M OUNTAINS W ORLD H ERITAGE A REA A report by Alexander Gold and - PDF document

T HE NEED FOR A STRONG B LUE M OUNTAINS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN TO SAFEGUARD THE G REATER B LUE M OUNTAINS W ORLD H ERITAGE A REA A report by Alexander Gold and John Merson Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute May 2013 1

Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 3 Introduction 5 Local Environmental Planning in the Blue Mountains 6 Maintaining adaptive protections for significant vegetation 9 Threshold conditions protecting sensitive vegetation outside of EP zones 13 Case Study – 4 Turella Street, Glenbrook 15 Significant vegetation protection under the SI-LEP 19 Climate change adaptation: providing space for vegetation adaptation 19 Provisions for site coverage and stormwater control 22 Case Study – Upland swamps in the Blue Mountains 23 Site coverage and stormwater within the SI-LEP 27 Climate change adaptation: managing changing rainfall patterns 29 The relevance of current provisions for the GBMWHA 31 LEP provisions and impacts on the GBMWHA 32 Climate change and the GBMWHA: the importance of cross-tenure 34 conservation of ecosystem processes Upland swamps as critical components of GBMWHA adaptive capacity 35 Conclusion: policy implications of changes to Blue Mountains 37 LEP provisions 2

Executive Summary  This report was commissioned by the Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) to explore the consequences of aligning existing Blue Mountains local environmental plans (LEPs) with the NSW Government’s Standard Instrument LEP (SI -LEP) template. Consequences to be explored include impacts on environmental assets under BMCC’s tenure as well as those within the surrounding Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA).  Urban planning controls w ithin a local government’s LEP can mitigate or exacerbate the impacts of climate change on the natural environment depending on its provisions moderating the impacts of urban development.  BMCC manages a corridor of urban townships that bisects the GBMWHA. Aware of its position as a city within a World Heritage Area, BMCC has developed LEPs with unique environmental protections.  All councils in NSW have been directed to redraft their LEPs to be consistent with the SI-LEP template handed down by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. There is concern over whether the SI-LEP allows for the same degree of environmental protection that currently exists in Blue Mountains LEPs.  One provision included in the current Blue Mountains LEPs, and not in the SI-LEP, is the protection of significant vegetation communities listed within a schedule of the LEP. Tying protections to their description within a schedule, as opposed to relying simply on zoning protections, allows for the protection of vegetation regardless of whether it is mapped by BMCC at the time of drafting the LEP. This protection provides adaptive capacity by accounting for uncertainty as to current vegetation extent and how it may change with a changing climate.  Other provisions that would be weakened under the current SI-LEP template relate to site coverage and stormwater management. Maintaining these provisions as they now stand within the BMCC LEPs is important for maintaining the integrity of groundwater dependent ecosystems, such as upland swamps. 3

 Any reduction of these provisions that protect vegetation, as well as those that minimise impacts from stormwater runoff within the urban corridor, may impact on the integrity and adaptive capacity of the GBMWHA. Although the future impacts from climate change are uncertain, it is prudent to maintain or enhance provisions mitigating the impacts of development within the urban corridor. Otherwise, should urban development exacerbate climate change impacts on the GBMWHA, concerns about the urban corridor and its potential impacts that were raised at the time of the GBMWHA nomination may re-surface. 4

Introduction In NSW, the principal environmental planning instruments controlling development are local environmental plans (LEPs), which are developed by local governments, known generally in NSW as councils, for their respective local government areas (LGAs). LEPs divide a LGA into zones, establish permissibility of land uses, and include standards that regulate the extent of development. Innovative LEP provisions with strong environmental protections may allow for societies to undergo development while minimising environmental degradation. Within a context of climate change, environmentally sensitive LEP provisions may reduce the likelihood of urban development exacerbating climate change impacts and may even allow for the harnessing of any opportunities climate change may bring. LEP provisions that allow for negative impacts on the natural environment, on the other hand, may exacerbate environmental degradation at the hands of climate change, with a corresponding deterioration in social fabrics and confidence in local government to ensure social-ecological wellbeing. 1 Therefore when it comes to built and natural assets that a community wishes to protect, LEP provisions form important components of an asset’s adaptive capacity in the face of threats such as climate change and large-scale urban development. Given the importance of LEPs, when it comes to ecosystem conservation in the face of urban development, a natural asset’s adaptive capacity should not be construed as its capacity to adapt to any climatic change on its own (i.e. autonomous adaptation). Rather, it must include the social capital necessary to plan for and manage the impacts of 1 In this paper, the use of the term “social - ecological” comes from the concept of a social- ecological system . Social-ecological systems denote linked systems of people and nature in which people depend on nature and nature is influenced by people (Berkes and Folke 1998). 5

any changes (i.e. planned adaptation), and an important part of such social capital resides in the relevant LEP and its planning provisions (Tompkins and Adger 2005; Engle 2011). Despite the important role local governments have in environmental management through land-use planning, Measham et al. (2011) point out that NSW councils have been slow to include climate change adaptation considerations into planning controls. When it comes to climate change, the authors argue that councils appear more concerned with mitigation (for example, through reduction of greenhouse gases emitted through their operations) than introducing development controls and planning provisions geared toward adaptation. The authors also suggest that planning for climate change adaptation, which often requires taking action now to protect against uncertain and long-term threats, has found it hard to compete for resourcing amongst an already crowded agenda featuring more immediate concerns. Finally, the authors note a silo mentality that defines climate change as an “environmental” problem, with local government assigning responsibility for the “response” to climate change to the environment section of the council. With climate change not on the urban planning section’s radar , land use planning often assumes a stable climate, “thus substantially constraining any attempt to incorporate climate adaptation into municipal planning” (Measham et al. 2011 p. 905). 1.1 Local Environmental Planning in the Blue Mountains This report focuses on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA), particularly the urban planning provisions governing development within the urban corridor of townships that bisects it. Although the GBMWHA consists of protected areas under the management of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Blue Mountains 6

City Council (BMCC) is responsible for the management and planning decisions for the urban corridor as well as other areas of the Blue Mountains LGA that fall outside of the protected area estate. BMCC’s land -use planning thus has the potential to affect environmental values not only within the townships themselves, but also the GBMWHA, especially as the GBMWHA sits downstream from the townships and thus serves as the “receiving environment” for urban runoff, sediment, nutrients, and the like . Aware of the sensitivity of the urban and surrounding environments, the current LEPs governing land use planning in the Blue Mountains feature provisions designed to protect and enhance environmental values within urban areas as well as provide an urban- bushland buffer interface to limit impacts of urbanisation on the downstream GBMWHA. Urban development within the Blue Mountains LGA is governed by either the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005 (BMCC 2005) or the Local Environmental Plan 1991 (BMCC 1991), herein referred to simply as LEP 2005 or LEP 1991, respectively. In 1982, BMCC gazetted LEP No. 4, which zoned only urban areas. In 1991, BMCC gazetted LEP 1991, which rezoned certain non-urban areas, and extended LEP coverage to rural and environmentally significant areas outside of urban areas and thus not covered by LEP No. 4. LEP 2005 replaced LEP No. 4, and so is concerned with urban areas although it also contains some general planning considerations. LEP 1991 remains the relevant instrument for non-urban lands. Figure 1 provides a schematic of LEP development in the Blue Mountains. 7