DEC concurrence was 'surprising'

Peninsula Bushcare Forum campaigner Ms Shirley Hotchkiss said that, according to the Department of Environment and Conservation, the proposal was "a major threat to the viability of Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland (UCSW)" on that site.

Ms Hotchkiss said given this, it was surprising that the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) had concurred to the development.

When gazetting UCSW as an endangered ecological community in 2002, the NSW Scientific Committee said UCSW was "likely to become extinct .. unless the circumstances and factors threatening its survival or evolutionary development cease to operate".

The DA was to be considered by council on February 6, but was deferred to Tuesday's meeting to allow councillors to undertake further investigations including a site inspection.

The DEC's UCSW Restoration and Rehabilitation Management Plan said "UCSW should be protected from development, fragmentation and clearing through appropriate environmental protection zoning" Ms Hotchkiss said.

It lists Gosford Council and the DEC as potential responsible parties in doing this.

The DEC's website also recommends UCSW be nominated for national listing under the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

"It is very clear. UCSW will become extinct if threats to its survival continue," Ms Hotchkiss said.

"That's why it's listed as endangered.

"There's not enough left to destroy any of it, and we need to nurture all these last remnants so it doesn't become extinct. "

Several environment organisations have come out in opposition of the current development application (DA) to build luxury retirement villas on the corner of Hillview St and Veron Rd in Woy Woy.

These include the NSW Nature Conservation Council, the Central Coast's Community Environment Network, the Australian Conservation Foundation Central Coast branch, The Wilderness Society, and Peninsula Bushcare Forum.

"All the evidence points to the need to refuse this DA so this significant stand of UCSW is not destroyed."

Ms Hotchkiss.said council vigorously and successfully defended the UCSW in the Land and Environment Court purely on environmental grounds before, and the current DA was "little different".

"Council spent tens of thousands of dollars in the Land and Environment Court opposing a previous DA to build similar luxury retirement villas there," Ms Hotchkiss said.

"Council presented expert evidence to the court that such rare bushland was too valuable for any to be destroyed.

"Based on evidence from four ecologists and the developer's SIS, Justice Bignold last year agreed with council and made findings that the benefits of development did not warrant its destruction.

"He said the loss of 0.5 hectares from the development site of 1.166 hectares was significant indeed, despite the developer's offer to conserve and manage other UCSW bushland.

"The current DA is not significantly different to the one Justice Bignold rejected, and there's been no scientific evidence presented since to contradict evidence placed before the court.

"Since 2001, community members have strongly opposed this site's development, which provides habitat for endangered fauna such as flying foxes, barking owls, glossy black cockatoos and swift parrots.

"The endangered bush stone-curlew has also been recorded twice near the site recently."

Ms Hotchkiss said that council should reject the DA and instead pursue all avenues to preserve it for the "benefit of the whole community".

Justice Bignold was not morally or legally obliged to buy this land because he rejected its development last year in the Land and Environment Court, and neither was Gosford Council, she said.

Council's lack of funds to buy the land was separate to a decision to refuse the DA.

"No amount of money can compensate for destroying the viability of this significant site. But the developer is offering $225,000," Ms Hotchkiss said.

"This is a pittance, and council should be requiring compensation of at least the value of the bushland being destroyed.

"Elsewhere up to 50 times the land value has been paid."

Ms Hotchkiss said this basic principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development was a requirement of the assessment process.

Ms Hotchkiss also said the villas were not geared to those in need.

"We already have an ample supply of residential accommodation for elderly residents in this area - the proportion is well above average," Ms Hotchkiss said.

"Besides, these luxury villas are designed for rich people.

"The council report said there's no requirement for the developer to provide low-cost accommodation.

"If a DA is granted, there's no requirement for the developer to build these villas there anyway.

"He could just sell the land to someone else for a huge profit."

Press release, 8 Feb 2007 Shirley Hotchkiss, Peninsula Bushcare Forum