Environmental

“It is the position of the Department of the Environment and Conservation NSW that the South Wallarah Study Area is of extremely high conservation value and that development opportunities across the site are limited due to the potential for incremental habitat loss and fragmentation. While some disturbed areas may be suitable for development without severe risk to the integrity of the remainder of the site, others will need to be rehabilitated to ensure the long term viability of the corridor network, particularly the north south linkage on the eastern side of the highway. Limited development opportunities are provided for within the current land zonings in the Wyong and Lake Macquarie Local Environment Plans which cover the area, and the DEC supports the approach taken by both Councils to recognise the conservation significance of this area in their planning instruments.” (P28, Department of the Environment and Conservation NSW Conservation Assessment of Lands - South Wallarah Peninsula) The Proposal in its current form FAILS to justify its ‘broad strategic objectives’ other than to offer 600 dwellings of nebulous quality without a proper environmental impact or needs study for the offerings made in the Proposal. This also breaches the DG’s requirements. Also the DEC South Wallarah Study identified Threatened Species which have failed to get a mention in the Rose Environmental Assessment Report. (P14, Department of the Environment and Conservation NSW Conservation Assessment of Lands - South Wallarah Peninsula) How can a 3-day Biodiversity Report is regarded as ‘major’ in the Proposal. Department of the Environment and Conservation NSW Position (2005)

Summary Catherine Hill Bay Landcare and Progress Association have grave concerns about the accuracy of the assertions made in the Rose development request. How can a 3-day Biodiversity Report is regarded as ‘major’ in the Proposal. Nowhere in the Report is there any reference to seasonal records of specific plants e.g., ground orchids or for that matter the presence of new or endangered species that are influenced by weather and seasons e.g., fungi etc that are integral to the biodiversity and life-support systems. Assurances from Developers are notoriously unreliable and again, the Proposal is replete with non-binding “Principles of Agreement”. The Population Survey Monitor of 1994 is the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ most recent published assessment of pets in Australia. We can reasonably presume that this is a good predictor of the pet population of the Rose development. Dogs 294, Cats 197. There is no mention of the impact of this massive number of pets in the Concept Plan documentation. Australian Nature Conservation Agency estimates, they could kill up to 4925 native animals in the adjacent conservation areas in the first year, let alone in subsequent years and disregarding the litters of kittens gone feral.