diligence and remains valid for 12 months.
3 Marist Place, Parramatta NSW 2150
Locked Bag 5020 Parramatta NSW 2220
Tel: (02) 9585 6380 Fax: (02) 9873 8599
ABN 30 841 387 271
Email: ahims@environment.nsw.gov.au
Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au
Appendix B
Soil Analysis Results
Mitchel Hanlon Consulting
Page B-1
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
105269
Client:
East West Enviroag Pty Ltd
82 Plain St
Tamworth
NSW 2340
Attention:
Stephanie Cameron/Dan Poflotski
Sample log in details:
Your Reference:
No. of samples:
Date samples received / completed instructions received
EW140196
12 Soils
19/02/2014
/
19/02/2014
Analysis Details:
Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.
Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.
Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.
Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.
Report Details:
Date results requested by: / Issue Date:
27/02/14
/
3/03/14
Date of Preliminary Report:
not issued
NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.
Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.
Results Approved By:
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 1 of 10
82 Plain Street Tamworth NSW 2340
P 02 6762 1733 F 02 6765 910 9
admin@eastwestonline.com.au
www.eastwestonline.com.au
ABN 82 125 442 382
ANALYSIS REPORT SOIL
Project No:
EW140196
Date of Issue: 03/03/2014
Customer:
Address:
Mitchel Hanlon Consulting
PO Box 1568
Tamworth NSW 2340
Report No:
Date Received:
Matrix:
Attention:
Kelly Leedham
Location:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
02 6762 4411
02 6762 4412
kleedham@mitchelhanlon.com.au
Sampler ID:
Date of Sampling:
Sample Condition:
1
17/02/2014
Soil
Evans Head
Airpark
Client Supplied
Acceptable
Comments:
Results apply to the samples as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and
approved for release.
Dan Poflotski
Signed:
Laboratory Manager
NATA Accredited Laboratory 15708
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025
This analysis relates to the sample submitted
and it is the client's responsibility to make
certain the sample is representative of the
matrix to be tested.
Samples will be discarded one month after the
date of this report. Please advise if you wish to
have your sample/s returned.
Document
SSss ID: REP-01
Issued By: S. Cameron
Issue No: 2
Page 1 of 4
2340
3
9
roag.com.au
ag.com.au
ANALYSIS REPORT
Project No: EW140196
Location: Sample ID:
Test Parameter
Method
Description
T1
T2
T3
T4
Depth:
0-10cm
0-10cm
0-10cm
0-10cm
Method
Reference
Units
LOR
140196-1
140196-2
140196-3
140196-4
0.01
4.71
49.4
0.12
4.58
183
0.07
4.90
388
0.08
4.59
380
Electrical Conductivity
Probe
R&L 3A1
dS/m
0.01
pH (H2O)
Probe
R&L 4A1
pH units
na
Iron Ex
AAS
R&L 12A1
mg/kg
1
mg/kg
Potassium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Calcium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Magnesium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Sodium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Aluminium Ex
AAS
R&L 15G1
-
1
Ex Potassium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Calcium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Magnesium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Sodium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
na
Ex Aluminium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
ECEC
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Ca/Mg Ratio
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Document ID: REP-01
Issue No: 2
Cmol/kg
126 0.32
168 0.84
30.4 0.25
46.0 0.20
51.5 0.57
14.8
38.4
11.6
9.14
26.1
2.19
3.32
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
145 0.37
290 1.45
182 1.52
110 0.48
249 2.77
5.65
22.0
23.0
7.26
42.0
6.58
0.96
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
160 0.41
242 1.21
352 2.93
107 0.47
533 5.92
3.75
11.1
26.8
4.25
54.1
10.9
0.41
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
137 0.35
189 0.95
214 1.78
105 0.46
432 4.80
4.21
11.3
21.4
5.48
57.6
8.34
0.53
Page 2 of 4
ANALYSIS REPORT
Test Parameter
Method
Description
Method
Reference
Depth:
Units
LOR
Probe
R&L 3A1
dS/m
0.01
pH (H2O)
Probe
R&L 4A1
pH units
na
Iron Ex
AAS
R&L 12A1
mg/kg
1
Potassium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Calcium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Magnesium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Sodium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Aluminium Ex
AAS
R&L 15G1
-
1
Ex Potassium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Calcium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
na
T5
0-10cm
140196-5
T6
0-10cm
140196-6
B1
20-30cm
140196-7
B2
20-30cm
140196-8
0.02
5.29
53.1
0.07
4.97
319
0.02
4.58
104
0.02
4.42
166
mg/kg
Ex Magnesium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
Ex Sodium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Aluminium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
ECEC
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Ca/Mg Ratio
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Document ID: REP-01
Issue No: 2
Cmol/kg
124 0.32
209 1.05
42.7 0.36
55.0 0.24
45.1 0.50
12.9
42.5
14.5
9.72
20.4
2.46
2.94
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
139 0.36
210 1.05
241 2.01
99.5 0.43
233 2.59
5.54
16.3
31.2
6.72
40.2
6.44
0.52
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
125 0.32
141 0.71
28 0.23
49.9 0.22
141 1.57
10.55
23.2
7.5
7.14
51.6
3.04
3.08
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
139 0.36
281 1.41
183 1.53
141 0.61
301 3.34
4.92
19.4
21.1
8.46
46.2
7.24
0.92
Page 3 of 4
ANALYSIS REPORT
Test Parameter
Method
Description
Method
Reference
Depth:
Units
LOR
Probe
R&L 3A1
dS/m
0.01
pH (H2O)
Probe
R&L 4A1
pH units
na
Iron Ex
AAS
R&L 12A1
mg/kg
1
Potassium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Calcium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Magnesium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Sodium Ex
AAS
R&L 15A1
-
10
Aluminium Ex
AAS
R&L 15G1
-
1
Ex Potassium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Calcium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
na
B3
20-30cm
140196-9
B4
20-30cm
140196-10
B5
20-30cm
140196-11
B6
20-30cm
140196-12
0.07
4.99
394
0.04
4.91
213
0.02
5.32
94.8
0.06
5.10
272
mg/kg
Ex Magnesium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
Ex Sodium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
Ex Aluminium %
Calc
R&L 15J1
%
na
ECEC
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Ca/Mg Ratio
Calc
R&L 15J1
Cmol/kg
na
Cmol/kg
168 0.43
275 1.38
375 3.13
119 0.52
551 6.12
3.72
11.9
27.0
4.47
52.9
11.57
0.44
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
131 0.34
173 0.87
124 1.03
80.9 0.35
284 3.16
5.85
15.1
18.0
6.13
55.0
5.74
0.84
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
124 0.32
215 1.08
42 0.35
53.4 0.23
37.9 0.42
13.3
44.9
14.5
9.70
17.6
2.39
3.10
mg/kg
Cmol/kg
147 0.38
193 0.97
193 1.61
96.9 0.42
249 2.77
6.14
15.7
26.2
6.86
45.1
6.14
0.60
This Analysis Report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory.
NB: LOR is the Lowest Obtainable Reading.
DOCUMENT END
Document ID: REP-01
Issue No: 2
Page 4 of 4
Client Reference:
EW140196
sPOCAS
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-1
105269-2
105269-3
105269-4
Your Reference
-------------
140196-1
140196-2
140196-3
140196-4
140196-5
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Type of sample
105269-5
Date prepared
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
pH kcl
pH units
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.6
15
75
62
7
+
TAA pH 6.5
moles H /t
7
s-TAA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.01
0.02
0.12
0.10
0.01
pH Ox
pH units
2.9
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.8
+
TPA pH 6.5
moles H /t
<5
80
280
300
32
s-TPA pH 6.5
%w/w S
<0.01
0.13
0.46
0.48
0.05
TSA pH 6.5
moles H+/t
<5
65
210
240
25
s-TSA pH 6.5
%w/w S
<0.01
0.10
0.34
0.38
0.04
ANCE
% CaCO3
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<5
<5
<5
+
a-ANCE
moles H /t
<5
s-ANCE
%w/w S
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
SKCl
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
SP
%w/w
<0.005
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.005
SPOS
%w/w
<0.005
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.005
+
a-SPOS
moles H /t
<5
11
25
12
<5
CaKCl
%w/w
<0.005
0.01
0.01
<0.005
0.006
CaP
%w/w
<0.005
0.02
0.02
<0.005
0.007
CaA
%w/w
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
MgKCl
%w/w
<0.005
0.010
0.044
0.014
<0.005
MgP
%w/w
0.17
<0.005
0.011
0.042
0.015
MgA
%w/w
0.16
<0.005
<0.005
0.028
0.012
SHCl
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
0.012
<0.005
[NT]
SNAS
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
[NT]
+
a-SNAS
moles H /t
<5
<5
<5
<5
[NT]
s-SNAS
%w/w S
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
[NT]
Fineness Factor
-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
+
a-Net Acidity
moles H /t
<10
27
100
76
10
Liming rate
kg
CaCO 3/t
<0.75
2.0
7.8
5.7
0.78
a-Net Acidity without ANCE
moles H+/t
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Liming rate without ANCE
kg
CaCO 3/t
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 2 of 10
Client Reference:
EW140196
sPOCAS
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-6
105269-7
105269-8
105269-9
Your Reference
-------------
140196-6
140196-7
140196-8
140196-9
140196-10
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
pH kcl
pH units
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Type of sample
Date prepared
+
105269-10
TAA pH 6.5
moles H /t
35
12
30
87
27
s-TAA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.14
0.04
pH Ox
pH units
TPA pH 6.5
s-TPA pH 6.5
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.3
moles H /t
220
30
270
340
220
%w/w S
0.36
0.05
0.43
0.55
0.36
190
17
240
260
190
+
+
TSA pH 6.5
moles H /t
s-TSA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.30
0.03
0.38
0.41
0.31
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
ANCE
% CaCO3
<0.05
a-ANCE
moles H+/t
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
s-ANCE
%w/w S
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
SKCl
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.005
<0.005
SP
%w/w
0.02
0.005
0.02
0.03
0.01
SPOS
%w/w
0.01
<0.005
0.02
0.03
0.01
+
a-SPOS
moles H /t
9
<5
11
17
7
CaKCl
%w/w
0.006
<0.005
0.01
0.007
<0.005
CaP
%w/w
0.006
<0.005
0.01
0.01
<0.005
CaA
%w/w
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
MgKCl
%w/w
0.024
<0.005
0.010
0.033
0.007
MgP
%w/w
<0.005
0.020
<0.005
0.011
0.034
MgA
%w/w
<0.005
0.019
<0.005
<0.005
0.028
SHCl
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.009
<0.005
SNAS
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
+
a-SNAS
moles H /t
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
s-SNAS
%w/w S
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Fineness Factor
-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
a-Net Acidity
+
moles H /t
45
15
42
110
35
Liming rate
kg
CaCO 3/t
3.4
1.1
3.1
8.0
2.6
moles H+/t
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
kg
CaCO 3/t
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 3 of 10
Client Reference:
EW140196
sPOCAS
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-11
Your Reference
-------------
140196-11
140196-12
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
pH kcl
pH units
4.8
4.4
Type of sample
Date prepared
+
105269-12
TAA pH 6.5
moles H /t
10
30
s-TAA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.02
0.05
pH Ox
pH units
2.8
2.5
110
+
TPA pH 6.5
moles H /t
25
s-TPA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.04
0.18
15
82
+
TSA pH 6.5
moles H /t
s-TSA pH 6.5
%w/w S
0.02
0.13
<0.05
ANCE
% CaCO3
<0.05
a-ANCE
moles H+/t
<5
<5
s-ANCE
%w/w S
<0.05
<0.05
SKCl
%w/w S
<0.005
<0.005
SP
%w/w
<0.005
0.01
SPOS
%w/w
<0.005
0.01
+
a-SPOS
moles H /t
<5
8
CaKCl
%w/w
0.005
<0.005
CaP
%w/w
0.007
<0.005
CaA
%w/w
<0.005
<0.005
MgKCl
%w/w
<0.005
0.011
MgP
%w/w
0.008
<0.005
MgA
%w/w
0.006
<0.005
SHCl
%w/w S
[NT]
<0.005
SNAS
%w/w S
[NT]
<0.005
+
a-SNAS
moles H /t
[NT]
<5
s-SNAS
%w/w S
[NT]
<0.01
Fineness Factor
-
1.5
1.5
+
a-Net Acidity
moles H /t
12
38
Liming rate
kg
CaCO 3/t
0.92
2.9
moles H+/t
NA
NA
kg
CaCO 3/t
NA
NA
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 4 of 10
Client Reference:
EW140196
Miscellaneous Inorg - soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-1
105269-2
105269-3
105269-4
Your Reference
-------------
140196-1
140196-2
140196-3
140196-4
140196-5
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Total Oxidisable Sulfur STOS
%
0.01
0.07
0.09
0.06
<0.01
Total Sulfur in Soil
%w/w
0.014
0.068
0.087
0.065
0.008
105269-10
Type of sample
Date prepared
105269-5
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-6
105269-7
105269-8
105269-9
Your Reference
-------------
140196-6
140196-7
140196-8
140196-9
140196-10
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Type of sample
Date prepared
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
%
0.05
<0.01
0.05
0.07
0.04
%w/w
0.052
0.006
0.049
0.075
0.038
105269-12
Our Reference:
UNITS
105269-11
Your Reference
-------------
140196-11
140196-12
Date Sampled
------------
13/02/2014
13/02/2014
Soil
Soil
Type of sample
Date prepared
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2014
24/02/2014
%
0.01
0.03
%w/w
0.012
0.033
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 5 of 10
Client Reference:
Method ID
EW140196
Methodology Summary
Inorg-064
sPOCAS determined using titrimetric and ICP-AES techniques. Based on Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory
Methods Guidelines, Version 2.1 - June 2004.
Inorg-077
Total Oxidisable Sulfur (STOS) is the calculated difference between Total Sulfur (ST) and 4M HCl Extractable
Sulfur (SHCl).
Method: Based on Methods 20A, 20B, 20C – Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods guidelines, ver 2.1, June
2004.
SAL
Analysis subcontracted to Sydney Analytical Laboratories. NATA Accreditation No: 1884
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 6 of 10
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
EW140196
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
sPOCAS
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date prepared
-
24/02/2
014
105269-1
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
LCS-1
24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2
014
105269-1
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
LCS-1
24/02/2014
pH kcl
pH units
Inorg-064
[NT]
105269-1
4.3 || 4.3 || RPD: 0
LCS-1
96%
TAA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
7 || 7 || RPD: 0
LCS-1
113%
s-TAA pH 6.5
%w/w
S
0.01
Inorg-064
<0.01
105269-1
0.01 || 0.01 || RPD: 0
[NR]
[NR]
pH Ox
pH units
Inorg-064
[NT]
105269-1
2.9 || 2.9 || RPD: 0
LCS-1
104%
TPA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
<5 || 5
LCS-1
86%
s-TPA pH 6.5
%w/w
S
0.01
Inorg-064
<0.01
105269-1
<0.01 || <0.01
[NR]
[NR]
TSA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
<5 || <5
LCS-1
85%
s-TSA pH 6.5
%w/w
S
0.01
Inorg-064
<0.01
105269-1
<0.01 || <0.01
[NR]
[NR]
ANCE
%
CaCO 3
0.05
Inorg-064
<0.05
105269-1
<0.05 || <0.05
[NR]
[NR]
a-ANCE
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
<5 || <5
[NR]
[NR]
s-ANCE
%w/w
S
0.05
Inorg-064
<0.05
105269-1
<0.05 || <0.05
[NR]
[NR]
SKCl
%w/w
S
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
LCS-1
94%
SP
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
LCS-1
82%
SPOS
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
LCS-1
78%
a-SPOS
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
<5 || <5
LCS-1
79%
CaKCl
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
LCS-1
92%
CaP
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
CaA
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
MgKCl
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
LCS-1
92%
MgP
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
0.17 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
MgA
%w/w
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
0.16 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
SHCl
%w/w
S
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
SNAS
%w/w
S
0.005
Inorg-064
<0.005
105269-1
<0.005 || <0.005
[NR]
[NR]
a-SNAS
moles
H+/t
5
Inorg-064
<5
105269-1
<5 || <5
[NR]
[NR]
s-SNAS
%w/w
S
0.01
Inorg-064
<0.01
105269-1
<0.01 || <0.01
[NR]
[NR]
Fineness Factor
-
1.5
Inorg-064
<1.5
105269-1
1.5 || 1.5 || RPD: 0
[NR]
[NR]
a-Net Acidity
moles
H+/t
10
Inorg-064
<10
105269-1
<10 || <10
LCS-1
80%
Liming rate
kg
CaCO 3
0.75
Inorg-064
<0.75
105269-1
<0.75 || <0.75
LCS-1
80%
/t
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 7 of 10
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
EW140196
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
sPOCAS
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
a-Net Acidity without
ANCE
moles
H+/t
10
Inorg-064
<10
105269-1
NA || NA
[NR]
[NR]
kg
CaCO 3
0.75
Inorg-064
<0.75
105269-1
NA || NA
[NR]
[NR]
/t
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results
Date prepared
-
24/02/2
014
105269-1
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
24/02/2
014
105269-1
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
Total Oxidisable Sulfur
STOS
%
0.01
Inorg-077
<0.01
105269-1
0.01 || [N/T]
%w/w
0.005
SAL
<0.005
105269-1
0.014 || [N/T]
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
sPOCAS
Duplicate
Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared
-
105269-11
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
105269-11
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
pH kcl
pH units
105269-11
4.8 || 4.8 || RPD: 0
TAA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
105269-11
10 || 7 || RPD: 35
s-TAA pH 6.5
%w/w S
105269-11
0.02 || 0.01 || RPD: 67
pH Ox
pH units
105269-11
2.8 || 2.8 || RPD: 0
TPA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
105269-11
25 || 32 || RPD: 25
s-TPA pH 6.5
%w/w S
105269-11
0.04 || 0.05 || RPD: 22
TSA pH 6.5
moles
H+/t
105269-11
15 || 25 || RPD: 50
s-TSA pH 6.5
%w/w S
105269-11
0.02 || 0.04 || RPD: 67
ANCE
%
CaCO 3
105269-11
<0.05 || <0.05
a-ANCE
moles
H+/t
105269-11
<5 || <5
s-ANCE
%w/w S
105269-11
<0.05 || <0.05
SKCl
%w/w S
105269-11
<0.005 || <0.005
SP
%w/w
105269-11
<0.005 || <0.005
SPOS
%w/w
105269-11
<0.005 || <0.005
a-SPOS
moles
H+/t
105269-11
<5 || <5
CaKCl
%w/w
105269-11
0.005 || <0.005
CaP
%w/w
105269-11
0.007 || 0.006 || RPD: 15
CaA
%w/w
105269-11
<0.005 || <0.005
MgKCl
%w/w
105269-11
<0.005 || <0.005
MgP
%w/w
105269-11
0.008 || <0.005
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 8 of 10
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
sPOCAS
EW140196
Duplicate
MgA
%w/w
105269-11
0.006 || <0.005
SHCl
%w/w S
[NT]
[NT]
SNAS
%w/w S
[NT]
[NT]
a-SNAS
moles
H+/t
[NT]
[NT]
s-SNAS
%w/w S
[NT]
[NT]
Fineness Factor
-
105269-11
1.5 || 1.5 || RPD: 0
a-Net Acidity
moles
H+/t
105269-11
12 || <10
Liming rate
kg
CaCO 3
105269-11
0.92 || <0.75
/t
moles
H+/t
105269-11
NA || NA
kg
CaCO 3
105269-11
NA || NA
Dup. Sm#
Duplicate
/t
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Date prepared
-
105269-11
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
105269-11
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
STOS
%
105269-11
0.01 || [N/T]
%w/w
105269-11
0.012 || [N/T]
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Duplicate
Date prepared
-
105269-10
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
Date analysed
-
105269-10
24/02/2014 || 24/02/2014
STOS
%
105269-10
0.04 || [N/T]
%w/w
105269-10
0.038 || 0.040 || RPD: 5
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 9 of 10
Client Reference:
EW140196
Report Comments:
Total Sulphur analysed by SAL report no SAL24970E.
Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier:
Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory:
INS: Insufficient sample for this test
NA: Test not required
<: Less than
Not applicable for this job
Not applicable for this job
PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit
RPD: Relative Percent Difference
>: Greater than
NT: Not tested
NA: Test not required
LCS: Laboratory Control Sample
Quality Control Definitions
Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,
glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.
Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample
selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.
Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix
spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.
LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank
sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.
Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds
which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.
Laboratory Acceptance Criteria
Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency
to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix
spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is
generally extracted during sample extraction.
Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.
For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.
Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.
Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%
for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and speciated phenols is acceptable.
In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been
reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, the sample
volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy
laboratory QA/QC protocols.
When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of
recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis has
proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs,
every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as
soon as practicable.
Revision No:
105269
R 00
Page 10 of 10
Appendix C
Traffic Assessment
Seca Solutions
Page C-1
Evans Head
Airpark Residential
/ Hotel
Development
Traffic Impact Assessment
Evans Head Airpark, Evans Head, NSW
Traffic Impact Assessment
Author: Sean Morgan
Client: Evans Head Airpark Pty Ltd
Issue: Ver01/24022015
Reference: P0314
28 June 2016
Quality Review and Document History
Version
Date
Description
Prepared By
Reviewed By
Ver01
24/1/15
Draft
S.Morgan
C.Thomas
Ver02
24/4/15
Final
S Morgan
C Thomas
Suite 10 265 King Street Newcastle NSW 2300
Ph (02) 4925 7795 Fax (02) 4925 2570
www.secasolution.com.au
© Seca Solution Pty Ltd 2013
The information contained in this document is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it
has been prepared. Use or copying of this document in whole or in
part without the written permission of Seca Solution constitutes an
infringement of copyright. The intellectual property contained in this
document remains the property of Seca Solution.
Contents
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.
Traffic Impact Assessment Summary............................................................................................... 4
3.
Site Photos..................................................................................................................................... 12
4.
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Site Plans ....................................................................................................................... 16
Accident Data ................................................................................................................ 19
i
1. Introduction
Background
Seca Solution Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Mitchel Hanlon Consulting on behalf of Evans Head Airpark Pty
Ltd to prepare a traffic and parking report for the proposed redevelopment of the Evans Head airport, Evans Head
NSW. The plans are for the partial re-development of the subject site allowing for a residential sub-division as well
as hotel development, with additional land potential for future development at a later stage. This assessment has
allowed for the initial residential development and hotel development only.
The subject site is located on the northern fringe of Evans Head and will gain access direct to Evans Head Road
as well as Currajong Street. The site is bounded by a mix of residential and light industrial users to the south whilst
to the north and west the site is bounded by open land.
As part of the project, Seca Solution has collected current traffic data on Evans Head Road during both the morning
and afternoon peak periods to determine current traffic flows and observe current road operations.
Planning Context
In preparing this document, the following guides and publications were used:
•
•
•
•
RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Version 2.2 Dated October 2002. Note the RMS have
advised that this document can continue to be used.
RMS Technical Direction Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Updated Traffic Surveys and Trip
Rates August 2013;
Richmond Valley Council Development Control Plan
Australian / New Zealand Standard – Parking Facilities Part 1 : off-street car parking (AS2890.1:2004);
The location of the site is shown below in Figure 1.
2
Subject site
Figure 1 – Site Location
3
2. Traffic Impact Assessment Summary
The following assessment has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the RMS’s Guide to Traffic
Generating Developments and Austroads Guidelines. Note that whilst this publication has been withdrawn by the
RMS, their advice is that it can be used until the revised guide is published.
Item
2.1.1 Site Location and
Access
2.2.1 Road Hierarchy
2.2.2 Roadworks
2.2.3 Traffic
Management Works
2.2.4 Pedestrian and
Cycling Facilities
Comment
The site is located on the northern fringe of Evans Head and has road frontage to
Evans Head Road and Currajong Street. There are two separate access points
proposed, with one off each of these roads.
Evans Head Road runs along the southern boundary of the site and provides the
road connection between Evans Head and Woodburn to the west. It provides a single
lane of travel in both directions in the locality of the subject site and provides the road
access to connect the locality with the Pacific Highway at Woodburn. It operates
under the posted speed limit of 50 km/h in Evans Head which then increase to 80
km/h outside of the urban area. There is a dedicated off road footway / cycleway
running along the northern side of this road and parking is available along the unsealed verges to both sides of the road. It connects with the Pacific Highway to the
west via a give way controlled intersection which allows for all turning movements and
provides a sheltered right turn lane on the Pacific Highway.
The Pacific Highway forms part of the National Highway system and provides an
important road link along the east coast of Australia. It provides a single lane of travel
through Woodburn with additional lanes at the key intersections to maintain capacity.
It carries local traffic as well as a high volume of through traffic traveling interstate.
Currajong Street runs along the southern boundary of the subject site and connects
with Evans Head Road at a 3-way roundabout controlled intersection. This
roundabout forms the gateway to Evans Head and re-enforces the urban speed limit
change to 50 km/h. Currajong Street provides a single lane of travel in both directions
with roll over kerbs to both sides. There are no footpaths provided along its length,
reflective of the low traffic and pedestrian demands in this area. It operates under the
posted speed limit of 50 km/h.
Currajong Street connects with a number of local roads allowing for connection to the
centre of Evans Head as well as Beech Street for access to the sea front.
Richmond Valley Council is the road authority for any new works on or adjacent to the
roads within Evans Head and Evans Head Road.
None noted in the general vicinity of the site.
The RMS are continuing to upgrade the Pacific Highway with the aim to ultimately
provide a dual carriageway alignment to maximise safety and capacity and as part of
this upgrade, the road diverts away from the major residential centres. The upgrade
will allow for a bypass of Woodburn but the RMS currently have no plans for the
upgrade in the location of Woodburn nor any timeframe.
There were no other traffic management works currently occurring within Evans Head.
This is reflective of the relatively low traffic flows in this location.
Apart from the shared pathway along Evans Head Road, there are no footpaths within
the general locality of the subject site, reflective of the low pedestrian and vehicle
demands in the locality. Pedestrians are able to walk along the verges or side of the
road as required.
In a similar manner, cyclists are also able to ride on the road due to the low traffic
speeds and volumes.
4
Item
2.2.5 Public Transport
Comment
Evans Head is serviced by Northern Rivers Buslines including Ballina Buslines which
provide two routes, Route 660 Evans Head to Ballina and Route 690/695 Grafton to
Lismore via Evans Head. These services do not operate of a weekend or public
holidays. The service between Evans Head and Ballina provides two outbound
services in the morning (7.20 and 11am) and two return services, one in the late
morning and one in the afternoon. The service to Lismore allows for two morning and
one afternoon outbound service with one morning and two afternoon services inbound
from Lismore. The Grafton to Lismore via Evans Head however only provides a single
morning service (9.10am) and a single return service (3.35pm).
Transport NSW Trainlink also provides a bus service to Evans Head between
Grafton and Byron Bay. This daily service picks up/drops off passengers northbound
in the early evening (8pm) whilst southbound passengers are picked up/dropped off
at 6.45am. This service provides coach connection with the Sydney rail service at
Grafton.
Carpooling is encouraged in the Richmond Valley through the promotion of the
Northern Rivers carpooling scheme. This is a free online service connecting people
wishing to travel together to the same endpoints. In major destinations such as
hospitals and TAFEs it also includes priority parking options.
2.3 Traffic Flows
2.3.1 Daily Traffic
Flows
As part of the project work, Seca Solution collected traffic data on Evans Head Road
in the vicinity west of Currajong Street to determine the peak and daily flows on this
road. These surveys were completed on Friday 12th December 2014. The surveys
were completed between 7.30 and 9.30 AM and then 2.30 to 6.00 PM. The peak flow
during the AM period was between 8.30 and 9.30 when the 2-way flow on Evans Head
Road was 266 vehicles. The peak flow in the PM period was between 4.00 and 5.00
when the flow was 266 vehicles per hour. Based upon peak flows typically
representing 10% of the daily flows, this would indicate that the daily flows would be
in the order of 2,700 vehicles per day.
Traffic flows on the other roads including Currajong Street in the locality would be
much lower, due to dispersed trips over a number of different roads. These flows
reflect the low number of residents in this location and the potential for a significant
number of the resident within Evans Head to be retired from full time work.
5
Item
2.3.2 Daily Traffic Flow
Distribution
2.3.3 Vehicle Speeds
2.3.4 Existing Site
Flows
2.3.5 Heavy Vehicle
Flows
2.3.6 Current Road
Network Operation
2.4 Traffic Safety and
Accident History
2.5 Parking Supply and
Demand
2.5.1 On-street Parking
Provision
2.5.2 Off-street Parking
Provision
2.5.3 Parking Demand
and Utilisation
2.5.4 Set down or pick
up areas
2.6 Public Transport
2.6.1 Rail Station
Locations
2.6.2 Bus Stops and
Associated Facilities
Comment
Daily traffic flows along Evans Head Road would be reasonably balanced over the
day. The peak hour surveys show a bias in traffic westbound on Evans Head Road
in the morning with the opposite in the afternoon period. This would be reflective of
work and school trips towards Woodburn and the Pacific Highway.
No speed surveys were completed as part of the study work. However, observations
on site indicate that drivers typically travel within the speed limits due to the interaction
with other vehicles, driveways and the side roads within Evans Head. The straight
alignment and low traffic volumes on Evans Head Road could potentially encourage
drivers to travel above the posted speed limit of 80 km/h on Evans Head Road to the
west of Evans Head.
The subject development land within the site is currently vacant and therefore
develops no traffic movements.
There are a very limited number of heavy vehicles on Evans Head Road and within
Evans Head, reflective of very little demand within the township and the lack of
through route for traffic. There is a demand for Council refuse trucks servicing the
locality as well as delivery vehicles associated with the demands within the town
centre. During the site work there were very few heavy vehicle movements along
Evans Head Road, typically representing 2-3% of the total traffic flows. These
vehicles comprised of vehicles delivering products to the local business in Evans
Head only.
Observations on site during the morning and afternoon peak periods show that the
road network in the vicinity of the subject site operates very well, with no delays or
congestion for existing road users.
Traffic accident data provided by the RMS for the locality shows that there has been
just 3 accidents in the vicinity of the site over the past 5 year timeframe. These
accidents all occurred at the roundabout controlled intersection of Evans Head Road
and Currajong Street. This roundabout is located at the end of a long straight section
of road and enforces the speed limit change from 80 km/h to 50 km/h – although it is
considered that vehicles will travel at a higher speed than the 80 km/h on the
approach. None of these accidents created any serious injuries with one of them
related to fatigue with a single vehicle involved running off the road.
Overall it is considered that the local roads in and around Evans Head offer a safe
road environment.
Parking is permitted on both sides of the roads within the general locality of the site
as well as along Evans Head Road.
The majority of residential dwellings in Evans Head have off street parking. In the
centre of town there is on-street parking available for customers of the various
commercial outlets in this location.
Other than in the centre of Evans Head there is very little demand for parking. The
majority of parking demands are met off road.
There are no set down or pick up areas in the vicinity of the site.
This area is not serviced by train lines with the closest service at Grafton.
There are no bus stops in the locality of the site. All services operate as Hail and Ride.
6
Item
2.6.3 Pedestrians
2.7 Other Proposed
Developments
3.1 The Development
3.1.1 Nature of
Development
3.1.2 Access and
Circulation
Requirements
3.2 Access
3.2.1 Driveway
Location
3.2.2 Sight Distances
3.2.3 Service Vehicle
Access
3.2.4 Queuing at
entrance to site
Comment
There are no footpaths within the locality of the site and generally within Evans Head.
The only footpaths are provided within the central commercial centre of Evans Head.
No other significant developments noted.
The development will allow for a partial re-development of the site to allow for a 27 lot
residential subdivision with direct access off Evans Head Road, together with a hotel
with upto 90 beds and a 90 lot residential subdivision off Currajong Street.
All vehicles will enter and exit the site in a forward direction direct off Evans Head
Road or Currajong Street as appropriate.
A new access will be provided on Evans Head Road to provide access to the proposed
residential subdivision. This access will allow for all turning movements and will be
designed and constructed in accordance with Council requirements.
A new access will be provided on Currajong Street in the vicinity of Tuckeroo
Crescent. This intersection will form a 4-way intersection and will be a roundabout to
allow for all turning movements as well as maintaining safety. Whilst a 4-way giveway
controlled intersection has been considered, a roundabout is more appropriate on
road safety grounds and will act as a speed control device.
The location of the internal driveways to the individual lots and the hotel will be the
subject of a separate DA. They will all be designed and constructed in accordance
with Council requirements.
Evans Head Road offers a straight alignment offering good visibility in both directions,
for vehicles entering and exiting the site as well as for through traffic movements on
Evans Head Road. Evans Head Road, in the locality of the proposed site access
operates under a posted speed limit of 80 km/h and Austroads Guidelines indicates
the safe intersection sight distance requirement is 160 metres. This distance has
been checked on site and the sight distance exceeds 200 metres in both directions.
If Council consider the urban speed limit of 50 km/h should be extended to this location
(in consultation with the RMS) then the sight visibility distances would be decreased
and road safety increased further.
For the access on Currajong Street, the posted speed limit is 50 km/h and the safe
intersection sight distance is 80 metres. The sight distance available in the location
of the proposed site access exceeds 200 metres in both directions, which would allow
for safe entry and exit movements. Note that with the construction of a 4-way
roundabout at this location the sight distance requirements would be reduced further
due to the low traffic speeds through the roundabout.
There is no specific service vehicle access required for the residential subdivision.
There will however be the requirement for occasional larger vehicles associated with
deliveries and these will be able to be accommodated within the internal roads. These
roads will be designed and constructed in accordance with Council requirements
which allowing for access for these occasional vehicles.
There will be a requirement for servicing for the hotel site e.g. laundry, supplies etc.
and these will typically be via large vans. These large vans have similar
characteristics to a large car / 4WD and as such can be accommodated within the
development site via the proposed access point off Currajong Street.
It is considered that there will be few, if any delays, for traffic entering and exiting the
site, given the low traffic flows on the adjacent road network and the low flows
associated with the proposed development.
7
Item
3.2.5 Comparison with
existing site access
3.2.6 Access to Public
Transport
3.3 Circulation
3.3.1 Pattern of
circulation
3.3.2 Road width
3.3.3 Internal Bus
Movements
3.3.4 Service Area
Layout
3.4 Parking
3.4.1 Proposed Supply
3.4.2 Authority Parking
3.4.3 Parking Layout
3.4.4 Parking Demand
3.4.5 Service Vehicle
Parking
3.4.6 Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities
4.1 Traffic Generation
Comment
Any delays for drivers exiting the site will allow for containment of vehicles within the
site with no impact upon the external road network.
The site is currently vacant over a large portion and generates low traffic flows. There
is some limited use of the air strip and a Mens shed on the site which generate some
traffic in and out of the site.
There are no bus stops within the locality of the subject site. Bus services along Evans
Head Road operate as Hail and Ride.
All vehicles will be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, with the internal
site layout designed in accordance with Council requirements.
All internal roads will be designed in accordance with the Council requirements within
the DCP and allow for 2-way traffic movements as required.
There may be a requirement to allow for bus access to the hotel site, to cater for group
travel. The design of the roads in accordance with Council DCP requirements allows
for these larger vehicles, which have a similar operating characteristics to a Council
refuse collection vehicle.
A service area will be provided for the hotel, to allow for delivery of linen and general
supplies. This service area will be design in accordance with AS2890 Part 2 and allow
for a maximum vehicle size of a large rigid truck (length 12.5 metres).
The car parking supply will be determined as part of the DA process for the various
elements within the overall development. The parking for the hotel will need to allow
for peak demands and will be determined in accordance with Council requirements.
Parking for the residential element of the project will be in accordance with Council
design requirements and will allow for a minimum of one garage space and a driveway
to allow for a second vehicle. The driveways and garages will be determined during
the detailed design stage of the DA process for the individual lots.
Council requirement for 1 space per dwelling under 150 m2 and 2 spaces per
dwelling over 150 m2.
No guide given for hotel development but RTA Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments should be applied and gives a requirement of 1 space per unit /
bedroom and 1 space per 2 employees.
The car park for the hotel will be designed in accordance with AS2890.
Normal parking demands will be accommodated on site in accordance with Council
DCP requirements and RMS requirements.
A dedicated service area / bay will be provided as part of the hotel development.
There is no requirement for service vehicle parking for the residential element of the
project.
Given the low traffic speeds and volumes within the development, there is no
requirement for dedicated pedestrian or cycle paths. This is consistent with the other
roads within Evans Head and the new residential subdivision work which does not
provide any footpaths.
A multi-purpose path will be provided around the site for pedestrians and cyclists,
which will provide access for fire vehicles on the eastern side of the site.
Standard traffic generation rates provided by the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments have be applied to the development. A standard trip rate of 0.85 trips
per residential lot has been applied for peak hours and 9 trips per day. For the hotel
8

Part 1 - Richmond Valley Council

Transcription

Similar documents

Marchbanks, Earl - USS Frank E Evans Association

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony - Great Rivers United Way

Receiver`s Application for Order to Show Cause as to why Andris

News File

£10 £10

FOR LEASEFOR LEASEFOR LEASEMAN

Newsletter - Chesapeake Professional Women`s Network

Glitter and Gunge. Preserving the Future of JW