15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay - Kingborough Council

P L A N N I N G R E P O R T

FOR PRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay

May 2018

Issuing Office: 117 Harrington Street, Hobart 7000

JMG Project No. 173034PH

Document Issue Status

Ver. Issue Date Description Originator Checked Approved

1.0 May 2018 Draft For Client Review IEB MSC MSC

2.0 May 2018 Submission Document IEB FMB/MSC MSC

CONDITIONS OF USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

GANDY PTY LTD (JMG). ABN 76 473 834 852 ACN 009 547 139

2. The recipient client is licensed to use this document for its commissioned purpose subject to authorisation per 3. below. Unlicensed use

is prohibited. Unlicensed parties may not copy, reproduce or retransmit this document or any part of this document without JMG’s prior

written permission. Amendment of this document is prohibited by any party other than JMG.

3. This document must be signed “Approved” by JMG to authorise it for use. JMG accept no liability whatsoever for unauthorised or

unlicensed use.

4. Electronic files must be scanned and verified virus free by the receiver. JMG accept no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the

use of files containing viruses.

5. This document must only be reproduced and/or distributed in full colour. JMG accepts no liability arising from failure to comply with this requirement.

LIMITATIONS & DISCLAIMERS

1. Compliance with BCA is not part of the scope of this report. The report may include references to BCA as a guide to likely compliance/non-

compliance of a particular aspect but should not be taken as definitive nor comprehensive in respect of BCA compliance.

2. This report presents information and opinions which are to the best of our knowledge accurate. JMG accepts no responsibility to any

purchaser, prospective purchaser, or mortgagee of the property who relies in any way on this report.

3. JMG have no pecuniary interests in the property or sale of the property.

4. This report presents information provided by others. JMG do not claim to have checked, and accept no responsibility for, the accuracy of

such information.

15 Home Avenue May 2018 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................... 5

2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 7

3. Site Location & Context .......................................................................... 7

3.1 The Local Area ................................................................................ 8

3.2 Social Services and Facilities ............................................................. 10

3.3 Prior Approvals & Applications ........................................................... 12

4. Scheme Amendment ............................................................................ 12

4.1 Rezoning and Code Amendments ........................................................ 12

5. Proposed Development ......................................................................... 17

6. Policy Assessment ............................................................................... 18

6.1 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 ............................................ 18

6.2 Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 ......................... 21

6.3 Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 ........................................... 28

6.4 Tasmanian Planning Scheme – State Planning Provisions ............................ 31

7. Proposed Subdivision ........................................................................... 33

7.1 General Residential Zone ................................................................. 33

7.2 Low Density Residential Zone ............................................................ 42

7.3 Open Space Zone ........................................................................... 46

7.4 Environmental Management Zone ....................................................... 50

8. Codes ............................................................................................... 53

8.1 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code ................................................................ 53

8.2 Road and Railway Asset Code ............................................................ 55

8.3 The Stormwater Management Code ..................................................... 58

8.4 The Biodiversity Code ...................................................................... 60

8.5 Waterway and Coastal Area Protection Code ......................................... 62

9. Relevant Issues ................................................................................... 66

9.1 Context, Setting and Visual Impact ..................................................... 66

9.2 Traffic and Transport Networks .......................................................... 67

9.3 Stormwater Quantity and Quality ....................................................... 67

9.4 Noise .......................................................................................... 69

9.5 Natural Hazards ............................................................................. 69

9.6 Heritage ...................................................................................... 70

9.7 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................. 72

9.8 Safety, Security and Crime Prevention ................................................. 72

9.9 Social Impacts & Economic Impacts ..................................................... 73

10. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 73

Appendix A – Application Form

Appendix B – Certificate of Title

Appendix C – Proposed Rezoning Plan

Appendix D – Proposed Subdivision Plan

Appendix E – Proposed Demolition Plan

Appendix F – Bushfire Assessment

Appendix G – Traffic Impact Assessment

Appendix H – Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

Appendix I – Geotechnical Report

Appendix J – Natural Values Report

Appendix K - Concept Services Report

1. Executive Summary

This report has been prepared in support of a Section 43A application for a combined

rezoning and subdivision of land at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay. The application is to

be lodged with the Kingborough City Council for assessment.

Schedule 43A of the Land Use Planning and Assessment Act (LUPAA) (former provisions)

allows for a request to be made to a planning authority to amend the zoning or use or

development of one or more parcels of land specified in a Local Planning Scheme.

It is submitted that the proposed development ought to be considered under Section 43A

of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (former provisions) on the basis that it is

consistent with the objectives of LUPAA.

The proposed application involves rezoning of the site from ‘General Residential’ and

‘Low Density Residential B’ to ‘General Residential’, ‘Low Density Residential C’ and

‘Public Open Space’.

The proposal also seeks the partial demolition of the existing conference centre, removal

of vegetation and subdivision of 1 existing lot into 22 residential lots (including 5 multiple

dwelling lots), 3 public open space lots and two road lots. The proposal has been

considered against the subdivision requirements of the two zones and the following

discretions have been triggered:

• 10.6.1 A2/P2 General Residential Zone - building areas;

• 10.6.1 A3/P3 General Residential Zone - frontages;

• 10.6.1 A5/P5 General Residential Zone - subdivision more than 3 lots;

• 10.6.2 A1/P1 General Residential Zone - new road;

• 10.6.4 A1/P1 General Residential Zone – new road/optic fibre;

• 12.5.1 A2/P2 Low Density Zone - building areas;

• 12.5.1A3/P3 Low Density Zone - frontages;

• 19.4.3 A2/P2 Open Space – landscaping (Lot 202)

• 19.5.1 A2/P2 Open Space Zone – frontage (Lot 202);

• 19.5.1 A3/P3 Open Space Zone – ways (Lot 202);

• 29.4.3 A1/P1 Environmental Management Zone – works

• E5.5.1 A3/P3 – existing road accessed and junctions;

• E 5.6.4 A1/P1 Sight distances at accesses, junctions and level crossing – sight

distances

• E7.7.1 Stormwater Management Code - water sensitive urban design;

• E10.8.1 Biodiversity Code - subdivision;

• E11.7.1 A1/P1 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code – building works; not within

a building area on a plan of subdivision;

The proposal has been assessed against all relevant provisions and is found to be

acceptable with respect to the Planning Scheme requirements for the reasons outlined in

this report.

2. Introduction

JMG Engineers and Planners have been engaged by Presentation Sisters Property

Association to prepare an application on their behalf. This report has been prepared in

support of a proposed rezoning and subdivision to be lodged with Kingborough Council for

assessment. The proposed rezoning component includes rezoning the subject site from

‘Low Density Residential’ and ‘General Residential’ to ‘General Residential’, ‘Low Density

Residential C’ and ‘Open Space’. The subdivision will take place in two stages.

3. Site Location & Context

The subject site at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, comprises of four land titles: CT

34279/1, CT 199874/1, CT 55854/84 & CT 55854/85 (Figure 1). It is located at the

northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach above Blowhole Road. The total development area

is 3.7 ha, which includes 2.85 ha of ‘Low Density Residential B’ zoned land and 8563 m2 of

‘General Residential’ zoned land.

Figure 1 - Subject Site

The site adjoins the Maryknoll Council Reserve on the north east, the Christian Homes

Tasmania Hawthorn Village Aged Care Home to the west, and Blowhole Road to the south.

The subject site is currently serviced by two accesses; one located at the southern end of

Home Avenue, the other on Blowhole Road on its north-east boundary.

The existing main building located in the western corner of the site is used as the

Maryknoll Retreat and Conference Centre. The dwelling at the southern portion of the site

is used as a residential dwelling for the sisters of the organisation. The remainder of the

site is expansive lawns with isolated trees both native and exotic.

As works will be required to discharge stormwater into Council infrastructure on Council

land to the north east plus connect the new road lots to both Home Avenue and Blowhole

Road it is assumed a Council consent will be required. A separate request has been

submitted to Council for such consent.

Title information for all impacted land is included as Appendix B.

3.1 The Local Area

Blackmans Bay is a beachside suburb in the municipality of Kingborough, and is located

adjacent to Kingston. It is an established residential area which has seen substantial

growth during the last 20 years, with a population of 7,146 as of the 2016 census.1

The site benefits from the proximity to existing services and infrastructure within the

settlement of Blackmans Bay as well as proximity to adjoining district centres including

Kingston and Channel Court (Figure 2). The site is also within commutable distance to the

Kingston centre, as well as central Hobart, the northern suburbs and the Huon Valley.

Surrounding land use and development include urban residential areas in Blackmans Bay,

Kingston Heights, Maranoa Heights, Redwood Village, and Huntingfield. A small

industrial/commercial hub is located at Huntingfield, northwest of Blackmans Bay. The

large activity centre for the region is Kingston.

The Blackmans Bay foreshore reserve, Blackmans Bay Hall, Tinderbox Hills, Blackmans Bay

Primary School, St Aloysius Catholic School, Kingborough Civic Centre and Peter Murrell

Conservation Area are located within close proximity of the subject site (Figure 3).

The subject site is within close proximity to community facilities, local services and public

open space including:

• Hawthorn Village Aged Care Home (70 m);

• Ocean View Child Care Centre (350 m);

• St Peters Anglican Church (445 m);

• Blackmans Bay Primary School (400 m);

• Blackmans Bay Community Hall (400 m);

• Blackmans Bay Beach Picnic Area (450 m);

• Salvation Army Church – Kingborough (475 m);

• Goodstart Early Learning Centre – Blackmans Bay (550 m);

1 ABS Census QuickStats (2016), Blackmans Bay.

• Flowerpot Reserve (1.0 km);

• Sherburd Park (1.1 km); and

• Boronia Reserve (1.1 km).

Figure 2 - Surrounding area

Figure 3 - Site context and surrounding facilities

The proposed rezoning will allow for additional dwellings within an established residential

area. The site is also within close proximity to local services and facilities including the

Kingston and Channel shopping areas, which are all within a 15 minute drive from the

3.2 Social Services and Facilities

‘Social infrastructure’ is defined under the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy

as “all services, facilities and structures that are intended to support the well-being and

amenity of the community. This includes not only educational and health facilities, but

social housing and other community facilities (such as online access centres)” (pg. 46).

The social infrastructure of Blackmans Bay is dependent on nearby activity centres and

networks that form part of the regional landscape, including those located at Howden,

Kingston and Channel areas. The Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy defines

different activity centres based on their size and function.

Blackmans Bay can be defined as a ‘Local Centre’ (Figure 4).

Figure 4 - Excerpt from Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy (p.78)

The site is within close proximity to community services and facilities, ensuring good

support for the future community. The site is located within walking distance to

Blackmans Bay Beach, 600m from the Blackmans Bay Primary School; 600m from Bay

Christian Church; 700m from Ocean View Child Care Centre, and within 2km of Illawarra

Primary School and St Aloysius Catholic College. A small shopping village located on the

corner of Opal Drive and Algona Road is located within 1 km of the subject site, and

includes a grocery store, café and a mechanic.

Employment areas are located within a 30-minute commute from the subject site.

‘Principal Activity Centres’ are those that provide a wide range of services and facilities

to serve the surrounding sub-region, including the provision of employment

opportunities;2 Kingston has been listed as one such centres.

There are significant social benefits in providing additional residential land in Blackmans

Bay. The additional land will ensure long term affordability in the area, providing mixed

housing choice and establishing a strong community base for future residents.

In the short term the development of the site will create jobs and will stimulate the local

economy. In the long term, the increase in population is expected to have a positive

economic effect on local service providers, businesses and demand for a regular public

transport service.

The proposed rezoning is considered to have positive economic and social impacts with

minimal environmental impacts. The proposal is therefore considered to further Objective

(c) of Part 2.

3.2.1 Sports and Recreation

The area around Blackmans Bay features a number of public open space assets and

recreation opportunities. These include:

• Sherburd Park (900 m);

• Flowerpot Reserve (900 m);

• Slevin Reserve (1.1 km);

• Boronia Reserve (1.1 km); and

• North West Bay Golf Course (3.1 km).

Kingborough Council has a Tracks and Trails Strategic Action Plan 2017-2022 which

highlights the importance of maintaining good pedestrian and cycleway access between

neighbourhood centres. Apart from Blackmans Bay Beach, the Peter Murrell Reserve is

within short commutable distance from the subject site (2 km).

3.2.2 Employment and local business

The site has good access to services and an increase in population is likely to support the

small local businesses such as the café and grocery store.

It is likely any employment created would be accommodated in existing employment

areas. However, given the current use of the site as a retreat centre, it is unlikely that an

excessive net amount of increased employment demand will be created as a result of this

development.

The proposed rezoning and subdivision is unlikely to lead to further requirements for

community or sporting facilities.

2Southern Tasmanian Land Use Strategy, p.76

3.2.3 Public Transport

The site is well serviced by Metro Tasmania, with seven bus routes linking Blackmans Bay

with its surrounding localities, including Howden and Kingston, and further to the City and

the Northern Suburbs. Translink services provide connectivity from Kingston to Huon

Valley south as well as north. There are four bus stops located along Roslyn Avenue, which

are in close proximity to the subject site. Whilst it is unlikely the development will trigger

the need for additional bus routes, there may be increased demand for peak time services

to the Kingston centre and neighbouring employment areas such as Huntingfield, Kingston

and Channel areas, and further afield in Hobart.

3.3 Prior Approvals & Applications

There have been no known prior approvals for development on the site.

4. Scheme Amendment

4.1 Rezoning and Code Amendments

The current zoning of the site is Low Density Residential (Area B) and General Residential

(Figure 5). The proposed amendment involves rezoning 2.2Ha of the site from ‘Low

Density Residential’ to ‘General Residential’, 699m2 from Low Density to Public Open

Space, 2596m2 from General Residential to Public Open Space and the balance (6000m2)

from Low Density Residential ‘Area B’ to Low Density Residential ‘Area C’. This will affect

the Kingborough Planning Scheme zoning map.

Under the interim planning scheme, the minimum lot size for subdivision in Low Density

Area B is 5000 m2, whilst Area C is 1000 m2. As discussed below, the incoming Tasmanian

Planning Scheme has an Acceptable Solution minimum lot size of 1500m2, hence the need

for the change from Area B to C under the current scheme.

The zoning will facilitate 22 residential lots and 3 public open space lots. The rezoned

land will immediately adjoin existing General Residential land to the south-west and

north-west and will continue an existing linear Public Open Space to the north-east of the

site (Lot 200). The public open space at the Home Avenue entry to the site will be a

playground and will also protect aboriginal artefacts that are present in that location. A

further public open space is proposed in the southern corner of the site to provide

pedestrian access to the beach.

The Biodiversity Protection, Waterway and Coastal Protection and Landslide Hazard

overlays apply to the site. No change is proposed to the Waterway and Coastal Protection

Overlay. The Landslide Hazard mapping can be deleted from the site based on the

geotechnical report (Appendix I). The Biodiversity Protection Overlay is to be reduced to

the surveyed tree drip line on the north-eastern boundary and to be consistent with the

Natural Values Assessment (Appendix J) in the southern corner of the site.

Proposed rezoning and overlay amendments are attached under Appendix C.

Figure 5 - Current zoning

4.1.1 Consideration of Alternative Forms of Amendment

The alternative form of amendment considered was to develop a Specific Area Plan (SAP)

for the site. A SAP would allow for site specific development where it contributes to a

significant social, economic or environmental benefit to the State or municipal area.

In this instance, a SAP was not considered necessary as a subdivision layout for the site

has been prepared.

There was consideration given to rezoning the south-western portion of the site to

residential, but this area forms a scenic backdrop to Blackmans Bay Beach, incorporates a

number of significant tree species, aboriginal heritage areas and is within Council’s

proposed Specific Area Plan for Blackmans Bay which aims to keep certain key areas in a

low density format.

Consideration was also given to providing a Scenic Protection Overlay to the proposed Low

Density portion of the site, but as Kingborough doesn’t currently use this overlay, such an

approach would be unnecessarily complicated. The preferred approach is to rely on the

Low Density zoning, Biodiversity Protection overlay and permit conditions on the

subdivision permit.

The amendment chosen will contribute to housing supply and continue the urban pattern

of development within Blackmans Bay with careful consideration for preserving the

natural assets on the site, particularly given the site’s coastal location.

4.1.2 Consideration of Potential Land Use Implications

The proposed rezoning will have implications for the use of the site in two ways. Firstly,

by allowing for the physical redevelopment of the site, it will guide the use of space for a

higher level of residential density. The proposal involves subdivision to allow for

residential dwellings in the future.

Secondly, the amendment will modify the use classes and residential density that is

permissible on the site by virtue of the zoning.

A comparison of use classes that could occur on the site under the current zoning versus

the proposed zoning is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Current zone versus proposed zone uses

Status Low Density Residential (current) General Residential (proposed)

No Permit

Required

Education and occasional care (NB 1)3

Natural and cultural values

management

Passive recreation

Residential (NB 1)

Utilities (NB 1)

Education and occasional care (NB 1)

Natural and cultural values

management

Passive recreation

Residential (NB 1)

Utilities (NB 1)

Permitted Residential (NB 1)

Visitor accommodation

Residential (NB 1)

Visitor accommodation

3 NB 1- with certain qualifications.

Status Low Density Residential (current) General Residential (proposed)

Discretionary Community meeting and

entertainment (NB 1)

Domestic animal breeding, boarding

or training

Educational and occasional care (NB 1)

Emergency services

Residential (NB 1)

Sports and recreation

Utilities (NB 1)

Business and professional services

(NB 1)

Community meeting and

entertainment (NB 1)

Educational and occasional care(NB 1)

Emergency services

Food services (NB 1)

General retail and hire (NB 1)

Residential (NB 1)

Sports and recreation

Utilities (NB 1)

Prohibited All other uses All other uses

The scheme amendment will primarily facilitate higher density residential use and

development on the site by permitting smaller land parcels compared to what is

permitted under the Low Density Residential Zone in both the interim planning scheme

and the incoming Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

The use of the site for residential purposes is consistent with the use of land to the north,

west, and south. The need to minimise impacts on the biodiversity protection area to the

south, east and north east of the site has also been considered and incorporated into the

proposed subdivision layout and initial development proposal.

10.3 Use Standards

Use standards of Clause 10.3 would apply to the following uses:

• Non-residential use;

• Visitor Accommodation; and

• Local shop.

10.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

Development on General Residential zoned land will be subject to the development

controls of Clause 10.4 of the Planning Scheme. These Acceptable Solution controls are as

follows:

• Residential density for multiple dwellings – 325 m² site area per dwelling;

• Building Height – the maximum permitted building height for development within

8.5 m;

• Setback – 4.5 m front setback, 4 m rear setback and 1.5 side setback;

• Site coverage – Site coverage of not more than 50%;

• Private open space – a dwelling must have an area of private open space that is 24

m² with a minimum horizontal dimension of 4 m and receive a minimum of 3 hours

of sunlight to 50% of the area between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter;

• Privacy – Provide adequate separation and appropriate location of windows and

doors to maintain privacy between neighbouring dwellings; and

• Fencing – No higher than 1.2 m if the fence is solid, or 1.8 m if the fence has

openings above a height of 1.2 m with a uniform transparency of not less than

Council has the discretion to approve variations to all of the above.

Part E Codes

Development on the site will also be subject to the following codes:

• Bushfire-Prone Areas Code;

• Road and Railway Assets Code;

• Parking and Access Code;

• Stormwater Management Code; and

• Biodiversity Code.

As discussed above, the Landslip Hazard overlay is proposed to be deleted and the

Biodiversity Protection overlay amended.

A full assessment of the proposed development against the applicable development

controls, use standards and relevant codes is provided under sections 7 and 8 of this

report.

5. Proposed Development

The development application aspect of the S43A application is the subdivision of 4

existing lots into 13 ordinary lots zoned General Residential, 5 multiple dwelling lots

zoned General Residential, 4 single dwelling lots zoned Low Density Residential, 3 public

open space lots, and 2 road lots. An assessment against the provisions of Clause 10.6 of

the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme is underprovided under Section 7 of this report.

The subdivision will occur over two stages (refer to Appendix D).

A Bushfire Hazard Management Plan has been incorporated into the subdivision design and

provides minimum setback distances from adjoining bushfire prone vegetation. All lots

will have sufficient separation for minimum BAL-19 construction.

The lots vary in size from 456m2 to 5245 m2. Proposed Lots 1, 10, 16, 21 and 22 are

proposed to be multi-dwelling lots. Proposed Lots 200, 201 and 202 are public open

spaces. Proposed Lot 200 will facilitate a continuation of the creek-line park and

protected tree species in that area. Proposed Lot 201 provides a playground which also

protects aboriginal relics. Proposed Lot 202 provides a bushland pedestrian access from

the internal roadway to the beach.

All buildings and structures, except the southern wing of the existing convention centre

on Lot 16 and the accommodation building on Lot 1 will be demolished (refer to Appendix

All vegetation within the road lots will also be removed. Some vegetation may need to be

removed from proposed public open space Lot 202 to facilitate the pedestrian path, but

this will be subject to detailed design.

6. Policy Assessment

6.1 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) is the principle planning Act and

forms a component of the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS).

The objectives of Schedule 1 of the Act are considered in the following table:

Table 2: Schedule 1, Part 1 Objectives

Part 1 Amendment Response

(a) To promote the sustainable

development of natural and

physical resources and the

maintenance of ecological

processes and genetic

diversity; and

Initial desktop assessments have identified no forest groups

or significant vegetation contained in the area. This was

expected given the previous use of a site as a retreat and

accommodation, therefore the grounds were cleared.

The amendment will have minimal impact with regards to

ecological processes and genetic diversity, and accordingly

satisfies Objective (a) of Part 1.

(b) To provide for the fair,

orderly and sustainable use

and development of air,

land and water; and

The proposed rezoning will facilitate housing developments

within the area of Blackmans Bay.

The site is surrounded by residential development with an

existing suburb. The area is serviced with mains sewer and

water infrastructure.

The subdivision has been designed to minimise potential

conflict with adjoining land uses and services. The

amendment is considered to satisfy Objective (b) of Part 1.

(c) to encourage public

involvement in resource

management and planning;

A public notification period will be conducted in accordance

with the requirements of the Land Use Planning and

Approvals Act 1993.

(d) to facilitate economic

development in accordance

with the objectives set out

in paragraphs

(a), (b) and (c); and

The likely increase in population resulting from the

amendment in conjunction with the site’s close proximity to

Kingston, a principal activity centre, will result in a positive

impact on the economic development of the area.

Furthermore, the construction phases of the subdivision will

create employment and economic stimulation in the local

community in the short term. It is considered that this will

be undertaken in accordance with objectives set out in (a),

(b) and (c).

(e) to promote the sharing of

responsibility for resource

management and planning

between the different

spheres of Government, the

community and industry in

the State.

Table 3: Schedule 1, Part 2 Objectives

(a) to require sound strategic

planning and coordinated

action by State and local

government; and

The proposal has been considered against the Southern

Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy. The development is

located within the Urban Growth Boundary, and is serviced

by existing services and infrastructure. The proposed

rezoning and subdivision will provide housing in an area with

existing services and public amenities.

The proposed rezoning has also been considered against the

relevant strategic documents for the Kingborough

municipality under Section 4 of this report.

(b) to establish a system of

planning instruments to be

the principal way of setting

objectives, policies and

controls for the use,

development and protection

of land; and

The amendment will modify the uses and development that

may occur on the site. The uses and development will be

similar to, and compatible with, the adjoining residential

zoned land to the west, north and south. The implications of

this have been addressed in Section 7 of this report, and are

considered to be acceptable.

The proposed amendment is considered to achieve

Objective (b) of Part 2.

(c) to ensure that the effects

on the environment are

considered and provide for

explicit consideration of

social and economic effects

when decisions are made

about the use and

development of land; and

The site is serviced by reticulated water and sewer

infrastructure. The amendment will not cause any

significant clearance of vegetation. Potential building areas

for each lot have been identified, and are generally located

on already cleared portions of the lots.

The social benefits of providing additional residential land

within an existing urban area are considered to be

significant. The additional land will contribute to housing

supply within an established community.

In the short term, the development of the site will create

more jobs and stimulate the local economy.

In the long term, the increase in population is expected to

have a positive economic effect on local service providers

and businesses within the local Blackmans Bay area as well

as the Kingborough municipal in general.

The proposed rezoning is considered to generate positive

economic and social outcomes without causing negative

environmental impacts. The proposal is therefore considered

to achieve Objective (c) of Part 2.

(d) to require land use and

development planning and

policy to be easily

integrated with

environmental, social,

economic, conservation and

resource management

policies at State, regional

and municipal levels; and

The amendment is consistent with State Policies and

municipal policy. The amendment will not conflict with

neighbouring planning schemes.

The amendment is consistent with Objective (d) of Part 2.

(e) to provide for the

consolidation of approvals

for land use or development

and related matters, and to

co-ordinate planning

approvals with related

approvals; and

The amendment is linked with a development application

for a residential subdivision through Section 43A of the Land

Use Planning and Approvals Act.

(f) to promote the health and

wellbeing of all Tasmanians

and visitors to Tasmania by

ensuring a pleasant,

efficient and safe

environment for working,

living and recreation; and

The development of the site will contribute to the viability

and expansion of community facilities, shops and public

transport. The site lends itself to an area for residential

development that will provide for housing. The rezoning will

also contribute to the recreational environment by providing

new public open space for casual recreation and beach

access.

(g) to conserve those buildings,

areas or other places which

are of scientific, aesthetic,

architectural or historical

interest, or otherwise of

special cultural value; and

The site is vacant of any listed buildings, however the

southern wing of the existing conference centre has some

local heritage value and thus will be retained. The

Aboriginal Heritage Report undertaken for the site found

five registered Aboriginal sites within 1 km radius of the

study area, including two on the subject site. The report

notes that the scientific significance for this site is low-

medium, and has negligible historic significance. The report

advises that the area should not be impacted. One area is

located in the proposed public open space Lot 201 and the

other in the lower portion of Lots 6-8 which is unlikely to be

affected by buildings or in-ground services.

A building on site has been identified by Council as having a

potential significance in terms of building heritage (existing

building on Lot 16). The southern wing of this building will

be retained.

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with

objective (f) of Part 2.

(h) to protect public

infrastructure and other

assets and enable the

orderly provision and co-

ordination of public utilities

and other facilities for the

benefit of the community;

As detailed in the Services Report (Appendix K), connections

into the existing stormwater, sewer and water networks

have been shown and volumes / demands have been

determined.

The stormwater treatment is provided through the use of

rain gardens/bio-retention swales positioned within the road

verge. A high priority has been placed on the quality of the

stormwater outflow in consideration of the proximity of

Blackmans Bay Beach. The majority of the stormwater

outflow is shown to connect into the stormwater system in

the gully north east of the subdivision. It is acknowledged

that in a 1% ARI event, the system in the gully is expected to

be overwhelmed and an overland flow path over blowhole

road will be established. The subdivision will contribute to

the flow volumes, however, the additional volume is not

expected to contribute to the ineffectiveness of the public

utility (road) any more than in its current state.

The Stormwater connection to the beach side of the

subdivision is to make use of the existing outflow

infrastructure. No additional volume of water is anticipated

as a result of the detention systems.

As detailed under section 2.2 of this report the subsequent

increase in population will assist in the viability of public

transport, schools and the like, whilst providing opportunity

for housing supply. The rezoning is considered to have an

overall benefit for the community. The proposal is therefore

considered to be consistent with objective (h) of Part 2.

(i) to provide a planning

framework which fully

considers land capability.

The site is located within an existing urban area. The site

has no agricultural value given its size and isolation from

agricultural areas.

The rezoning proposed is considered to be consistent with

objective (i) of Part 2.

6.2 Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-

The Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 (‘the Strategy’) is a

regional level policy document providing policies and strategies to guide future land use

and development of Southern Tasmania. The document is principally intended to inform

the development of interim planning schemes within the region. Any future amendments

to local planning schemes will be required to be consistent with the Strategy.

Section 34(2)(e) of LUPAA requires that all interim planning schemes be consistent with

and likely to further the objectives and outcomes of the applicable regional land use

strategy. The relevant part of the Strategy is Part 19 – Settlement and Residential

Development.

The Settlement Network divides settlements into categories and illustrates the necessary

services, population and characteristics that form part of each settlement sub-type. The

suburb of Blackmans Bay is classified as within the Greater Hobart settlement.

The site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary coverage identified in Map 10 of the

Strategy. Relevant section of the Strategy are addressed in the following section of this

report.

6.2.1 Managing Risks & Hazards

Part 8.4 (MRH2) seeks to protect life and property from flooding through early

consideration in the land use planning process. For this purpose, it would be necessary to

ensure an acceptable level of residual risk is achieved for future residents and

development.

Part 8.4 (MRH5) seeks to avoid further subdivision or development in areas containing

sodic soils unless the potential risk can be mitigated. A portion of the site is mapped as

having a low landslide hazard risk. A Geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the

site (Appendix I) and concluded that the site was suitable for residential development

subject to appropriate foundation construction and management of potential acid

sulphate soils should they occur.

The site is also bushfire prone land and a bushfire assessment and hazard management

plan has been prepared for the proposed subdivision layout (Appendix F). With the

appropriate management of onsite vegetation, and the ongoing maintenance of

prescribed hazard management areas, future development on the site can be constructed

at an acceptable level to achieve compliance with the bushfire requirements.

6.2.2 Social Infrastructure

Part 11.5 (SI 1) requires consideration of social infrastructure needs as part of land

releases and the need to protect sites for this purpose. For the proposed rezoning, future

social infrastructure demands would be in the form of increased frequency of bus services

in the short term and provision of a local supermarket in the long term.

6.2.3 Physical Infrastructure

Part 12.5 (PI 1) requires a strategic approach to infrastructure be adopted, including

efficient use of existing infrastructure and planning new infrastructure with consideration

of projected future demand.

Physical infrastructure required to service the site and proposed development is

considered in section 7 of this report.

6.2.4 Land Use and Transport Integration

Part 13.5 (LUTI 1) requires consideration be given to the integration of transport

infrastructure with land use.

The proposed rezoning of the subject site is consistent with this strategy as it provides

additional residential area in an existing settlement. This will support the viability and

diversity of local business and social infrastructure in Blackmans Bay as well as in the

Kingborough region. The area is well-serviced by existing public transport routes.

6.2.5 Activity Centres

Part 18.6 (AC 1) aims to protect and enhance the role and function of the Activity Centre

network. Blackmans Bay can be classed as a ‘Local Centre’, meaning it provides a focus

for day-to-day life within an urban community.

A ‘Principal Activity Centre’ is located at Kingston, which provides for a wide range of

services and facilities that will serve the surrounding sub-regions, as well as employment

opportunities.

The proposed rezoning will support the ongoing viability of the local centre, stimulate

additional local businesses, and will be supported by the existing principal activity centre

at Kingston.

6.2.6 Settlement and Residential Development

Part 19 outlines a range of policies aimed at regulating the physical growth of settlements

and establishes the ‘Greater Hobart Residential Strategy’. Blackmans Bay is located within

the Urban Growth Boundary as identified in Figure 6.

The Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 (‘the Strategy’) is a

regional level policy document providing policies and strategies to guide future land use

and development of Southern Tasmania. The document principally is intended to inform

the development of interim planning schemes within the region. Any future amendments

to local planning schemes will be required to be consistent with the Strategy.

Section 34(2)(e) of LUPAA requires that all interim planning schemes be consistent with

and likely to further the objectives and outcomes of the applicable regional land use

strategy. The core element of the Strategy is Part 19 – Settlement and Residential

Development.

Figure 6 - Extract from Map 10 of the STRLUS

Greater Hobart

The Urban Growth Boundary was established by the Greater Hobart4 Settlement Strategy

and sets a 20-year supply limit from 2015 to 2035. The Greater Hobart Settlement

Strategy was based on a forecast demand of 26,5005 additional dwellings comprising of

50% Greenfield development greatly reducing the existing rate of 85% Greenfield

development6. Background Report No. 2 The Regional Profile (‘Background Report No. 2’)

utilised information and analysis on population trends from the Demographic Change

Advisory Council (DCAC) projections using the ‘medium growth scenario’.

Background Report No. 14, Providing for Housing Needs (‘Background Report No. 14’) sets

out the basis for the dwelling forecast utilising population and household projections

prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) using the ‘medium growth scenario’,

4 Defined in the Strategy as the land contained within the Statistical Local Areas (ABS statistical

data unit) of Brighton, Clarence, Glenorchy, Hobart Inner, Hobart Outer, Kingborough Part A and

Sorell Part A. It includes the metropolitan area and dormitory suburbs.

5 NB: This forecast was actually to 2032 as outlined in Background Report No. 14.

6 Background Report No.14 Providing for Housing Needs (pg. 17)

and the dwelling approval trends outlined in Background Report No. 2 (also based on ABS

data). However, the dwelling demand was only forecast to 2032.

Background Report No. 2 (pg. 81) states that population growth was not the predominant

driver of dwelling growth for the period 2000-2008 (with the exception of Brighton,

Derwent Valley and Southern Midlands). It is indicated that demographic change was a

key driver of dwelling growth.

The Greater Hobart Settlement Strategy states that to meet the projected demand

approximately 710 ha of further residential land would be required (using net density).

This land was allocated to Greenfield Development Precincts in the Strategy and is

generally zoned either ‘General Residential’ or ‘Particular Purpose-Urban Growth’ under

the Interim Planning Schemes. The proposal would contribute to land for development

precincts zoned ‘General Residential’.

Section 3 of the Strategy states that Greater Hobart accounts for nearly 86% of the

Southern Tasmanian population. The forecast population for Southern Tasmania to 2035

was stated in Section 3 as being 327,036. It can therefore be deduced that Greater

Hobart has a forecast population of 281,250.96 (86% of 327,036).

The Department of Treasury and Finance (‘DTF’) released updated population projections

for Tasmania in 2014. Under the DTF projections the population of Greater Hobart in

2035 under the ‘Medium Growth’ series is 254,3667.

Kingborough

The population of Kingborough is estimated to have grown from 34,8008 in 2010 to 35,853

in 20169. The Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) released the 2014 Population

Projections Tasmania and Local Government Areas paper which predicts a maximum

population increase of 55,859 people within the Kingborough local government area by

2037. At the medium growth rate, the Kingborough LGA is predicted to grow by an

additional 13,210 persons by 2037. The DTF projections set the population of Kingborough

for 2022 at 40,663 people under the ‘medium’ growth scenario, and 43,212 persons under

the ‘high’ growth scenario.

Given these projections, Kingborough can be expected to grow by 5,615 to 20,769 people

from 2013 to 2037, depending on growth rate. Based on ABS and DTF predictions, the

population of Kingborough is anticipated to continuing growing at a medium to high

growth rate.

7 Total projected population to 2035 for Brighton, Clarence, Glenorchy, Hobart, Kingborough, and

Sorell municipalities using the medium growth scenario (DTF, 2014).

8 DFT (2017), Regional Population Growth (ABS 3218.0),

http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/Regional-Population-Growth.pdf

9 ABS (2016) Census Quickstats, Kingborough.

Building Approvals

It is also relevant to note that the number of building approvals in Greater Hobart from

July 2010 to July 2017 was 7,55810, or approximately 28% of the forecast additional

dwellings (26,500) for Greater Hobart to 2035. A total 184 dwellings were approved in

Kingborough (LGA) between 2016-2017.11

Property Market

Background Report No.13 – Dwelling Yield Analysis of the Strategy found that the greatest

potential for growth is land located in the middle lower market segment within the urban

and urban fringe. The market segments are determined by the median price for the

suburb relative to the sale price of other suburbs in the study area. In 2009, Blackmans

Bay was defined as being in ‘middle top’ band with a median sale value12 of $375,000. In

2017 the median prices in Blackmans Bay for houses, units and land were $523,500,

$352,500 and $272,500 respectively.13

The property market in Greater Hobart has been steadily increasing over recent years and

is currently anticipated to lead the country in housing sales in 2018. Over the last year

property prices in Hobart have increased by 13.8%14. In the current housing market,

housing experts consider there to be a supply shortage of housing, given the demand15.

While the STRLUS deals with long term goals for sustainable development, the existing

housing stock may not meet the current and thus future, demand. The proposed denser

development of the subject site is well aligned with the general aims of the housing

strategy. Incorporating 5 lots for multiple dwellings will contribute to maintaining

affordable residential options in the area.

The dwelling yield analysis methodology states that due to random sampling, the sampling

may over select parcels which cannot be developed further or under select parcels which

cannot be developed further.

In determining the dwelling yield capacity of existing zoned land, the assessment

recommended further work be completed to better understand additional factors

including subdivision and take up patterns, character and demographics of the suburb and

zones, access to services, demographic trends, and potential for multiple dwellings.

10 ABS 8731.0 Building Approvals, Australia, October 2017

11 ABS (2016) Regional Statistics by LGA, 2010-2016, Annual – Kingborough 63610

12 It is not specified whether median sale price is for land, house and land or a combination. Result

from Australian Property Monitors.

13 REIT Statistics Blackmans Bay (http://reit.com.au/market-facts/suburb-reports/)

14 ABS, 6416.0 - Residential Property Price Indexes: Eight Capital Cities, Sep 2017

15 https://www.realestate.com.au/news/hobart-housing-price-growth-forecast-to-lead-australia-in-

Australian Bureau of Statistics – Current Population Trends

From 217,000 people at 30 June 2012, Hobart's population is projected to increase to

between 228,700 and 339,300 in 206116.

The population of Greater Hobart has grown from 204,753 to 224,462 persons in the

decade from 2006-201617. This is a total growth of 19,709 persons, or 9.6%. This area

increased at a rate of 0.75% over the period 2011-2016, increasing to 0.91% over the

period 2015-2016.

Adherence to Regional Settlement Strategy

A Regional Settlement Strategy is set out in Part 19.5 of the Southern Tasmanian Regional

Land Use Strategy. The proposed rezoning furthers the following aims of the Regional

Settlement Strategy due to its location:

• Encouraging residential housing supply within the Urban Growth Boundary

The strategy is reliant on moving the percentage infill development from 15% to

40% to reduce further Greenfield development areas. This site in an infill site

within an existing suburb that assists in achieving that objective.

• Maximising use of existing infrastructure;

The location of the site will enable the subdivision to connect to existing services

within the area.

• Avoiding the creation of any further environmental issues caused by on-site

wastewater disposal;

The site is located in a serviced area for sewerage and will not require onsite

wastewater disposal.

• Protecting distinct landscape character.

The natural landscape will be retained through the minimum removal of

vegetation. Earthworks will be kept to a minimum to ensure that the site’s

distinct coastal location is maintained.

16 ABS, 3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101

17 ABS, 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016

Summary

The Greater Hobart Residential Strategy provides a dwelling demand forecast for the

Hobart area to 2035. The population basis for this estimate is somewhat unclear, with

the dwelling demand forecast based on ABS projections for populations, whilst the

Regional Profile utilises DCAC projections. The population of Kingbrorough as estimated

by the ABS is currently tracking the DTF Medium Growth Scenario.

The Land Release Program for Greenfield Precincts is yet to be established, and the

monitoring indicators for the Strategy are undefined. As it stands, dwelling densities for

approved subdivisions within designated greenfield precincts fall well below the desired

15 dwellings per hectare. It is also not clear whether the desired ratio of 50/50

greenfield to infill sites is being achieved, but this rezoning assists in achieving this

objective.

The Southern Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 provided a strategy to achieve ideal

residential growth and development within the Greater Hobart area from 2010 to 2035.

The subject site provides an area ready for developent with minimal barriers, that is able

to achieve the targetted density, and is located within commutable distance to multiple

activity centres. The site is also located adjacent to existing infastructure and transport

networks, as well as existing services. These factors support the proposed rezoning of the

site and are consistent with the Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-

6.3 Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

The Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 is the relevant planning instrument at

present. It is anticipated that it will be superseded by the Tasmanian Planning Scheme

within the next 12-24 months.

The site is currently zoned both ‘General Residential’ and ‘Low Density Residential B’ (see

Figure 5 on p13) and is subject to the following overlays:

• Biodiversity Protection Areas;

• Bushfire Hazard Area;

• Landslide Hazard Area; and

• Waterway and Coastal Protection Areas.

The ‘Planning Scheme Purpose and Objectives’ under Part A of the Scheme are addressed

in the next subsection of this report.

6.3.1 Planning Scheme Purpose and Objectives

The Planning Scheme’s ‘Purpose and Objectives’ are set out in Part A of the Scheme. The

following extracts are considered relevant to the current application.

Clause 2.1 Planning Scheme Purpose

(a) To further the Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System

and of the Planning Process as set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act;

(b) To achieve the planning scheme objectives set out in clause 3.0 by regulating

or prohibiting the use or development of land in the planning scheme area.

The application and proposed amendment are consistent with the objectives of the

Planning System and Planning Processes as set out in Schedule 1 of the Act as discussed in

Section 6.1 above.

The objectives relevant to the proposal are as follows:

Clause 3.0 Planning Scheme Objectives – Residential Growth

Residential Growth: Regional Objectives

To manage residential growth holistically.

The proposed amendment will support the growth of the area of Blackmans Bay by

providing housing within close proximity to the Blackmans Bay residential area community

infrastructure such as schools, health care services, churches, community hall facilities

and public open space.

The site is well positioned in terms of its connectivity to existing public open space and

public transport network which connects with the major centres and services, as well as

the locality of Blackmans Bay.

The proposal will allow for the growth of the Blackmans Bay residential area,

incorporating greater housing choice, thus furthering the objectives of the planning

scheme. The rezoning and proposed development will allow for the redevelopment of an

existing rural residential area to support higher densities close to the existing urban

periphery and community infrastructure.

6.3.2 Zoning

10.0 General Residential Zone

Most of the site is proposed to be zoned ‘General Residential’.

The purpose of the General Residential Zone pursuant to 10.1.1 of the Planning Scheme,

is stated as follows:

10.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements

10.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates a range of

dwelling types at suburban densities, where full infrastructure services are

available or can be provided.

10.1.1.2 To provide for compatible non-residential uses that primarily serve the local

community.

10.1.1.3 To provide for the efficient utilisation of services.

The proposed rezoning will allow the site to be developed for residential purposes. The

smaller lot sizes created by the proposed zoning will provide flexibility in lot layout and

diversity in housing choice. The rezoning will also allow the continued pattern of

residential land use that is established north and west of the site.

The proposal is considered to further the Zone Purposes Statements for the General

Residential Zone.

12.0 Low Density Residential Zone

A small portion of the site (proposed lots 6, 7, 8 and 9) is to remain as ‘Low Density

Residential’, however this rezoning would be converted from Area B to Area C.

The purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone pursuant to 12.1.1 of the Planning

Scheme, is stated as follows:

12.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements

12.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development on larger lots in residential areas

where there are infrastructure or environmental constraints that

limit development.

12.1.1.2 To provide for non-residential uses that are compatible with residential amenity.

12.1.1.3 To avoid land use conflict with adjacent Rural Resource or Significant

Agricultural zoned land by providing for adequate buffer areas.

12.1.1.4 To provide for existing low density residential areas that usually do not have

reticulated services and have limited further subdivision potential.

The proposed rezoning from Low Density Residential Area B to Area C will continue to

allow for the site to be developed for low density residential purposes, whilst preserving

good access to both hard and soft infrastructure.

The subject site does not adjoin with any Rural Resource or Significant Agricultural zoned

land, therefore there are no land use conflicts.

The larger lot sizes aims to ensure that the environmental values of the coastal setting

are retained. The site will have access to existing reticulated infrastructure services:

water, sewer, NBN, power and stormwater.

The proposal is considered to further the Zone Purposes Statements for the Low Density

Residential Zone.

The proposal is also in accordance with the Local Area Objectives for Blackmans Bay:

Areas within Blackmans Bay that are zoned Low Density Residential are to be

developed so that both visual landscape and natural environmental values are

protected.

By retaining the existing Low Density Residential zoning for the portion of the site that is

nearest to the coast, it ensures that the visual landscape, aboriginal heritage and natural

environmental values are protected. The lots will be larger than the other proposed

General Residential lots, ensuring that there is sufficient land to accommodate existing

vegetation to enhance natural amenity.

19.0 Open Space Zone

The proposal includes the rezoning of some sections of the site (proposed Lots 200, 201

and 201) to Open Space zone thereby ensuring that there is open space for the purposes

of passive recreation, and for natural and landscape amenity.

Three Open Space zones have been proposed, and are located within varying areas of the

site to enhance the amenity and liveability of the subdivision.

6.4 Tasmanian Planning Scheme – State Planning Provisions

The State Planning Provisions (SPP) will eventually replace the Interim Planning Scheme.

Whilst the SPP’s have been in effect since March 2017, they will have no practical effect

until the Local Provision Schedule is in effect for the respective municipal area.

The proposed ‘General Residential’ Zone has a similar purpose under the SPP to that

under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The ‘Planning

Scheme Purpose and Objectives’ under Part A of the Scheme are addressed in the next

subsection of this report.

6.4.1 Planning Scheme Purpose

The purpose of the Scheme is to further the objectives of the Resource Management and

Planning System and the planning process set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act

and be consistent with State Policies in force under the State Policies and Projects Act

1993 by:

(a) Regulating or prohibiting the use or development of land; and

(b) Making provisions for the use, development, protection and conservation of land.

The proposed rezoning will allow for uses on the site that are compatible with the future

residential character of the local area and regulating or prohibiting incompatible uses.

The proposal is considered for further the objectives of the planning scheme.

6.4.2 General Residential Zone

The purpose of the General Residential Zone pursuant to 8.1 of the State Planning

Provisions, is stated as follows:

8.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates a range of

dwelling types where full infrastructure services are available or can be provided.

8.1.2 To provide for the efficient utilisation of available social, transport and other

service infrastructure.

8.1.3 To provide for non-residential use that:

(a) primarily serves the local community; and

(b) does not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity through scale, intensity,

noise, activity outside of business hours, traffic generation and movement, or

other off-site impacts.

8.1.4 To provide for Visitor Accommodation that is compatible with residential character.

The proposed rezoning will provide for residential use in an established residential

setting. The site is well connected to existing social, transport and service infrastructure.

The proposal is considered to further the purpose and objectives of the General

Residential Zone under the State Planning Provisions.

6.4.3 Low Density Residential Zone

10.1.1 To provide for residential use and development in residential areas where there

are infrastructure or environmental constraints that limit the density, location or form of

development.

10.1.2 To provide for non-residential use that does not cause an unreasonable loss of

amenity, through scale, intensity, noise, traffic generation and movement, or other off

site impacts.

10.1.3 To provide for Visitor Accommodation that is compatible with residential

character.

The proposed Low Density Zone complies with 10.1.1 in that the environmental

constraints that limit the density of the development. The area that is proposed to be

zoned to Low Density is consistent with a multiple of the 1500m2 lot size under 10.4.1 A1.

7. Proposed Subdivision

The proposed development component includes the subdivision of:

• 18 ‘General Residential’ dwelling lots;

• 4 ‘Low Density Residential’ single dwelling lots;

• 3 ‘Open Space’ lots; and

• 2 road lots.

Residential use is a No Permit Required Use for Single Dwellings in both the General

Residential zone under clause 10.2, and in the Low Density Residential Zone under clause

12.2. For other than single dwellings, Residential use is a Permitted Use in both the

General Residential zone under clause 10.2 and in the Low Density Residential Zone (for

Area C only) under clause 12.2.

7.1 General Residential Zone

A part of the subdivision component includes the development of land currently zoned

General Residential, as well as land proposed to be zoned General Residential.

7.1.1 Lot Design

10.6.1 Lot Design

The size of each lot must comply with the minimum and maximum lot sizes specified

in Table 10.1, except if for public open space, riparian or littoral reserve or utilities.

The acceptable lot sizes listed in Table 10.1 are:

• Ordinary lot – 450 – 1000 m2;

• Corner lot – 550 – 1000 m2; and

• Lots adjoining a public open space - 400 – 600 m2.

The above maximum lot sizes do not apply for lots designated for multiple dwellings.

There will be a mix of single and multiple dwelling lots. A total of 18 ‘General

Residential’ lots will be subdivided as part of the proposal.

Of the 18 lots, 5 exceed the permitted single dwelling maximum lot size but are

designated for multiple dwellings, therefore complying with the acceptable solution. Lots

designated for multiple dwellings are: 1, 10, 16, 21 and 22.

The remaining 13 are designated for single dwellings, and are within the range of

acceptable lot sizes defined in Table 10.1 for ordinary lots.

Among the 18 lots, Lots 1, 19 and 22 are corner lots. While Lots 1 and 22 do not have

maximum lot size as these are designated for multiple dwellings, Lot 19 at 552 m2, meets

the minimum lot size of 550 m2 required for a corner lot.

Lots 10, 20, and 21 adjoin a public Open Space zone. Lots 10 and 21 are multiple dwelling

lots, therefore do not have a maximum lot size. Lots 20 (456 m2) is within the acceptable

lot size for lots adjoining a public open space. The proposal complies with Acceptable

Solution A1.

The design of each lot must provide a

minimum building area that is

rectangular in shape and complies with

all of the following, except if for

public open space, a riparian or littoral

reserve or utilities:

(a) clear of the frontage, side and rear

boundary setbacks;

(b) not subject to any codes in this

planning scheme;

(c) clear of title restrictions such as

easements and restrictive

covenants;

(d) has an average slope of no more

than 1 in 5;

(e) the long axis of the building area

faces north or within 20 degrees

west or 30 degrees east of north;

(f) is 10m x 15m in size.

(g) no trees of high conservation value

will be impacted.

The design of each lot must contain a building area

able to satisfy all of the following:

(a) be reasonably capable of accommodating

residential use and development;

(b) meets any applicable standards in codes in this

planning scheme;

(c) enables future development to achieve maximum

solar access, given the slope and aspect of the

(d) minimises the need for earth works, retaining

walls, and fill and excavation associated with

future development;

(e) provides for sufficient useable area on the lot for

both of the following;

(i) on-site parking and manoeuvring;

(ii) adequate private open space.

(f) avoids, minimises, mitigates and offsets impacts

on trees of high conservation value.

There is a combined area of over 1 hectare of bush fire prone vegetation within 100m of

the subject site, the whole site is subject to E 1.0 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code. Accordingly

it is not possible to comply with all elements of Acceptable Solution A2 and Performance

Criteria P2 must be addressed.

A Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report including a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan has

been prepared and attached with this report (Appendix F).

The subdivision layout has been designed to ensure that all lots are able to satisfy all

elements of Performance Criteria P2. As evident on Proposed Subdivision Plan (Appendix

D) all lots to be zoned General Residential (i.e. Lots 1 to 5 and Lots 10 to 22) inclusive,

are reasonably capable of accommodating residential use and development as per P2(a).

Proposed lots 3, 4, 5, and 22 are subject to the Biodiversity Protection Code overlay and

the proposed building areas on these lots have been positioned to avoid the overlay areas

so as to minimise potential vegetation disturbance. All lots are considered to satisfy

either Acceptable Solutions or Associated Performance Criteria of E 1.0 Bushfire Prone

Area Code, E 5.0 Road and Railway Assets Code, E 6.0 Parking and Access Code, and E 7.0

Stormwater Management Code as outlines in the separate reports in Appendices (b).

The lot design for Lots 3, 4, and 5 are constrained due to their location at the end of the

cul-de-sac. The building areas have been located towards the front portion of the site to

avoid earthworks on land whilst still providing private open spaces at the rear oriented

toward north and north-east to maximise solar access. The building areas on Lots 12, 13,

14, 15 and 20 have also been orientated in such a way that maximises solar access given

site constraints. In general the topography of the subject site for lots zoned General

Residential, is not too steep, with a gentle northerly slope (c).

The proposed building areas have been sited on the lots in areas that have a slope no

greater than 1 in 5. These building site locations minimise the need for earth works,

retaining walls, and fill and excavation associated with future development (d).

Each lot within the subdivision has sufficient useable area to provide on-site parking and

manoeuvring, as well as adequate private open space, with a northerly aspect (e).

There are no identified trees of high conservation value in the Natural Values Report

(Appendix J) within the road reserve or the lots generally. One Eucalyptus amygdalina

(Peppermint gum) on proposed Lot 19 and one Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum) on

proposed Lot 8 have been identified as being close to the proposed building envelopes

which may place the trees at risk. The proposed removal of these trees would be subject

to an arborist assessment and a separate planning permit application (f).

The proposal demonstrates that it is able to satisfy all elements of Performance Criteria

The frontage of each lot must comply with the

minimum and maximum frontage specified in

Table 10.2, except if for public open space, a

riparian or littoral reserve or utilities or if an

internal lot.

The frontage of each lot must satisfy all of

the following:

(a) provides opportunity for practical

and safe vehicular and pedestrian

access;

(b) provides opportunity for passive

surveillance between residential

development on the lot and the

public road;

(c) is no less than 6m.

The frontage requirements per Table 10.2 for ordinary and corner lots is 15 m. For lots

adjoining a public open space, the minimum frontage is 12 m.

All lots adjoining the public open space other than Lot 10 meet the minimum frontage of

• Lot 10 – 7.5 m;

• Lot 20 – 13.1m; and

• Lot 21 – 17.5 m.

All ordinary lots other than Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 meet the minimum frontage of 15 m:

• Lot 2 – 14.6 m;

• Lot 3 - 7.65 m;

• Lot 4 – 8.5 m; and

• Lot 5 – 8.5 m;

As five lots are under the minimum frontage requirement, Performance Criteria P3 must

be addressed.

All of the lots provide a safe opportunity for vehicular and pedestrian access (a).

The lots provide sufficient opportunity for passive surveillance. The building areas for

these lots are also located towards the front portion of the site, ensuring that residents

have the ability to have views onto the road (b).

All frontages are greater than 6m (c).

No lot is an internal lot.

No lot is an internal lot, complies with A4.

Subdivision is for no

more than 3 lots.

Arrangement and provision of lots must satisfy all of the following;

(a) have regard to providing a higher net density of dwellings

along;

(i) public transport corridors;

(ii) adjoining or opposite public open space, except

where the public open space presents a hazard risk

such as bushfire;

(iii) within 200 m of business zones and local shops;

(b) will not compromise the future subdivision of the entirety of

the parent lot to the densities envisaged for the zone;

(c) staging, if any, provides for the efficient and ordered

provision of new infrastructure;

(d) opportunity is optimized for passive surveillance between

future residential development on the lots and public spaces;

(e) is consistent with any applicable Local Area Objectives or

Desired Future Character Statements.

The development component of the proposal is for the subdivision into 18 General

Residential lots, therefore the Performance Criteria P5 must be addressed.

The area to be zoned General Residential is 2.2ha, of which 5 lots will be allocated to

multiple dwellings occupying nearly 1.1ha of the General Residential zoned land. The

proposal is anticipated to provide dwelling densities at the desired 15 dwellings per

hectare. Such densities are considered appropriage given the proximity of Roslyn Avenue

– a key Metro Bus service route only 200m west of the proposed development (a)(i).

The proposed Public Open Space on proposed Lot 200 and the existing reserve adjacent to

Lots 22, 3, 4 and 5 is part of an isolated vegetated area just larger than 1ha. The

subdivision design has considered the requirements of E 1.0 Bushfire Prone Areas Code

and a Bushfire Hazard Management Report (Appendix F) demonstrates that all lots are

able to accommodate building areas capable of BAL19.0 ratings (a) (ii).

The southern corner of the proposed subdivision is within 130m of local shops fronting

onto Blackmans Bay, with the proposed Open Space lot (Lot 202) providing pedestrian

access in keeping with liveability objectives. It is anticipated that the subdivision design

will positively activate the local shopping precinct (a) (iii).

The proposal does not result in any balance lot, (b) is not applicable.

Staging is proposed as follows:

Stage 1 – Access from Home Ave plus internal road, and all reticulated services

infrastructure and creation of:

• Lots 1-5,10-17,19, 20 and 22 in the General Residential Zone

• Lots 6-9 in the Low Density Residential Zone and

• Lots 201 and 202 in the Open Space Zone

Stage 2- Access from Blowhole Road and internal road to connect into previously

constructed internal road, and creation of:

• Lots 18 and 21 in the General Residential Zone and

• Lot 200 in the Open Space Zone.

New infrastructure will be developed in stages (c).

The subdivision design provides for passive surveillance between future residential

development on the lots and public spaces. Lot 200 is the largest to the Public Open

Space (POS) lots and is located to the north of Lot 21 (designated as a multiple dwelling

lot) which is likely to be the preferred orientation for private open space areas

associated with any future development. POS Lot 201 – at the entrance to the estate is

overlooked by Lot 20 and Lot 21 providing several opportunities for passive surveillance.

POS Lot 202 – is overlooked by lot 10 and lot 9 as well as existing residences to the south

of the site. Lot 10 is designated for multiple developments which are likely to have

windows facing east to take advantage of the view of the Bay and hence POS lot 202. All

lots have ample opportunity to overlook the internal proposed road (d).

The Local Area Objective for Blackmans Bay states:

Blackmans Bay should be maintained as an established residential area with a high

level of amenity associated with its coastal location, pleasant views and lifestyle.

The proposed subdivision layout and design – incorporating POS and four large lots of Low

Density Residential Zone land will maintain a high level of amenity. Pedestrian access to

the beach via POS Lot 202 will significantly contribute to both a pleasant and healthy

lifestyle –encouraging morning walks along the beach (e).

The Desired Future Character Statement for Blackmans Bay states:

Blackmans Bay should continue as a predominantly low-density residential area with

larger lot sizes that enable reasonable setbacks, the retention of native vegetation

and gardens.

The proposed subdivision design provides lot sizes in keeping with the surrounding existing

General Residential land and provides for larger lots on the eastern seaward side to

enable the retention of vegetation and native gardens in keeping with the seaside setting

7.1.2 Roads

10.6.2 Roads

The subdivision

includes no new road.

The arrangement and construction of roads within a subdivision must

satisfy all of the following:

(a) the appropriate and reasonable future subdivision of the entirety

of any balance lot is not compromised;

(b) the route and standard of roads accords with any relevant road

network plan adopted by the Planning Authority;

(c) the subdivision of any neighbouring or nearby land with

subdivision potential is facilitated through the provision of connector

roads and pedestrian paths, where appropriate, to common

boundaries;

(d) an acceptable level of access, safety, convenience and legibility is

provided through a consistent road function hierarchy;

(e) cul-de-sac and other terminated roads are not created, or their

use in road layout design is kept to an absolute minimum;

(f) connectivity with the neighbourhood road network is maximised;

(g) the travel distance between key destinations such as shops and

services is minimised;

(h) walking, cycling and the efficient movement of public transport is

facilitated;

(i) provision is made for bicycle infrastructure on new arterial and

collector roads in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design

Part 6A;

(j) multiple escape routes are provided if in a bushfire prone area.

New public roads are proposed therefore the Performance Criteria P1 must be addressed.

The new roads will enable future development of the lots. The roads provide access for

the new lots to the surrounding existing road network, ensuring good vehicular and

pedestrian movement from the existing access points on Blowhole Road and Home

Avenue. The roads will be constructed in accordance with Kingborough Council’s road

network requirements (a).

The proposal does not result in a balance lot thus (b) is not applicable.

The access for neighbouring lots will remain unhindered by the proposal. The proposal is

an infill development and as such there is no nearby land with subdivision potential and

thus (c) is not applicable.

Blowhole Road and Home Avenue are local feeder roads into Roslyn Ave. The proposed

new roads are local feeder roads into this network. The new roads will terminate in a cul-

de-sac head and will provide direct road frontage for each proposed lot (d).

A single cul-de-sac head is proposed at the termination of the road network, towards the

south of the site. A cul-de-sac was chosen as it prevents the need to create a second

access point further south onto Blowhole Road so as to retain and minimise the potential

for disturbance to vegetation within the Biodiversity Protection area (e).

The new road is integrated into the existing road network within the neighbourhood. The

road will extend from existing accesses off Blowhole Road and Home Avenue (refer to

subdivision plan in Appendix D) (f).

The site is conveniently located close to shops and services as identified in Section 3.2.3

of the report P1 (g). The site is also conveniently accessible via public transport such as

bus stops for Metro Tasmania (h).

No arterial or collector roads are proposed and P1 (i) is not applicable.

The site is serviced by multiple access points extending the grid pattern on the eastern

and western sides of the subject site created by Blowhole Road and Home Avenue (j).

7.1.3 Ways and Public Open Space

No Acceptable

Solution.

The arrangement of ways and public open space within a subdivision

must satisfy all of the following:

(a) connections with any adjoining ways are provided through the

provision of ways to the common boundary, as appropriate;

(b) connections with any neighbouring land with subdivision potential

is provided through the provision of ways to the common boundary, as

appropriate;

(c) connections with the neighbourhood road network are provided

through the provision of ways to those roads, as appropriate;

(d) convenient access to local shops, community facilities, public open

space and public transport routes is provided;

(e) new ways are designed so that adequate passive surveillance will

be provided from development on neighbouring land and public roads

as appropriate;

(f) provides for a legible movement network;

(g) the route of new ways has regard to any pedestrian & cycle way or

public open space plan adopted by the Planning Authority;

(h) Public Open Space must be provided as land or cash in lieu, in

accordance with the relevant Council policy;

(i) new ways or extensions to existing ways must be designed to

minimise opportunities for entrapment or other criminal behaviour

including, but not limited to, having regard to the following:

(j) the width of the way;

(ii) the length of the way;

(iii) landscaping within the way;

(iv) lighting;

(v) provision of opportunities for 'loitering';

(vi) the shape of the way (avoiding bends, corners or other

opportunities for concealment).

No ways or public open space are proposed under this zone and 10.6.3 is not applicable.

7.1.4 Services

10.6.4 Services

Each lot must be connected to a reticulated potable water supply.

No Performance

Criteria.

Each proposed lot will be connected to a reticulated water supply, compliant with A1.

Refer to the Concept Services Report in Appendix K.

Each lot must be connected to a reticulated sewerage system.

No Performance

Criteria.

Each proposed lot will be connected to a reticulated sewerage system, compliant with A2.

Refer to the Concept Services Report in Appendix K.

Each lot must be connected to a Stormwater

system able to service the building area by

gravity.

If connection to a Stormwater system is

unavailable, each lot must be provided with

an on-site Stormwater management system

adequate for the future use and

development of the land.

Each lot will be connected to the Council stormwater system via gravity reticulation,

compliant with A3. Refer to the Concept Services Report in Appendix K.

The subdivision includes no new road.

The subdivision provides for the installation

of fibre ready facilities (pit and pipe that

can hold optical fibre line) and the

underground provision of electricity supply.

The subdivision includes new roads therefore the Performance Criteria must be

addressed. Allowance will be made for the installation of fibre ready facilities and the

provision of underground electricity supply, consistent with P4. Refer to the Concept

Services Report in Appendix K.

7.2 Low Density Residential Zone

As part of the rezoning component of this proposal, the south eastern area nearest to the

coast will remain as Low Density Residential zoned land, however it is to be rezoned from

‘Area B’ to ‘Area C’.

Within the subdivision component, lots zoned Low Density Residential will be Lots 6, 7, 8

7.2.1 Lot Design

12.5.1 Lot Design

The size of each lot must be in accordance with the following, except if for

public open space, a riparian or littoral reserve or utilities:

as specified in Table 12.1.

No Performance

Criteria.

The minimum lot size for ‘Area C’ lots in the Low Density Residential zone is 1000 m2.

Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 have a lot size of 1500 m2, therefore the proposal is complies with A1.

The design of each lot must provide a

minimum building area that is rectangular

in shape and complies with all of the

following, except if for public open space,

a riparian or littoral reserve or utilities:

(a) clear of the frontage, side and rear

boundary setbacks;

(b) not subject to any codes in this

planning scheme;

(c) clear of title restrictions such as

easements and restrictive covenants;

(d) has an average slope of no more than 1

(e) is a minimum of 20 x 20 m in size;

(f) no environmental values will be

adversely impacted.

(a) is reasonably capable of accommodating

residential use and development;

(b) meets any applicable standards in codes in this

planning scheme;

(c) enables future development to achieve

reasonable solar access, given the slope and

aspect of the land;

(d) minimises the requirement for earth works,

retaining walls, and cut & dill associated with

future development;

(e) avoids, minimises and mitigates environmental

impact arising from future use and

development;

(f) offsets impacts on trees of high conservation

value.

Building areas are shown for the Low Density Residential-zoned lots in the south east of

the site in Appendix D.

Building areas of 10m x15m are proposed for all 4 lots which does not meet criteria for A2

(e). As such, the Performance Criteria P2 must be addressed.

The typical building areas for the General Residential zone (10x15m) are shown on the

subdivision plan which demonstrate the lots can accommodate residential use and

development. There is space on the lots for future dwellings to be larger than this, but

the design will need to respond to the attributes of the lot, such as the need for

vegetation protection, slope of the site and bushfire protection (a).

Standards within the codes have been addressed in Section 8. The proposal is considered

to satisfactorily address all requirements of the relevant codes (b).

The site benefits from a coastal setting. The size and shape of the lots are such that

optimal solar orientation as well as coastal views are achievable. The building areas

demonstrate that the lots are of a geometry that ensures solar access for future

development on adjacent sites to the north-west will not be compromised (c).

The slope of the lots is not steep enough to warrant extensive earthworks and the access

road is located on the ridgeline of the site minimising cut and fill (d).

There may be some impact on environmental values, particularly on Lot 8 and 9. The

building areas shown on these lots demonstrate that a dwelling can be located on them

whilst keeping a significant band of vegetation along the Ocean Esplanade frontage to

maintain the vegetated backdrop that is currently present. The road cannot be moved

north due to an existing building (Lot 1); nevertheless proposed Lots 6,7,8, and 9 are

larger than the minimum lot size and contain areas clear of vegetation on Lots 6 and 7

and to a lesser extent on Lots 8 and 9. There is significant opportunity to minimise

vegetation loss on Lots 8 and 9 through appropriate site specific design of future dwelling

development. Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy (e).

Five large blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) have been identified on Lots 8 and 9, but none

are to be removed as part of this application. It is likely one tree may need to be removed

on Lot 8 as a result of future development (depending on the size of the dwelling) and if

so an offset will be paid to Council if required (f).

Based on the above, proposal demonstrates that is satisfies all elements of Performance

Criteria P2.

The frontage for each lot must be no less than the

following, except if for public open space, a riparian

or littoral reserve or utilities and except if an

internal lot:

The frontage of each lot must provide

opportunity for reasonable vehicular

and pedestrian access and must be no

less than:

Lots 6, 7 & 9 have frontages under 30 m, therefore the performance criteria must be

addressed.

All lots have frontages greater than 6 m. The building areas are considerably setback from

the frontage, ensuring reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access.

The proposal demonstrates that is satisfies all elements of Performance Criteria P3.

No lot is an internal lot.

No lot is an internal lot, compliant with Acceptable Solution A4.

Setback from a new boundary for an existing

building must comply with the relevant Acceptable

Solution for setback.

Setback from a new boundary for an

existing building must satisfy the relevant

Performance Criteria for setback.

Proposed Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 are vacant lots and A5 is not applicable.

7.2.2 Roads

12.5.2 Roads

No new road is proposed within the land to be zoned Low Density Residential Zone and A1

is not applicable.

As part of the overall subdivision design, new roads have been proposed on the land to be

zoned General Residential. The discretions have been discussed under Section 7.1.2

addressing the provisions of Clause 10.6.2 Roads.

No Acceptable

Solution.

The arrangement of ways and public open space within a subdivision

must satisfy all of the following:

(a) connections with any adjoining ways are provided through the

provision of ways to the common boundary, as appropriate;

(b) connections with any neighbouring land with subdivision potential

is provided through the provision of ways to the common boundary, as

appropriate;

(c) connections with the neighbourhood road network are provided

through the provision of ways to those roads, as appropriate;

(d) convenient access to local shops, community facilities, public open

space and public transport routes is provided;

(e) new ways are designed so that adequate passive surveillance will

be provided from development on neighbouring land and public roads

as appropriate;

(g) the route of new ways has regard to any pedestrian & cycle way or

public open space plan adopted by the Planning Authority;

(h) Public Open Space must be provided as land or cash in lieu, in

accordance with the relevant Council policy;

(i) new ways or extensions to existing ways must be designed to

minimise opportunities for entrapment or other criminal behaviour

including, but not limited to, having regard to the following:

(j) the width of the way;

(iv) lighting;

(vi) the shape of the way (avoiding bends, corners or other

opportunities for concealment).

No ways or public open space are proposed under this zone and Clause 12.5.3 is not

applicable.

7.2.4 Services

10.6.4 Services

Each lot must be connected to a

reticulated potable water supply.

No Performance Criteria.

Each proposed lot will be connected to a reticulated water supply, compliant with A1.

reticulated sewerage system.

No Performance Criteria.

Each proposed lot will be connected to a reticulated sewerage system, compliant with A2.

Stormwater system able to service

the building area by gravity.

If connection to a Stormwater system is unavailable,

each lot must be provided with an on-site Stormwater

management system adequate for the future use and

development of the land.

Each lot will be connected to the Council stormwater system via gravity reticulation,

compliant with A3.

The subdivision provides for the installation of fibre

ready facilities (pit and pipe that can hold optical fibre

line) and the underground provision of electricity

supply.

The subdivision component under Low Density Residential Zone does not include new

roads and A4 is not applicable.

7.3 Open Space Zone

Three public open space lots (Lots 200, 201 and 202) have been proposed as part of the

subdivision. The land comprising these three lots is to be zoned Open Space Zone. Works

are proposed in Lot 202 and accordingly relevant Clauses in 19.4 Development Standards

for Buildings and Works and Clause 19.5 Development Standards for Subdivision are

considered in the following section.

7.3.1 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

19.4.1 Building Height – Not Applicable

19.4.2 Setback – Not Applicable

19.4.3 Landscaping

Landscaping along the frontage of a

site must be provided to a depth of

no less than 2 m.

Landscaping must be provided to satisfy all of the

following:

(a) enhance the appearance of the development;

(b) provide a range of plant height and forms to

create diversity, interest and amenity;

(c) not create concealed entrapment spaces;

(d) be consistent with any Desired Future Character

Statements provided for the area.

The subdivision is for the purpose of providing a lot for

an allowable use.

Detailed landscape plans are to be provided as part of detailed design plans, dependent

on Council requirements. The three proposed lots are conceptualised as providing

different functionality as follows:

Lot 200 – provide continued protection for the Biodiversity Conservation Area and

Waterway and Coastal Protection area to the north west of the existing Council land

zoned Environmental Management. No works are proposed within this lot as part of the

subdivision.

Lot 201 – provide a local pocket park, potentially with playground equipment, seating and

other associated structures. Any works in this lot will be dependent on Council

requirements, but the lot is of a size with dimensions that would enable any future

landscaping to comply with Acceptable Solution A1;

Lot 202 – provide pedestrian connectivity between the proposed subdivision and

Blackmans Bay Beach and the nearby local shopping facilities. Lot 202 is sufficiently deep

to enable future landscaping to comply with Acceptable Solution A1. Works for a

pedestrian way are proposed as part of the subdivision and have been addressed under

Performance Criteria P3 of Clause 19.5.1 Subdivision.

Based on the above the proposed Open Space lots are considered capable of complying

with Acceptable Solution A1.

Along a boundary with a residential

zone landscaping must be provided

for a depth no less than 2 m.

Along a boundary with a residential zone landscaping or a

building design solution must be provided to avoid

unreasonable adverse impact on the visual amenity of

adjoining land in a residential zone, having regard to the

characteristics of the site and the characteristics of the

adjoining residentially-zones land.

As per the discussion for Acceptable Solution A1, Lots 200 and 201 are capable of

complying with the Acceptable Solution A2. However due to the 4.5m frontage of Lot 202

and the width of the pedestrian path of 2.5m it is not possible to achieve the required

side boundary setbacks and accordingly Performance Criteria P2 must be addressed.

For Lot 202 the proposed works as part of the subdivision are for a pedestrian way and a

stormwater retention basin to maintain stormwater flows to pre-existing levels. The

pedestrian path is designed to maintain existing significant vegetation whilst also

providing safety for users by relying on passive surveillance design principles. The

retention basin will be planted with suitable species and protected from erosion impact

by strategic placing of boulders. Specific landscaping details have not been provided as

this stage and are dependent on Council requirements. However it is considered that the

proposed development will be able to satisfy Performance Criteria P2.

19.4.4 Fencing – None proposed at this stage; dependent on Council requirements

19.4.5 Environmental Values

No environmental values will be

adversely impacted.

Buildings and works are designed and located to:

(a) avoid, minimise and mitigate environmental

impact arising from future use and development; and

(b) all impacts on trees of high conservation value

are offset.

There are no proposed works or development within any of the proposed open space lots

that adversely impact the environmental values as per the Natural Values Assessment in

Appendix J. Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with Acceptable Solution

7.3.2 Development Standards for Subdivision

19.5.1 Subdivision

Subdivision is for the purpose of

providing lots for public open

space, a riparian or littoral reserve

or utilities.

The subdivision is for the purpose of providing a lot for

an allowable use.

Lots 200, 201 and 202 are created for the purpose of providing public open space

compliant with A1.

The frontage for each lot must be

no less than 15 m.

The frontage of each lot must be capable of adequately

serving the intended purpose.

The frontage of Lots 200 and 201 are wider than 15m. Lot 202 is less than 15m wide and

hence the Performance Criteria P2 must be addressed.

Lot 202 provides for the retention of existing vegetation and a pedestrian connection

between the proposed subdivision and Blowhole Road to the South. As such the frontage

of 4.5m is considered appropriate and adequate for the intended purpose and thus

satisfies P2.

No Acceptable Solution.

The arrangement of ways and public open space within a

subdivision must satisfy all of the following:

(a) connections with any adjoining ways are provided

through the provision of ways to the common

boundary, as appropriate;

(b) connections with any neighbouring land with

subdivision potential is provided through the

provision of ways to the common boundary, as

appropriate;

(c) connections with the neighbourhood road network

are provided through the provision of ways to those

roads, as appropriate;

(d) convenient access to local shops, community

facilities, public open space and public transport

routes is provided;

(e) new ways are designed so that adequate passive

surveillance will be provided from development on

neighbouring land and public roads as appropriate;

(g) the route of new ways has regard to any pedestrian &

cycle way or public open space plan adopted by the

Planning Authority;

(h) Public Open Space must be provided as land or cash

in lieu, in accordance with the relevant Council

policy.

(i) new ways or extensions to existing ways must be

designed to minimise opportunities for entrapment

or other criminal behaviour including, but not

limited to, having regard to the following:

(i) the width of the way;

(iv) lighting;

(vi) the shape of the way (avoiding bends, corners or

other opportunities for concealment).

There is no Acceptable Solution and accordingly Performance Criteria P3 must be

addressed.

There are no adjoining ways, there is only one pedestrian connection proposed through

the Public Open Space of Lot 202 leading from the new subdivision road to Blowhole Road

and the beach beyond. Accordingly (a) is not applicable.

There is no neighbouring land with subdivision potential and (b) is not applicable.

There is a pedestrian connection onto Blowhole Road south of the subdivision via the

Public Open Space Lot 202 satisfying (c).

The cafes on Ocean Esplanade are easily accessed through Public Open Space Lot 202 P1

which also provides ready access onto the existing beach front Public Open Space

satisfying (d).

The only way is the pathway through Lot 202 which is approximately 60m long with a

brushed concrete surface treatment. Passive surveillance will be available from the

dwellings on Lot 9 and 10 and from existing dwellings on 2 and 2a Ocean Esplanade.

Bollards spaced at regular intervals will provide low level lighting to AS4282 is proposed

satisfying (e).

The road network is legible in that it follows the ridge to termination and allows

alternative points of access and egress. The location of the pedestrian link to the beach is

in the crook of the road where it is most convenient to access the Ocean Esplanade cafes

and the beach. As such the layout is legible and satisfies (f).

There is a Kingborough Council Tracks and Trails Strategic Action Plan but there is no

guidance of a trails network with respect to this site and (g) is not applicable.

The public open space provided is above the 5% required under section 116 of the Local

Government (Buildings and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and accordingly the subdivision

proposal does not propose any cash in lieu contribution and satisfies (h).

The length of the pathway on Lot 202 is approximately 70m and the lot ranges in width

from 4.5m (at subdivision entry) to 21m in the mid-section. The pathway meanders gently

through the lot and is designed to maintain good sight lines throughout. There are no

corners that provide opportunities for concealment or loitering. The path design keeps

grade to equal to or less than 18% and will be built to the Institute of Public Works

Engineering Australia Standard Drawing Stairway Construction DWG No. TSD-R34-v1 dated

30 November 2013. The landscaping will remain as it is currently. Lighting of the walkway

will be to Australian Standard 1158.3.1 – Pedestrian Area (Category P) and is likely to be

LED bollard lighting which will prevent glare in accordance with AS/NZS 4282. Based on

the above the proposed way design is considered to satisfy all elements of (i).

7.4 Environmental Management Zone

The proposed stormwater design will require works to be undertaken on Council Land

zoned Environmental Management to the north east of the site. The proposed works

relate to the provision of linear infrastructure however as they are located within 30m of

a watercourse Limited Exemptions as per 6.2.2 Provisions and updates of Linear and Minor

Utilities and Infrastructure does not apply and the zone provisions need to be addressed.

The following section provides the required assessment for the proposed works associated

with the subdivision.

7.4.1 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

29.4.1 Building Height – not applicable, no buildings proposed.

29.4.2 Setback - the only applicable element is Acceptable Solution A3 as per below:

29.4.2 Setback

Buildings and works must be

setback from land zoned

Environmental Living no less than

Buildings and works must be setback from land zoned

Environmental Living to satisfy all of the following:

(a) there is no unreasonable impact from the

development on the environmental values of the land

zoned Environmental Living;

(b) the potential for the spread of weeds or soil

pathogens onto the land zoned Environmental Living is

minimised;

(c) there is minimal potential for contaminated or

sedimented water runoff impacting the land zoned

Environmental Living;

(d) there are no reasonable and practical

alternatives to developing close to land zoned

Environmental Living;

(e) be no less than 10m or if there is an existing

building setback less than this distance, the setback must

not be less than the existing building.

There is no land zoned Environmental Living within 30m of the proposed works and

accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with Acceptable Solution A3.

29.4.3 Design – the applicable elements are Acceptable Solution A1 and A3.

29.4.3 Design

The location of buildings and works

must comply with any of the

following:

(a) be located on a site that does

not require the clearing of native

The location of buildings and works must satisfy all of the

following:

(a)be located in an area requiring the clearing of native

vegetation only if:

vegetation and is not on a skyline or

ridgeline;

(b) be located within a building

area, if provided on the title;

(c) be an addition or alteration to

an existing building;

(d) as prescribed in an applicable

reserve management plan.

(i) there are no sites clear of native

vegetation and clear of other significant site

constraints such as access difficulties or

excessive slope;

(ii) the extent of clearing is the minimum

necessary to provide for buildings, associated

works and associated bushfire protection

measures;

(iii) the location of clearing has the least

environmental impact;

(b)be located on a skyline or ridgeline only if:

(i) there are no sites clear of native

vegetation and clear of other significant site

constraints such as access difficulties or

excessive slope;

(ii) there is no significant impact on the

rural landscape;

(iii) building height is minimised;

(iv) any screening vegetation is maintained.

(c) be consistent with any Desired Future Character

Statements provided for the area or, if no such

statements are provided, have regard to the landscape.

(d) strategies to minimise and mitigate adverse

environmental impacts are identified.

Given the proposed location of the infrastructure works, it is not possible to achieve A1

(b), (c) or (d). Similarly as the proposed works will be located in an area containing native

vegetation it is unlikely that Acceptable Solution A1 (a) can be achieved and Performance

Criteria P1 need to be addressed.

The land zoned Environmental Management contains Mary Knoll reserve, which is

described as containing “Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (DOV) along a waterway

although exotics dominate the understory” (p 5 Natural Values Assessment Appendix J).

Black Gums will not be impacted by the proposed works but the exact pipe alignment will

be determined at detailed design. Given the observations of the Natural Values

Assessment any proposed works are considered to satisfy Performance Criteria P1 (a)

given that the area of the proposed infrastructure works contains native vegetation (i);

the level of clearing will be the minimum required to lay the stormwater infrastructure

(ii) and the detailed implementation design will locate the stormwater infrastructure so

as to have the least environmental impact (iii)

P1 (b) is not applicable as no works will be located on a skyline or ridgeline.

P1 (c) is not applicable as there are no Desired Future Character Statements for this zone.

Any proposed works will be undertaken in accordance with an Environmental Management

Plan (EMP) containing the recommendations on page 24 of the Natural Values Assessment.

Implementation of the EMP will ensure that any adverse environmental impacts will be

minimised and mitigated (d).

Based on the above the proposed works are considered to satisfy the relevant elements of

Performance Criteria p1.

Fill and excavation must comply

with all of the following:

(a) height of fill and depth of

excavation is no more than 1 m

from natural ground level, except

where required for building

foundations;

(b) extent is limited to the

area required for the construction

of buildings and vehicular access.

Fill and excavation must satisfy all of the following:

(a) there is no adverse impact on natural values;

(b) does not detract from the landscape character of

the area;

(c) does not impact upon the privacy for adjoining

properties;

(d) does not affect land stability on the lot or

adjoining land.

It is anticipated that the depth of excavation required for the stormwater infrastructure

will be no more than 1m (a). There are no works required in the area for buildings (b) or

vehicular accesses and accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with A3.

8. Codes

For ease of assessment, the Codes relevant to the proposal have been discussed in

relation to the whole proposal, including the residential subdivision, single and multi-

dwelling development aspects proposed. Note the Landslip Hazard overlay has been

removed from the site as a result of the amendment.

8.1 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code

The proposed subdivision is within the Bushfire Prone Areas Overlay and therefore triggers

section E1.0 of the Planning Scheme.

A Bushfire Assessment and Bushfire Hazard Management Plan has been prepared and is

provided under Appendix F.

8.1.1 Subdivision: Provision of hazard management areas

E1.6.1 Subdivision: Provision of hazard management areas

(a) TFS or an accredited person certifies that there is an insufficient increase in risk from bushfire

to warrant the provision of hazard management areas as part of a subdivision; or

(b) The proposed plan of subdivision:

(i) shows all lots that are within or partly within a bushfire-prone area, including those developed

at each stage of a staged subdivisions;

(ii) shows the building area for each lot;

(iii) shows hazard management areas between bushfire-prone vegetation and each building area

that have dimensions equal to, or greater than, the separation distances required for BAL 19 in

Table 2.4.4 of AS 3959 – 2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas; and

(iv) is accompanied by a bushfire hazard management plan for each individual lot, certified by the

TFS or accredited person, showing hazard management areas greater than the separation distances

required for BAL 19 in Table 2.4.4 of AS 3959 – 2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone

Areas; and

(c) If hazard management areas are to be located on land external to the proposed

subdivision the application is accompanied by the written consent of the owner of that land to

enter into an agreement under section 71 of the Act that will be registered on the title of the

neighbouring property providing for the affected land to be managed in accordance with the

bushfire hazard management plan.

A Bushfire Hazard Management plan has been prepared and is provided under Appendix F.

The hazard management areas (HMA) provided under the bushfire hazard management

plan (BHMP) provide sufficient separation from bushfire-prone vegetation to construct to

BAL-19 construction standard under AS3959-2009.

No external land is required for a hazard management area.

The proposal complies with A1 (b).

8.1.2 Subdivision: Public and firefighting access

E1.6.2 Subdivision: Public and fire fighting access

to warrant specific measures for public access in the subdivision for the purposes of fire fighting;

(b) A proposed plan of subdivision showing the layout of roads, fire trails and the location of

property access to building areas is included in a bushfire hazard management plan that:

(i) demonstrates proposed roads will comply with Table E1, proposed private accesses will

comply with Table E2 and proposed fire trails will comply with Table E3; and

(ii) is certified by the TFS or an accredited person.

All roads within the proposed subdivision are capable of complying with Tables E1 & E2

consistent with A1 (b). There are no proposed fire trails and E3 is not applicable.

8.1.3 Subdivision: Provision of water supply for firefighting purposes

E1.6.3 Subdivision: Provision of water supply for fire fighting purposes

A1 In areas serviced with reticulated water by the water corporation:

to warrant the provision of a water supply for fire fighting purposes;

(b) A proposed plan of subdivision showing the layout of fire hydrants, and building areas, is

included in a bushfire hazard management plan approved by the TFS or accredited person as being

compliant with Table E4; or

(c) A bushfire hazard management plan certified by the TFS or an accredited person demonstrates

that the provision of water supply for fire fighting purposes is sufficient to manage the risks to

property and lives in the event of a bushfire.

The enclosed BHMP prescribes that fire hydrants be installed so as all habitable buildings

are located within 120 m of a fire hydrant measured as a hose lay. The proposal is

consistent with A1(c).

8.2 Road and Railway Asset Code

The Road and Railway Assets Code applies to all development that requires a new vehicle

crossing, junction or level crossing. The proposed subdivision will convert existing site

accesses into two junctions, with Home Avenue and Blowhole Road respectively. The

applicable standards for this code have been addressed.

A Traffic Impact Assessment has been undertaken for the proposed subdivision and is

provided in Appendix G. Additional relevant issues are also discussed further in Section

9.2 Traffic and Transport Networks, of this report.

8.2.1 Use Standards

E 5.5.1 Existing road and accesses junctions

The annual average daily

traffic (AADT) of vehicle

movements, to and from a

site, onto a category 1 or

category 2 road, in an area

subject to a speed limit of

more than 60km/h, must

not increase by more than

10% or 10 vehicle

movements per day,

whichever is the greater.

Any increase in vehicle traffic to a category 1 or category 2 road

in an area subject to a speed limit of more than 60km/h must be

safe and minimise any adverse impact on the efficiency of the

road, having regard to:

(a) the increase in traffic caused by the use;

(b) the nature of the traffic generated by the use;

(c) the nature of the road;

(d) the speed limit and traffic flow of the road;

(e) any alternative access to a road;

(f) the need for the use;

(g) any traffic impact assessment; and

(h) any written advice received from the road authority.

The speed limit on Home Avenue and Blowhole Road is 50Km/hr and neither are Category

1 or 2 Roads and Acceptable Solution 1 is not considered applicable.

Any increase in vehicle traffic at an existing access or junction in

an area subject to a speed limit of more than 60km/h must be

site, using an existing access

or junction, in an area

more than 60km/h, must

not increase by more than

10% or 10 vehicle

movements per day,

whichever is the greater.

safe and not unreasonably impact on the efficiency of the road,

having regard to:

(c) the nature and efficiency of the access or the junction;

(d) the nature and category of the road;

(e) the speed limit and traffic flow of the road;

(f) any alternative access to a road;

(g) the need for the use;

(h) any traffic impact assessment; and

(i) any written advice received from the road authority.

The speed limit on the local road network including Roslyn Avenue is 50Km/hr and

accordingly Acceptable Solution A2 is not applicable.

site, using an existing access

or junction, in an area

60km/h or less, must not

increase by more than 20%

or 40 vehicle movements per

day, whichever is the

greater.

Any increase in vehicle traffic at an existing access or junction in

an area subject to a speed limit of more than 60km/h must be

safe and not unreasonably impact on the efficiency of the road,

having regard to:

(c) the nature and efficiency of the access or the junction;

(d) the nature and category of the road;

(e) the speed limit and traffic flow of the road;

(f) any alternative access to a road;

(g) the need for the use;

(h) any traffic impact assessment; and

(i) any written advice received from the road authority.

The increase in traffic movements to/from the site is increased by more than 20%, thus A3

cannot be met. The proposed subdivision has been assessed in terms of its traffic impact

and found to be acceptable (Appendix G), thus complying with P3.

E 5.5.2 Existing level crossings – is not applicable

8.2.2 Development Standards

E 5.6.1 Development adjacent to roads and railways – is not applicable

E 5.6.2 Road accesses and junctions

No new access or junction to

roads in an area subject to a

speed limit of more than

60km/h.

For roads in an area subject to a speed limit of more than

60km/h, accesses and junctions must be safe and not

unreasonably impact on the efficiency of the road, having regard

(a) the nature and frequency of the traffic generated by

the use;

(b) the nature of the road;

(c) the speed limit and traffic flow of the road;

(d) any alternative access;

(e) the need for the access or junction;

(f) any traffic impact assessment; and

(g) any written advice received from the road authority.

The speed limit on Home Avenue and Blowhole Road is 50km/hr Acceptable Solution A1 is

not applicable.

No more than one access

providing both entry and

exit, or two accesses

providing separate entry

and exit, to roads in an area

60km/h or less.

For roads in an area subject to a speed limit of 60km/h or less,

accesses and junctions must be safe and not unreasonably impact

on the efficiency of the road, having regard to:

the use;

(b) the nature of the road;

(c) the speed limit and traffic flow of the road;

(d) any alternative access to a road;

(e) the need for the access or junction;

(f) any traffic impact assessment; and

(g) any written advice received from the road authority.

All residential lots created by the proposed subdivision will be provided with one access

providing both entry and exits and the proposal is considered compliant with A2.

E 5.6.3 New level crossing – Not applicable

E 5.6.4 Sight distance at accesses, junctions and level crossings

Sight distances at:

(a) an access or

junction must comply with

the Safe Intersection Sight

Distance shown in Table

E5.1; and

(b) rail level crossings

must comply with AS1742.7

The design, layout and location of an access, junction or rail

level crossing must provide adequate sight distances to ensure

the safe movement of vehicles, having regard to:

the use;

(b) the frequency of use of the road or rail network;

(c) any alternative access;

Manual of uniform traffic

control devices - Railway

crossings, Standards

Association of Australia.

(d) the need for the access, junction or level crossing;

(e) any traffic impact assessment;

(f) any measures to improve or maintain sight distance; and

(g) any written advice received from the road or rail

authority.

The Traffic Impact Assessment established that the sightline from the proposed right

angled T junction between Home Avenue and Derwent road will provide good sight lines in

both directions. Images indicate that the sight distance are greater than 80m as required

by Table E5.1 Safe Intersection sight distances.

The proposed T junction to be created at Blowhole Road will provide sight lines in both

directions of approximately 150m which are greater than 80m as required by Table E5.1

Safe Intersection sight distances.

Based on the above the proposal is considered to comply with Acceptable Solution A1 (a).

8.3 The Stormwater Management Code

The Stormwater Management Code applies to development requiring the management of

stormwater. The applicable standards for this code have been addressed.

Details of the MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation) model

used in calculating the requirements for the stormwater management design and relevant

issues are also discussed further in Section 9.3 Water Quality, of this report and detailed

in Appendix K.

8.3.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal

E 7.7.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal

Stormwater from new

impervious surfaces must be

disposed of by gravity to public

stormwater infrastructure.

Stormwater from new impervious surfaces must be managed

by any of the following:

(a) disposed of on-site with soakage devices having

regard to the suitability of the site, the system design and

water sensitive urban design principles

(b) collected for re-use on the site;

(c) disposed of to public stormwater infrastructure via

a pump system which is designed, maintained and managed

to minimise the risk of failure to the satisfaction of the

Council.

Stormwater from new impervious road surfaces will be disposed of by gravity in two

locations; at turn off from Blowhole Road into the piped network, and at outflow pipe to

culvert under the road. Stormwater from the pedestrian path in Open Space Lot 202 will

be diverted into an 8m3 retention basin near the lower part of the pedestrian path, to

ensure that pre-development flows into the public stormwater system along Blowhole

Road are maintained. Based on the above the proposal is considered to comply with

Acceptable Solution A1.

A stormwater system for a new

development must incorporate

water sensitive urban design

principles R1 for the treatment

and disposal of stormwater if

any of the following apply:

(a) the size of new

impervious area is more than

600 m2;

(b) new car parking is

provided for more than 6 cars;

(c) a subdivision is for

more than 5 lots.

A stormwater system for a new development must

incorporate a stormwater drainage system of a size and

design sufficient to achieve the stormwater quality and

quantity targets in accordance with the State Stormwater

Strategy 2010, as detailed in Table E7.1 unless it is not

feasible to do so.

The proposed subdivision creates a total of 22 residential lots and the stormwater design

for the site incorporates a number of elements such as rain gardens (acting as bio

retention systems) and gross pollutant traps to achieve stormwater quality targets. Details

of the design are discussed in the Services Report (Appendix K) and proposal is considered

to comply with Acceptable Solution A2(c).

A minor stormwater drainage

system must be designed to

comply with all of the following:

(a) be able to

accommodate a storm with an

ARI of 20 years in the case of

non-industrial zoned land and an

ARI of 50 years in the case of

industrial zoned land, when the

land serviced by the system is

fully developed;

(b) stormwater runoff will

be no greater than pre-existing

runoff or any increase can be

accommodated within existing or

upgraded public stormwater

infrastructure.

No Performance Criteria

The proposed stormwater drainage system will be designed to accommodate a 5% AEP

event (ARI of 20 years) as detailed in the Concept Services Plan (Appendix K) complying

with (a) and the post-development flows will be maintained to no greater than pre-

development flows through a combination of rainwater tanks and a large detention pond.

Therefore, the proposal complies with A3.

A major stormwater

drainage system must be

designed to accommodate a

storm with an ARI of 100

years.

The existing open drains will be re-sized during detailed design to handle flows for up to

an event of AEP 1%, consistent with A4.

8.4 The Biodiversity Code

The Biodiversity Code applies to development involving clearance and conversion, or

disturbance of native vegetation within a Biodiversity Protection Area as shown on the

planning scheme maps. The applicable standards of this code have been addressed.

A Natural Values assessment has been undertaken for the site and is provided under

Appendix J.

E27.9 Subdivision Standards

E27.9.1 Subdivision

Subdivision of a lot, all or

part of which is within a

Biodiversity Protection

Area, must comply with one

or more of the following:

(a) be for the purposes of

separating existing

dwellings;

(b) be for the creation of a

lot for public open

space, public reserve or

utility;

(c) no works, other than

boundary fencing works,

are within the

(a) ***

(b) if moderate priority biodiversity values:

(i) development is designed and located to minimise impacts,

having regard to constraints such as topography or land

hazard and the particular requirements of the

development;

(ii) impacts resulting from bushfire hazard management

measures are minimised as far as reasonably practicable

through siting and fire-resistant design of habitable

buildings;

(iii) remaining moderate priority biodiversity values on the

site are retained and improved through implementation

of current best practice mitigation strategies and ongoing

management measures designed to protect the integrity

of these values;

(iv) residual adverse impacts on moderate priority

biodiversity values not able to be avoided or satisfactorily

mitigated are offset in accordance with the Guidelines for

Biodiversity Protection

(d) the building area,

bushfire hazard

management area,

services and vehicular

access driveway are

outside the Biodiversity

Protection Area.

the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in the Local Planning

Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority

2013 and Council Policy 6.10.

(c) ***

The Natural Values Assessment classes the area as one of moderate priority biodiversity

values, therefore the performance criteria for moderate priority biodiversity values must

be addressed. P1 is addressed on pages 21-23 of the Natural Values Assessment (Appendix

J). It notes:

P1 (b) (i)

“Mary Knoll Reserve along the waterway will be extended to the north including the

walkway. The majority of the blue gums including the mature blue gums to the south look

to be retained based on house locations. The impact to a least one tree on Lot 8 and one

on Lot 19 would warrant assessment by an arborist to confirm the likely impact of

residential impact. Even if the tress can be retained, their long term prognosis is

compromised by the placement of dwellings in such close proximity.

White gums and black gums appear to be retained within the Reserve extension. One

additional large white peppermint gum will be removed.

There is opportunity to include white gum, black gum or blue gum tree plantings during

Landscape design.”

P1 (b) (ii)

Whilst the NVA states on p22 “The bushfire hazard management plan has not been

reviewed. However it is likely isolated trees can be retained”. The bushfire management

plan (Appendix F) does not require any vegetation removal for the purposes future

dwellings due to the supplied setback on-site.

P1 (b) (iii)

“An area of white gums and black gums will be included in the Mary Knoll Reserve

extension to the north. The mature blue gums to the south should be retained where

possible with the balance included in the financial offset to Council” (NVA p22). This

matter has been discussed with respect to Lots 8 and 9 in Section 7.2 of this report.

P1 (b) (iv)

“Residual impacts are small but may include some eucalyptus on Lots 8 and 9. Council

Offset Policy includes a mechanism that is based on a financial payment of up to $500 per

tree”. (NVA p23)

Based on the above the proposal is considered to demonstrate that it is able to satisfy the

relevant elements of Performance Criteria P1.

8.5 Waterway and Coastal Area Protection Code

The Waterway and Coastal Area Protection Code applies to all development within a

Waterway and Coastal Protection Areas in accordance with clause E11.2.1. The overlay

impacts the subdivision site in two areas of the site, a narrow strip along the boundary

with Ocean Esplanade (on proposed lots 6, 7 and 8) and in the overlay area north east of

the site. The latter area is impact by the proposed new road to be constructed connecting

to Blowhole Road in Stage 2 which will traverse the overlay area in the north west and the

stormwater outflow pipe leading to the culvert under the road to the north-east of the

A Natural Values Assessment has been undertaken for the proposed subdivision and is

provided in Appendix J. The applicable standards of this code have been addressed.

E 11.7 Development Standards

E11.7.1 Buildings and Works

Building and works within a

Waterway and Coastal

Protection Area must be

within a building area on a

plan of subdivision approved

under this planning scheme.

Building and works within a Waterway and Coastal Protection

Area must satisfy all of the following:

(a) avoid or mitigate impact on natural values;

(b) mitigate and manage adverse erosion, sedimentation

and runoff impacts on natural values;

(c) avoid or mitigate impacts on riparian or littoral

vegetation;

(d) maintain natural streambank and streambed condition,

(where it exists);

(e) maintain in-stream natural habitat, such as fallen logs,

bank overhangs, rocks and trailing vegetation;

(f) avoid significantly impeding natural flow and drainage;

(g) maintain fish passage (where applicable);

(h) avoid landfilling of wetlands;

(i) works are undertaken generally in accordance with

'Wetlands and Waterways Works Manual' (DPIWE, 2003) and

“Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual” (DPIPWE, Page and Thorp,

2010), and the unnecessary use of machinery within watercourses

or wetlands is avoided.

The proposed works in the overlay area are not associated with a building area and as

such the Performance Criteria P1 must be considered.

The proposed works in the north-west section of the site to provide the new road

connection to Blowhole Road, will involve the widening of an existing property access

across the overlay area. The Natural Values Assessment (p23) notes that road

improvement works will have no additional impact to the minor waterway. The existing

vegetation is already modified and the proposed works will be done in such a manner as

to avoid and mitigate the impact on any remnant natural values satisfying (a).

A Soil and Water Management Plan will be implemented prior to works commencing and

will be maintained throughout until completion of all works to mitigate and manage

adverse erosion, sedimentation and runoff impacts (b).

The Natural Values Assessment (Plate 13) notes that there is no water flow above ground

in this area suggesting that water is being channelled in pipes underground. As such there

is no riparian vegetation nor is there a natural streambank of streambed conditions to

maintain and accordingly (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) are not applicable.

The site contains no wetland and hence (h) is not applicable.

The proposed works and implementation of the Soil and Water Management Plan will be

undertaken generally in accordance with “Wetlands and Waterways Works Manual”

(DPIPWE, 2003) and the unnecessary use of machinery within the overlay are will be

avoided (i).

The proposal is considered to be able to satisfy all applicable elements of P1.

Building and works within a

Future Coastal Refugia Area

must be within a building

area on a plan of subdivision

approved under this

planning scheme.

Building and works within a Future Coastal Refugia Area must

(a) allow for the landward colonisation of wetlands and

other coastal habitats from adjacent areas;

(b) not be landfill;

(c) avoid creation of barriers or drainage networks that

would prevent future tidal inundation;

(d) ensure coastal processes of deposition or erosion can

continue to occur;

(e) avoid or mitigate impact on natural values;

(f) avoid or mitigate impact on littoral vegetation;

(g) works are undertaken generally in accordance with

'Wetlands and Waterways Works Manual' (DPIWE, 2003) and

“Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual” (DPIPWE, Page and Thorp,

2010).

The proposal does not involve building or works in a Future Coastal Refugia Area and

Acceptable Solution A2 is not applicable.

Buildings and works within a

Potable Water Supply Area

must be within a building

area on a plan of subdivision

Buildings and works within a Potable Water Supply Area must

(a) ensure no detriment to potable water supplies;

approved under this

planning scheme.

(b) be in accordance with the requirements of the water

and sewer authority.

The proposal does not involve building or works in a Potable Water Supply Area and

Acceptable Solution A3 is not applicable.

Development must involve

no new stormwater point

discharge into a

watercourse, wetland or

Development involving a new stormwater point discharge into a

watercourse, wetland or lake must satisfy all of the following:

(a) risk of erosion and sedimentation is minimised;

(b) any impacts on natural values likely to arise from

erosion, sedimentation and runoff are mitigated and managed;

(c) potential for significant adverse impact on natural

values is avoided.

The proposed stormwater management design for the subdivision ensures that stormwater

treatment is provided through the use of rain gardens positioned within the road verge. A

high priority has been placed on the quality of the stormwater outflow in consideration of

the proximity of Blackmans Bay Beach. The majority of the stormwater outflow is shown

to connect into the stormwater system in the gully north of the subdivision with water

being discharged into the overlay area via two water gardens as per Concept Services Plan

in Appendix K; stormwater from the cul-de-sac will be directed via an outflow pipe

connecting into the culvert that runs under Blowhole road north east of the site;

stormwater from the pedestrian path in Lot 202 will be directed into an 8m3 onsite

retention basin to ensure pre-development flows are maintained into Blowhole Road south

west of the site. Based on the above the proposal is considered to comply with Acceptable

Solution A4.

E11.8 Subdivision Standards

E11.8.1 Subdivision

Subdivision of a lot, all or

part of which is within a

Protection Area, Future

Coastal Refugia Area or

Potable Water Supply Area

must comply with one or

more of the following:

(a) be for the purpose

of separation of existing

dwellings;

(b) be for the creation

of a lot for public open

space, public reserve or

utility;

(c) no works, other

than boundary fencing

works, are within a

Potable Water Supply Area;

(d) the building area,

bushfire hazard

management area, services

and vehicular access

driveway are outside the

Potable Water Supply Area.

Subdivision of a lot, all or part of which is within a Waterway

and Coastal Protection Area, Future Coastal Refugia Area or

Potable Water Supply Area, must satisfy all of the following:

(a) minimise impact on natural values;

(b) provide for any building area and any associated

bushfire hazard management area to be either:

(i) outside the Waterway and Coastal Protection

Area, Future Coastal Refugia Area or Potable Water

Supply Area; or

(ii) able to accommodate development capable of

satisfying this code.

(c) if within a Potable Water Supply Area, be in accordance

with the requirements of the water and sewer authority.

The proposed subdivision creates three Public Open Space lots (Lots 200, 201 and 202) but

only 1 of which (Lot 200) is within the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area overlay.

There are also standard Low Density Residential lots (Lots 6, 7 and 8) that are subject to

the overlay and accordingly the Performance Criteria P1 must be addressed.

A Natural Values Assessment has been undertaken for the proposed subdivision (Appendix

J) and concludes that the impact on natural values will be minimal satisfying (a).

The proposed subdivision site plan (Appendix D) and the Bushfire Hazard Assessment

(Appendix F) demonstrate that the 21 residential lots created are provided with building

areas and associated bushfire hazard management areas able to accommodate

development capable of satisfying this code (b) (ii).

The proposed subdivision is not within a Potable Water Supply area (c).

Subdivision is not prohibited

by the relevant zone

standards.

The proposed subdivision will be on land within General Residential Zone, Low Density

Residential Zone and Open Space Zone. Subdivision is not prohibited by the zone

standards and the proposal complies with Acceptable Solution A2.

9. Relevant Issues

9.1 Context, Setting and Visual Impact

The visual context of the site is varied. Much of the site is internal to the existing

suburban development and has little or no visibility. However, other parts of the site such

as the frontage to Ocean Esplanade, the area adjacent to the creek reserve pathway and

the area adjacent to 23-33 Blowhole Road are highly visible.

The frontage to Ocean Esplanade acts as a backdrop to the northern end of Blackmans Bay

Beach and is a significant part of the character of Blowhole Road as it sweeps up onto the

bluff. There is a mixture of eucalypts and she-oaks along this site boundary, but the

understorey is largely mown grass. Whilst the subdivision proposal itself will not impact

these trees, it will facilitate dwellings which could impact on this part of the site. The

trees fall under the Biodiversity Protection Overlay which will afford them protection and

there is room to develop the proposed lots without substantial removal of this vegetation.

There is also scope to revegetate the frontage (proposed Lots 6 & 7) such that there is a

continuous band of native vegetation meeting the creek reserve to the north of the site.

The creek reserve pathway will provide glimpses into the south eastern parts of the site

through the existing vegetation. The future housing is likely to be set-back significantly

from the reserve due to bushfire constraints, but some fencing may be visible from the

track at a distance of approximately 12m.

From 23-33 Blowhole Road the site is visible, but the belt of trees currently adjacent to

Blowhole Road will be retained and transferred to Council as public open space. Thus

views across this belt will be limited.

9.2 Traffic and Transport Networks

This Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared (Appendix G) to review the existing

road and traffic environment along Home Avenue and Blowhole Road in the area of the

subdivision development site and at the Roslyn Avenue junctions.

Traffic surveys in the report determined the current traffic volumes in the area are

around 7,500 vehicles/day along Roslyn Avenue, around 300 vehicles/day on Home Avenue

and around 600 vehicles/day Blowhole Road near the Roslyn Avenue junctions.

The report estimated that the 22-lot residential subdivision development will generate

around 196 vehicles/day and around 20 vehicles/hour during peak traffic periods. The

report found the additional traffic will not create any operational issues along the

surrounding road network, including the Roslyn Avenue/Home Avenue junction and the

Roslyn Avenue/Blowhole Road junction. Further, the required sight distances at the

intersections were found to be quite sufficient for the speed environment, except at the

Roslyn Avenue/Home Avenue junction.

The sight distance to the south along Roslyn Avenue from Blowhole Road was measured to

be 72m whilst the required sight distance is 89m based on the Kingborough Interim

Planning Scheme and 108m based on Austroads guidelines. The report found the sight

distance is restricted due to vegetation on the nature strip and it was advised Council

needs to address this sight distance deficiency as soon as practical.

Consideration was given to the proposed design of the subdivisional roads and overall, the

proposed layout of the subdivision development was supported as no concerns were

identified.

It was recommended that the subdivision road between Derwent Avenue and the internal

junction (Home Avenue extension) be constructed to a width of 7.9m between kerb faces,

the same as Home Avenue. It was further recommended the remainder of this

subdivisional road as well as the subdivisional road connecting to Blowhole Road be

constructed to a width between kerb faces of no more than 6.9m. With these widths,

there is not a need to provide any indented parking bays.

Most of the lots were found to be within the normally accepted maximum walking

distance of 400m to the bus stops on Roslyn Avenue.

Overall it was concluded that the proposed development can be supported on traffic

grounds.

9.3 Stormwater Quantity and Quality

The site is divided into five catchment areas as detailed in Appendix D of the Concept

Services Plan (Appendix K). A MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement

Conceptualisation) model was constructed for the existing site using input parameters

defined in the ‘Draft NSW MUSIC Modelling Guidelines: August 2010’ and 6min interval

rainfall data for Hobart for the period 1990 to 2010.

For quality analysis the maximum number of developed lots, 22, was used when

calculating site run off and quality. It is proposed that the sites stormwater be treated via

a combination of rain gardens (acting as bio retention ponds) placed along the kerb and

gutter as an integral part of the road access infrastructure, and supplemented with a

dedicated bio retention pond at the base of lot 202. The MUSIC model for the site can be

seen below in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - Stormwater treatment MUSIC model

The results from the MUSIC modelling are tabulated below.

Sources Residual load % Reduction

Flow (ML/yr) 8.6 8/46 1.6

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 1080 282 74

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 2.39 1.37 42.7

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 19.4 13.2 32

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 302 66.6 77/9

Table 1 – Treatment Train Effectiveness

The interim planning scheme implies that a stormwater system for a new development

must meet water quality targets as detailed in the State Stormwater Strategy, 2010 and

as follows (unless it is not feasible to do so):

- 80% reduction in the annual average load of total suspended solids

- 45% reduction in the annual average load of total phosphorus

- 45% reduction in the annual average load of total nitrogen

The proposed system falls just short of best practice for all three key pollutant indicators.

However the system is considered acceptable for a number of reasons as outlined in

Section 2.4 of Appendix K.

To further improve stormwater quality the use of proprietary devices or construction of

conventional WSUD feature (at the bottom of the catchment on public property) would be

required. This is considered undesirable due to not only the upfront cost, but also the

ongoing maintenance requirements.

9.4 Noise

The development will generate some noise during the construction of civil works and

subsequent development of the lots will also generate short term noise during construction.

In the longer term ambient noise levels are expected to be typical of a general residential

area and consistent with the site’s land use context.

9.5 Natural Hazards

The site located within a potential landslide hazard area and is within a bushfire prone

area. Both of these site constraints have been addressed through the Bushfire Report

(Appendix F) and Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix I).

Landslide Hazard

The geotechnical investigation considered a number of geotechnical risk scenarios for the

proposed residential development; risk of land instability, risk of inundation/flooding, risk

of foundation failure, and erosion risk. Based upon an assessment of the site and the likely

risks, the overall geotechnical risk associated with the development was rated as low (see

table 1 -geotechnical risk summary). The level of risk is therefore acceptable and there is

no serious geotechnical impediment to the proposed development. The one factor

identified that is to be addressed is standard AS2870 testing for construction for the

possible presence of dispersive soils and erosion that may result from excavation. It was

also recommended that dispersive soil assessment be undertaken once infrastructure plans

are developed to ensure any excavations for infrastructure do not cause unnecessary

erosion. This testing will be undertaken as part of the civil works and building works

construction design process.

Bushfire Hazard

A Bushfire Hazard Management Plan has been undertaken for the site (Appendix F). The

proposed subdivision is located in a bushfire-prone area with forest vegetation within, and

external to, the site presenting the greatest risk to future development. The Bushfire Hazard

Management Plan prepared for the subdivision outlines the required protection measures

including hazard management areas, building siting and construction, access, and water supply

standards. Protection measures reduce bushfire risk to future residents, developments and to

firefighters, as outlined in this report and the associated bushfire hazard management plan.

The Bushfire Hazard Management Plan is certified as compliant with the Bushfire-Prone Areas

Access is via the proposed road network and future private access. The proposed cul-de-sac

has a minimum radius of 12 m. Future developers of all proposed lots may rely on the

bushfire report in support of their building permit applications to demonstrate compliance

with the Building Regulations 2014, insofar as it regulates bushfire protection.

Acid Sulfate Soils

The Geotechnical Site Investigation prepared by Geo-Environmental Solutions dated January

2018 (Appendix I) identified that the site is composed of Permian Sediments which “may be

shallow and stony in places due to prior erosion and commonly have a dispersive and acidic

reaction trend”.

The site is not subject to E 20.0 Potential Acid Sulfate Soils Code, nevertheless the report

makes a number of recommendations which will be implemented prior or during construction

works, including:

• Detailed testing for pavements and infrastructure including appropriate CBR tests and

dispersive soil tests;

• If dispersive soils are confirmed on site then all design and construction must adhere

to the DPIPWE Dispersive soils management publication (Hardie 2009);

• All earthworks onsite must be compliant with AS379802007 “Guidelines for Earthworks

on commercial and residential developments” and

• Soil and water management plans and infrastructure must be in place for all

construction activities.

The report also make recommendation relating to future residential development and future

developers of all proposed lots may rely on the Geotechnical Site Investigation report in

support of their building permit applications to demonstrate compliance with the Building

Regulations 2014, insofar as it regulates residential development building earthworks.

9.6 Heritage

The site is not listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register or under the Planning Scheme for

historic heritage values. The Council have advised that the southern portion of the existing

conference centre may have some local significance and it has been agreed this will be

retained on Lot 16.

An Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Appendix H) has been undertaken and during the course of

the field survey, two Aboriginal heritage sites were recorded (sites AH144 and AH13388).

Site AH144 is a previously registered site that was identified through the AHR search request as

being potentially situated within the study area boundaries. The site classified on the AHR as a

Shell midden. The site is located along the south-eastern boundary of the study area, on the

lower eastern side slopes of a low relief hill, around 50m inland (west) of the coast. It

comprises a low to moderate density scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a

series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring approximately 50m x 10m. The midden

material is mostly confined to a benched slope area, where the hill slope gradient decreases to

around 1-2⁰ to form a level area, that is elevated around 5m-7m above the nearby coastal rock

platforms. A range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener,

mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. The shell midden material is typically

highly fragmented. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and

very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. A single stone artefact was

also identified in association with the midden material.

Site AH13388 is a newly recorded site, which is classified as a Shell midden. The site is located

in the north-western portion of the study area and comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell

midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m

x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi),

with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present. No stone artefacts or bone

were identified in association with the shell material. The shell material appears to be

primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident

at the site. The site is located within a very heavily disturbed context, being situated within a

landscaped garden area, where the native vegetation has been entirely cleared, and the area

replanted with introduced grasses, and a variety of exotic tree species. No other Aboriginal

sites or specific areas of elevated cultural heritage sensitivity were identified within the

bounds of study area.

It was recommended that both sites should be conserved in-situ, and that the following

measures should be implemented to ensure that the sites are not impacted during the course

of development works:

• Where required, the proposed development Masterplan should be modified to ensure

that these two sites are not impacted by the development.

• The boundaries of the two sites should be plotted onto the revised Masterplan.

• Proposed development works should not encroach to within 5m of the identified

boundaries of the two sites.

• Prior to development works commencing, durable, high visibility temporary

barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of each site, with a 5m

buffer applied. The barricading should be installed under the direction of a qualified

archaeologist and an AHO. This is to ensure that each site has been adequately

protected. At the completion of development works the barricading should be

removed.

• All construction workers should be informed of the location of the two sites and

informed that the sites are not to be impacted. Consideration should be given to

providing construction workers with a site specific cultural heritage induction

presentation, which informs them of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the

study area, and the importance of protecting these values.

• The merits of erecting interpretative signage within the conservation areas. If

interpretative signage is agreed on, then the appropriate wording for the signage and

construction design will need to be finalised.

• The landscaping of the conservation areas. In particular whether these zones will be

left in their present state, or whether they should be re-vegetated with selected plant

species. Any landscape works should involve minimal soil disturbance.

• If, during the course of proposed construction works, previously undetected

archaeological sites or objects are located, the processes outlined in an Unanticipated

Discovery Plan should be followed. A copy of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should

be kept on site during all ground disturbance and construction work. All construction

personnel should be made aware of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and their

obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (the Act); and

• Copies of this report should be submitted to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) and

the Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) for review and comment.

The sites have been plotted within the proposed subdivision and in the case of site AH13388

this has been incorporated into a public open space area. Site AH144 is located at the bottom

of the hill adjacent to Ocean Esplanade and thus is unlikely to be impacted by future

development. In-ground services also avoid these areas.

9.7 Flora and Fauna

A Natural Values Assessment has been undertaken for the site (Appendix J). It found the

main natural values present are in the form of potential foraging habitat (black gums,

blue gums and white gums) for the nationally endangered birds, the swift parrot and forty

spotted pardalote. The aim is to minimise impacts to these trees during subdivision

design. Any trees that require removal will need an offset to meet the Councils

Biodiversity Code within the Planning Scheme. This may be in the form of a financial

offset to a value up to $500 per tree. Future housing should consider the guidelines for

minimising swift parrot collision. No trees of significance will require removal to

undertake the subdivision works.

9.8 Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

The proposed subdivision layout has been designed so to maximise passive surveillance to

areas of public open space by locating residential allotments adjacent to areas of Public

Open Space. Good quality public open space encourages a sense of place and community

for local residents. Cycle ways and pedestrian pathways connecting existing areas of

public open space with the proposed areas encourages passive recreation and use of

community assets. There is a new pathway on Lot 202 which is 60m long and ranges in

width from 4m to 21m. The pathway is a curved alignment (with no corners) to minimise

grades and will built to the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Standard

Drawing Stairway Construction DWG No. TSD-R34-v1 dated 30 November 2013 (“the IPWEA

Standard”). The walkway incorporates lighting to Australian Standard 1158.3.1 –

Pedestrian Area (Category P) and is likely to be LED bollard lighting.

9.9 Social Impacts & Economic Impacts

The proposal will create employment opportunities during the construction of the

subdivision. The subdivision will provide a choice of new housing opportunities within a

low density residential suburb, close to local facilities and a public transport network and

will support the ongoing viability of local businesses and social infrastructure provided in

the local area.

10. Conclusion

The proposed rezoning will provide land for residential development within an existing

urban settlement.

The Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy achieve ideal residential growth and

development within the Greater Hobart area from 2010 to 2035. The subject site

provides an opportunity for increased General Residential zoned land in a location that is

well served by existing infastructure and transport networks, as well as existing

convenience services. These factors support the rezoning of additional General

Residential land particularly given the site would be classed as infill development and

assist in achiveving dwelling yeild targets within the Urban Growth Boundary .

The proposed scheme amendments have been prepared in accordance with s.34A of the

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 which states the requirements to be considered

in assessing a scheme amendment. The proposed scheme amendment is considered to be

in accordance with all statutory requirements.

The proposal seeks the subdivision of 4 existing lots into 22 residential allotments, 3

public open space lots and 2 road lots. The proposal has been considered against the

subdivision requirements of the zone and the following discretions have been triggered:

• 10.6.1 A2/P2 General Residential Zone - building areas;

• 10.6.1 A3/P3 General Residential Zone - frontages;

• 10.6.1 A5/P5 General Residential Zone - subdivision more than 3 lots;

• 10.6.2 A1/P1 General Residential Zone - new road;

• 10.6.4 A1/P1 General Residential Zone – new road/optic fibre;

• 12.5.1 A2/P2 Low Density Zone - building areas;

• 12.5.1A3/P3 Low Density Zone - frontages;

• 19.4.3 A2/P2 Open Space – landscaping (Lot 202)

• 19.5.1 A2/P2 Open Space Zone – frontage (Lot 202);

• 19.5.1 A3/P3 Open Space Zone – ways (Lot 202);

• 29.4.3 A1/P1 Environmental Management Zone – works

• E5.5.1 A3/P3 – existing road accessed and junctions;

• E 5.6.4 A1/P1 Sight distances at accesses, junctions and level crossing – sight

distances

• E7.7.1 Stormwater Management Code - water sensitive urban design;

• E10.8.1 Biodiversity Code - subdivision;

• E11.7.1 A1/P1 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code – building works; not within

an approved subdivision;

The development has been assessed against the provisions of the proposed General

Residential, Low Density Residential and Open Space zones and is considered to be

acceptable with respect to these Planning Scheme requirements.

APPENDIX A

Development Application Form

Application for Planning Scheme Amendment

Lodgement Date: Property Id No:

Application No: Zoning:

Type of Amendment: Change to Maps Change to Ordinance Description of Amendment: Location of Proposed Development:

Current Owners:

Is a related application for development or subdivision also being submitted in accordance with Section 43A YES NO of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993?

Applicant: If you have had pre-application discussions with a Council Officer, please give their name. Privacy Statement Completion of this form may require the disclosure of personal information. The intended recipients of this information are officers of the Kingborough Council in order to advance the purposes of this form and to carry out Council business. The Personal Information Protection Act 2004 and Council’s Privacy Policy regulate the use of this information, which will not be disclosed to any other party, except with your permission or if required or authorised by law. You may make application to access or amend personal information held by Council by contacting the Customer Service Unit on 6211 8200. Should you not provide the information sought, Council will not be able to process this form. ELECTRONIC APPLICATIONS ARE ENCOURAGED, EMAIL TO: Development@kingborough.tas.gov.au

Declaration: I have read the Certificate of Title and Schedule of Easements for the land and I am satisfied that this application is not prevented by any restrictions, easements or covenants.

I authorise the provision of a copy of any documents relating to this application to any person for the purposes of

assessment or public consultation. I agree to arrange for the permission of the copyright owner of any part of this application to be obtained. I have arranged permission for Council’s representatives to enter the land to assess this application.

In accordance with Section 33(2A) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the written consent of

the owners to the making of the request is attached. I declare that the information in this application is true and correct. Applicant’s Signature: Date:

PLEASE SEE CHECKLIST OVER PAGE

15 Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania Telephone (03) 6211 8200 Facsimile (03) 6211 8211 DX 70854 Email kc@kingborough.tas.gov.au Website www.kingborough.tas.gov.au

Address:

Suburb/Town: Postcode:

Certificate of Title No: Lot No:

Name (Mr/Mrs/Ms/Business)

Address:

Telephone (Daytime Contact): Email:

Planning Permit Application for Subdivision/Boundary Adjustment

Lodgement Date: Property Id No:

Application No: Zoning:

Proposal: Provide details of number of lots and any associated buildings and works. If there is inadequate space, please provide an additional page with the application.

Address of subject site: If the proposal requires access or easements over another site those details must also be provided in the application. Current Owners:

Applicant: If the applicant is not the owner, it is the responsibility of the applicant to notify the owner that the application is being made.

Current Use of Site: Signature on behalf of the Crown or Council if the proposal involves land Administered or owned by the Crown or Council. If you have had pre-application discussions with a Council Officer, please give their name.

Declaration: I have read the Certificate of Title and Schedule of Easements for the land and I am satisfied that this application is not

prevented by any restrictions, easements or covenants. I authorise the provision of a copy of any documents relating to this application to any person for the purposes of

assessment or public consultation. I agree to arrange for the permission of the copyright owner of any part of this application to be obtained. I have arranged permission for Council’s representatives to enter the land to assess this application.

I declare that, in accordance with Section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, that I have

notified the owner of the intention to make this application. Where the subject property is owned or controlled by Council or the Crown. Their consent is attached. Where the application is submitted under Section 43A (see schedule 6 LUPAA), the owner’s consent is attached.

I declare that the information in this application is true and correct.

Applicant’s Signature: Date:

Address:

Certificate of Title No: Lot No:

Name (Mr/Mrs/Ms/Business)

Address:

Telephone: Email:

15 Channel Highway KINGSTON TAS 7050

P: 6211 8200 E: kc@kingborough.tas.gov.au

ELECTRONIC APPLICATIONS ARE ENCOURAGED, EMAIL to: development@kingborough.tas.gov.au

Important requirements for submitting an application

To ensure that we can process your application as quickly as possible, please read the following checklist carefully and ensure that you have provided all the necessary information. If you are unclear on any aspect of your application, please contact our Planning Department on 6211 8200 to discuss or arrange an appointment concerning your proposal. All subdivision proposals require the following information to be provided at the time of submitting the application. However upon assessment, additional information may be requested. A completed form. Please ensure that this form has the correct address and contact details, contains an accurate

description of the proposal and is signed and dated by the applicant.

Application fees

A current full copy of the Certificate of Title (no old than 3 months) to the land containing the: o Search Page o Plan, Sealed Plan or Diagram; and o Any Schedule of Easements, Covenants, Council Notifications or Conditions of Transfer.

One copy of fully dimensioned proposal plans at an appropriate scale which includes a north point. These plans

should show: o The existing number of lots and proposed number of lots; o The relationship of proposal to existing road network and adjoining land; o The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings on the site, associated car parking and

their use; o Lot dimensions and contours (related to Australian Height Datum where possible); o Service availability and proposed method of waste and storm water disposal from each lot; o Proposed easements for services and location of all existing services; o Existing trees, nominating those to be removed and those to be retained; o The extent of any site works (cut, fill, removal of vegetation and method of retaining); o Any proposed public open space; and o Proposed staging (if relevant).

A written submission supporting the proposal and justifying any variations required to the provisions of the

Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. For Council owned land a written submission from the General Manager, Crown land, a written submission from the current Minister or representative.

Privacy Statement Completion of this form may require the disclosure of personal information. The intended recipients of this information are officers of the Kingborough Council in order to advance the purposes of this form and to carry out Council business. The Personal Information Protection Act 2004 and Council’s Privacy Policy regulate the use of this information, which will not be disclosed to any other party, except with your permission or if required or authorised by law. You may make application to access or amend personal information held by Council by contacting the Customer Service Unit on 6211 8200. Should you not provide the information sought, Council will not be able to process this form.

Planning Scheme Amendment Checklist

To ensure that we can process your application as quickly as possible, please read the following checklist carefully and ensure that you have provided all the necessary information. If you are unclear on any aspect of your application, please contact our Planning Department on 6211 8200 to discuss or arrange an appointment concerning your proposal. ELECTRONIC APPLICATIONS ARE ENCOURAGED, EMAIL TO: Development@kingborough.tas.gov.au

All requests for Amendments require the following information to be provided at the time of submitting the application. However upon assessment, additional information may be requested. A completed Application for Planning Scheme Amendment form. Please ensure that this form has the

correct address and contact details, contains an accurate description of the proposal, is signed by the applicant and is dated.

A current full copy of the Certificate of Title to the land containing the:

o Search Page

o Plan, Sealed Plan or Diagram

o Any Schedule of Easements, Covenants, Council Notifications or Conditions of Transfer One copy of a written submission supporting the amendment including:

o Detailed description of the requested amendment identifying the extent of its application.

o Consideration of the Objectives of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

o Consideration of the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme such as the Intents, Development Principles, Objectives and detailed provisions of this zone

o Strategic impact of the proposal such as alternative uses, flow on development and cumulative impacts

Relevant Application Fees (See Application Fees form)

APPENDIX B

Certificate of Title

SEARCH DATE : 18-May-2018SEARCH TIME : 11.50 AM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 1 on Plan 199874 Derivation : Part of 640 Acres Gtd. to W. Harris Prior CT 4200/57

SCHEDULE 1 A170930 & A917116 PRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any BENEFITING EASEMENT: Right of Drainage over the drainage easement 0.61 wide shown on Plan No. 199874 D31261 BURDENING WAYLEAVE EASEMENT with the benefit of a restriction as to user of land in favour of Aurora Energy Pty Ltd over the Wayleave Easement shown on Plan 199874 (Subject to Conditions) Registered 02-Nov-2011 at noon

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS No unregistered dealings or other notations

SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME

199874FOLIO

EDITION

2DATE OF ISSUE

02-Nov-2011

RESULT OF SEARCHRECORDER OF TITLES

Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.auPage 1 of 1

FOLIO PLANRECORDER OF TITLES

Search Date: 18 May 2018 Search Time: 11:50 AM Volume Number: 199874 Revision Number: 02

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 1 on Diagram 34279 Being the land described in Conveyance No. 34/4385 Excepting thereout Lot No. 1 on Sealed Plan No. 34018 Lot No. 1 on D33869 Conveyance No. 64/0076 Derivation : Part of 640 Acres Gtd. to W. Harris Prior CT 4504/9

SCHEDULE 1 PRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any

VOLUME

34279FOLIO

EDITION

1DATE OF ISSUE

18-Apr-1994

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 84 on Plan 55854 (formerly being P1012) Derivation : Part of 640 Acres Gtd to W Harris Prior CT 3111/11

SCHEDULE 1 A917116 PRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any BENEFITING EASEMENT: a right of carriage way over the roadways shown on P 55854

VOLUME

55854FOLIO

EDITION

1DATE OF ISSUE

16-Aug-1994

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 85 on Plan 55854 (formerly being P1012) Derivation : Part of 650 Acres Gtd. to W. Harris Prior CT 3111/11

SCHEDULE 1 A917116 PRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any BENEFITING EASEMENT: a right of carriage way over the roadways shown on P 55854 D31250 BURDENING WAYLEAVE EASEMENT with the benefit of a restriction as to user of land in favour of Aurora Energy Pty Ltd over the Wayleave Easement 6.00 wide shown on Plan 55854 (Subject to Conditions) Registered 31-Oct-2011 at noon

VOLUME

55854FOLIO

EDITION

2DATE OF ISSUE

31-Oct-2011

SEARCH DATE : 18-May-2018SEARCH TIME : 12.37 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 1 on Diagram 33869 Derivation : Part of 640 acres gtd. to W. Harris Prior CT 4504/18

SCHEDULE 1 KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any

VOLUME

33869FOLIO

EDITION

1DATE OF ISSUE

18-Apr-1994

Search Date: 18 May 2018 Search Time: 12:37 PM Volume Number: 33869 Revision Number: 01

SEARCH DATE : 18-May-2018SEARCH TIME : 12.39 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND Town of BLACKMANS BAY Lot 1 on Plan 228560 Derivation : Part of 640 Acres Gtd. to William Harris. Prior CT 2952/13

SCHEDULE 1 4116 HENRY ROY CRISP and ERIC CADOGAN WAUGH as personal representatives of Charles Ernest Webster

SCHEDULE 2 Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any Benefiting and Burdening easements (if any) described in Certificate of Title Volume 364 Folio 133 or created by any instrument of which a memorial is endorsed thereon E102134 NOTICE to TREAT Pursuant to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1993. Registered 04-Apr-2018 at noon

VOLUME

228560FOLIO

EDITION

2DATE OF ISSUE

12-Nov-1999

Search Date: 18 May 2018 Search Time: 12:39 PM Volume Number: 228560 Revision Number: 01

APPENDIX C

Proposed rezoning plan

896m²

699m² 1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

DRAWN BYSCALES @ A3

PROJECT NO.

REVISIONDWG NO.

PROJECT

Accepted

This document must be signed “Approved” by JMG to authorise it for use. JMG accept no liability whatsoever for unauthorised or unlicensed use.

DO NOT SCALE. Use only figured dimensions. Locations of structure, fittings,services etc on this drawing are indicative only. CONTRACTOR to checkArchitects & other project drawings for co-ordination between structure, fabric,fixtures, fittings, services etc. CONTRACTOR to site check all dimensions andexact locations of all items. JMG accepts no responsibility for dimensionalinformation scaled or digitally derived from this document.

The recipient client is licensed to use this drawing for its commissioned purposesubject to authorisation per note above. Unlicensed use is prohibited. Unlicensedparties may not copy, reproduce or retransmit or amend this document or any partof this document without JMG's prior written permission. Amendment of thisdocument is prohibited by any party other than JMG. JMG reserve the right torevoke the licence for use of this document.

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

20/04/2018

ZONING PLAN_APRIL 18.DWG

49-51 Elizabeth Street, Launceston, Tas

ACN 009 547 139

117 Harrington Street, Hobart, Tas (03) 6231 2555(03) 6331 7044

www.jmg.net.au infohbt@jmg.net.au infoltn@jmg.net.au

REMARKDATEREV

Johnstone McGee & Gandy Pty. Ltd.

incorporating Dale P Luck & Associates

ABN 76 473 834 852

Engineers & Planners

M.CLARK

F.BEASLEY

173034PH

PLANPROPOSED ZONING

BLACKMANS BAY15 HOME AVENUE

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

DRAWN BYSCALES @ A3

PROJECT NO.

REVISIONDWG NO.

PROJECT

Accepted

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

11/05/2018

ZONING PLAN_-APRIL 18.DWG

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

M.CLARK

F.BEASLEY

173034PH

AMENDMENTS PLANPROPOSED OVERLAY

APPENDIX D

Proposed subdivision plan

191919

35.017

.2 15.6

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

53.745.7

6.2 17.7

4.07.5

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

12.322.3

42.718.3

896m²

699m²1500m²

1500m²1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

101552m²

1004987m²

existingWayleave Easement

This plan has been prepared only for the purpose of obtaining preliminarysubdivsional approval from the local authority and is subject to that approval.

All measurements and areas are subject to the final survey.

Base image by TASMAP (www.tasmap.tas.gov.au), © State of TasmaniaBase data from the LIST (www.thelist.tas.gov.au), © State of Tasmania

Scale:

24-05-2018

1:500 (A1) MunicipalityKINGBOROUGH

Reference:JMG043

Proposed SubdivisionPRESENTATION SISTERS PROPERTY

REV AMENDMENTS DRAWN DATE APPR.

A COUNCIL LODGEMENT VERSION AB 24-5-2018 ABBCDE

UNIT 1, 2 KENNEDY DRIVECAMBRIDGE 7170PHONE: (03)6248 5898EMAIL: admin@rbsurveyors.comWEB: www.rbsurveyors.com

ASSOCIATIONTITLE REFERENCE:

LOCATION: 15 HOME AVENUE

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-07

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Staging:Stage 1 - lots 1 - 17, Lots 19, 20, Road 100 & P.O.S 201 & 202Stage 2 - Lots 18, 21, Road 101 & P.O.S. 200

Lots shown * are nominated "multiple dwelling" lots

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

APPENDIX E

Proposed demolition plan

35.017

.2 15.6

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

41.847.6

53.745.7

6.2 17.7

4.07.5

5.6 6.56.

3.13.1

5.41.46.26.2

21.327.1

12.322.3

42.718.3

896m²

699m²1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

DRAWN BYSCALES @ A3

PROJECT NO.

REVISIONDWG NO.

PROJECT

Accepted

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

20/04/2018

DEMOLITION PLAN_APRIL 18.DWG

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

M.CLARK

F.BEASLEY

173034PH

DEMOLITION PLAN

BUILDINGS TO BERETAINED

APPENDIX F

Bushfire Assessment

B U S H F I R E R E P O R T

15 Home Avenue Subdivision

May 2018

\\192.168.5.7\cad\_PH\2017\173034PH - 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay\12-Planning\06 - Bushfire\15 Home Avenue - Bushfire Report - May 2018.docx

Johnstone McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd

ABN 76 473 834 852 ACN 009 547 139

www.jmg.net.au HOBART OFFICE

117 Harrington Street

Hobart TAS 7000

Phone (03) 6231 2555

infohbt@jmg.net.au

LAUNCESTON OFFICE

49-51 Elizabeth Street

Launceston TAS 7250

Phone (03) 6334 5548

infoltn@jmg.net.au

1.0 May 2018 For TFS Review DAE FMB DAE

2. The recipient client is licensed to use this document for its commissioned purpose subject to authorisation per 3. below. Unlicensed use is prohibited. Unlicensed parties may not copy, reproduce or retransmit this document or any part of this document without JMG’s prior written permission. Amendment of this document is prohibited by any party other than JMG.

unlicensed use.

4. Electronic files must be scanned and verified virus free by the receiver. JMG accept no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the use of files containing viruses.

1. Compliance with BCA is not part of the scope of this report. The report may include references to BCA as a guide to likely compliance/non-compliance of a particular aspect but should not be taken as definitive nor comprehensive in respect of BCA compliance.

2. This report presents information and opinions which are to the best of our knowledge accurate. JMG accepts no responsibility to any purchaser, prospective purchaser, or mortgagee of the property who relies in any way on this report.

4. This report presents information provided by others. JMG do not claim to have checked, and accept no responsibility for, the accuracy of such information.

5. The effectiveness of the measures and recommendations in this report are dependent on their implementation and maintenance for the life of the development. Should the site characteristics that this assessment has been measured from alter from those identified, the BAL classification may differ and cause this report to be void. No liability can be acceptable for actions by lot owners, Council or government agencies which compromise the effectiveness of this report.

6. Whilst compliance with the recommendations of this report will enhance the likelihood of the development surviving a bushfire hazard, no guarantee is made that the development will survive every bushfire hazard event.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4

2 Site Description .......................................................................................... 4

3 Proposed Use & Development ........................................................................ 7

4 Bushfire Hazard Assessment .......................................................................... 7

4.1 Vegetation & Effective Slope ...................................................................... 7

4.2 Required Separation .............................................................................. 11

5 Bushfire Protection Measures ........................................................................ 12

5.1 Hazard Management Areas ....................................................................... 12

5.2 Construction Standards ........................................................................... 13

5.3 Access ............................................................................................... 14

5.4 Water ................................................................................................ 15

5.5 Optional Protection Measures ................................................................... 16

6 Planning Requirements ................................................................................ 16

6.1 Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 .................................................. 16

7 Building Compliance ................................................................................... 17

8 Conclusion & Recommendations .................................................................... 18

9 References ............................................................................................... 19

Appendix A – Subdivision Plan

Appendix B – Bushfire Hazard Management Plan

Appendix C – Certificate of Compliance

1 Introduction

JMG have been engaged by Presentation Sisters Property Association to prepare a bushfire hazard assessment for a proposed subdivision at 15 Home Avenue in Blackmans Bay. The author, Dana Elphinstone, is a qualified town planner and is an Accredited Person under Part 4A of the Fire Service Act 1979.

The proposed development involves the combined rezoning and subdivision of land located within a bushfire-prone area necessitating an assessment against the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas – Version 2.1, 2017 permits reliance on a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan prepared at subdivision stage.

This report considers:

• Whether the site’s location meets the definition of a bushfire-prone area;

• The characteristics of the site and surrounding land;

• The proposed use and development that may be threatened by bushfire hazard;

• The applicable Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating;

• Appropriate bushfire hazard mitigation measures; and

• Compliance with planning requirements pertaining to bushfire hazard.

In order to demonstrate compliance with the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code this report includes a Certificate of Compliance (for planning purposes).

2 Site Description

The land proposed for subdivision is 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, comprising four titles (C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1, C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85) (Figure 1). The site has a total area of approximately 3.7 ha, as shown in Figure 1.

The site has been developed with an existing internal road network and habitable buildings including a Convent. Much of the site has been cleared of standing vegetation and is characterised by lawns with scattered trees and shrubs.

The site adjoins residential development to the west and north. Immediately east of the site is a large piece of Council-owned land with extensive standing vegetation and a gravel walkway. This land is generally over 30 m in width and is zoned Environmental Management. Beyond this title is further residential land. South of the site is the coastline of Blackmans Bay, owned by the state Government as well as a small area of untitled land.

The site is serviced with reticulated water and sewerage.

Planning Context

The relevant planning instrument for the assessment of use and development on the site is the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (“Planning Scheme”).

The site is zoned a combination of ‘General Residential’ and ‘Low Density Residential’ under the Planning Scheme. It is proposed that the ‘Low Density Residential’ land be rezoned to ‘General Residential’. The site adjoins a large area of ‘Environmental Management’ zoned land to the east, and ‘Open Space’ zoned land to the south at Blackmans Bay Beach.

The site is subject to ‘Waterway and Coastal Protection Areas’, ‘Biodiversity Protection Areas’ and low risk ‘Landslide Hazard Areas’. (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Zoning and Overlays

Natural Values

The site is characterised by a disturbed vegetation community including remnant bushland and pasture with scattered trees. The vegetation onsite is classified as ‘Agricultural land’ (FAG) by the TASVEG 3.0 database. TASVEG mapping was verified onsite by North Barker Ecosystem Services who identified more appropriate vegetation communities on the site as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Vegetation mapping by North Barker Ecosystem Services

Heritage Values

An Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report has been completed for the site and identifies two Aboriginal heritage sites within the subject site. The recommendations for management are covered in the Assessment Report. The site is not listed on the State Heritage Register nor in the Historic Heritage Code of the Planning Scheme.

3 Proposed Use & Development

The proposed development involves rezoning 2.8 ha of the site from ‘Low Density Residential’ to ‘General Residential’.

The proposed development is the subdivision of four existing titles into 22 residential lots and three public open space lots (lots 200 – 202). The subdivision will be accessed via an internal road network with connections to Blowhole Road and the junction of Home Avenue and Derwent Avenue. The road design includes a cul-de-sac head at the southern end of the subdivision.

The main road within the subdivision is greater than 200 m in length. All roads will have a minimum width of 15.0 m. The cul-de-sac head has a minimum radius of 12 m is proposed.

The subdivision will be serviced with fire hydrants via an extension of the reticulated water service.

The subdivision will be developed across two stages. The access road off Home Avenue will be constructed during Stage 1 as well as lots 1 – 17, 19, 20, 22, 201 & 202. Stage 2 will incorporate lots 18, 21 & 200.

The proposed subdivision plan is enclosed as Appendix A.

4 Bushfire Hazard Assessment

There is currently no Bushfire-Prone Areas Overlay for the Kingborough municipality. The proposed subdivision is within 100 m of over 1 ha of contiguous unmanaged vegetation and therefore is within a ‘bushfire prone area’ as defined in the Planning Scheme.

The key factors affecting bushfire behaviour are fuel, weather conditions and topography. This section of the report considers these factors in the context of AS 3959-2009 -Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas, which is required in order to determine compliance with planning and building requirements for bushfire protection.

4.1 Vegetation & Effective Slope

AS 3959-2009 provides categories for classifying vegetation based on structural characteristics.

‘Effective Slope’ refers to the slope of land underneath bushfire-prone vegetation relative to the subject site. Effective Slope affects a fire’s rate of spread and flame length and is accordingly a critical aspect affecting bushfire behaviour. AS 3959-2009 refers to five categories of Effective Slope and these have been used for the purpose of this analysis.

Figure 4 shows land within 100 m of the site as this is the minimum area for consideration under the Australian Standard.

The site was inspected on 8 December 2017.

Figure 4 - Site Analysis

Onsite Vegetation

The onsite vegetation is primarily characterised by large areas of lawn and gardens (Figure 5). The lawns and gardens are well maintained and considered low threat.

There are two areas of standing vegetation onsite, one in the north eastern corner and the other in the south eastern corner (Figure 4 and Figure 8). Both areas are characterised by eucalypt and allocasuarina trees with an average height of 10-15 m with less than 30% foliage cover and little to no understorey, generally maintained grass. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group B – Woodland’.

Figure 5 - Typical onsite vegetation with Convent in the distance looking north

The portion of the eastern boundary shared with the adjoining reserve is vegetated with eucalypt trees with an average height of 10-15 m and foliage cover of less than 30%. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group B – Woodland’.

Figure 6 - Eastern boundary shared with reserve looking north

Land to the north is fully developed with residential lots characterised by detached single dwellings, maintained gardens and road network (Figure 4 and Error! Reference source not f

ound.). The unvegetated areas, and the vegetation associated with this type of development is considered low threat.

Immediately east of the site is a Council-owned reserve vegetated with eucalypt, pine and allocasuarina trees with an average height of 10-15 m and foliage cover greater than 30% (Figure 7). The understorey includes grasses, small shrubs and weed species. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group A – Forest’.

South east of the site is an untitled piece of land adjoining the coastline. There is an area of vegetation of approximately 4,500 m2 including eucalypt trees of 10-15 m, allocasuarina trees, grass and shrubs with less than 30% foliage cover. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group B – Woodland’.

Figure 7 - Council reserve east of site

East of Blowhole Road is low density residential land. The title at 43 Blowhole Road is heavily vegetated with standing vegetation similar to that located on the Council-owned reserve. The vegetation is characterised by eucalypt, pine and allocasuarina trees with an average height of 10-15 m with more than 30% foliage cover. The understorey comprises small shrubs and tall grasses. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group A – Forest’.

The balance of the low density residential land is characterised by single dwellings and associated maintained lawns and gardens similar to that seen west of the site. This land is considered low threat.

The southern end of the site is vegetated with eucalypt and allocasuarina trees with an average height of 10-15 m and less than 30% foliage cover (Figure 8). There is no understorey other than maintained grass. This vegetation is classified as ‘Group B – Woodland’.

On the southern side of Blowhole Road, the majority of the land is occupied by Blackmans Bay Beach which is primarily unvegetated. Along the southern edge of Blowhole Road is a single line of trees with little to no understorey best described as a windbreak and therefore considered low threat.

Figure 8 - Southern end of site looking south

Land to the west is fully developed with residential lots characterised by detached single dwellings, maintained gardens and road network. The unvegetated areas, and the vegetation associated with this type of development is considered low threat. This land is zoned General Residential and can also be considered low threat in accordance with Bushfire Hazard Advisory Note No. 1, where a title is 1,500 m2 or less.

4.2 Required Separation

sets out the required separation distances from bushfire-prone vegetation to achieve the corresponding BAL level.

The development standards for subdivision under the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code of the Planning Scheme requires that building areas are suitable to accommodate a minimum BAL-19 rated building.

Table 1 sets out the required separation distances from bushfire-prone vegetation to achieve the corresponding BAL level.

The development standards for subdivision under the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code of the Planning Scheme requires that building areas are suitable to accommodate a minimum BAL-19 rated building.

Table 1 - Required Minimum Separation

VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION

EFFECTIVE SLOPE MIN. SEPARATION FOR BAL-19 (m)

MIN. SEPARATION FOR BAL-12.5 (m)

Group A - Forest

Downslope >0 to 5° 27-<38 38-<100

Upslope 23-<32 32-<100

Group B – Woodland

Downslope >0 to 5° 18-<26 26-<100

Downslope >5 to 10° 23-<32 32-<100

5 Bushfire Protection Measures

During a bushfire event, a number of bushfire attack mechanisms may threaten buildings and occupants, including:

• Radiant heat;

• Direct flame contact;

• Ember attack; and

• Wind.

A range of bushfire protection measures are recommended to improve the resilience of the proposed development and achieve a tolerable level of residual risk for occupants. The protection measures outlined in this section have been consolidated in a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan ((‘BHMP’) Appendix B).

Additional measures to reduce improve resilience are also recommended but are at the discretion of the developer and future developers within the subdivision.

5.1 Hazard Management Areas

The Hazard Management Area (‘HMA’) refers to land that is managed in a minimum fuel condition so as to reduce the potential exposure of habitable buildings and occupants to radiant heat and flames and to provide defendable space. The effectiveness of the hazard management areas is reliant on ongoing maintenance by landowners.

All titles are to be established as Hazard Management Areas during Stage 1 and maintained in perpetuity by the landowner. The lots to be developed as part of Stage 2 will be required to be maintained as Hazard Management Areas by the developer until Stage 2 is complete, at which stage the landowner becomes responsible for the maintenance of the HMA.

Management prescriptions are provided in Table 2, and Figure 9 provides an example of vegetation management within a hazard management area.

Table 2 – Hazard Management Area Prescriptions

Within 10m of habitable buildings

• No storage of flammable materials (e.g. firewood);

• Avoid locating flammable garden materials near vulnerable building elements such as glazed windows/doors, decks and eaves (e.g. non-fire-retardant plants and combustible mulches);

• Non-flammable features such as paths, driveways and paved areas are encouraged around habitable buildings.

Trees within HMA • Maintain canopy separation of approximately 2.0m;

• Ensure no branches overhang habitable buildings;

• Remove tree branches within 2.0m of ground level below;

• Locate any new tree plantings 1.5 x their mature height from house;

• Avoid planting trees with loose, stringy or ribbon bark.

Understory vegetation within HMA

• Maintain grass cover at <100mm;

• Maintain shrubs to <2.0m height;

• Shrubs to be maintained in clumps so as to not form contiguous vegetation (i.e. clumps up to 10sqm in area, separated from each other by at least 10m);

• Avoid locating shrubs directly underneath trees;

• Periodically remove dead leaves, bark and branches from underneath trees and around habitable buildings.

Figure 9 - Example of hazard management area

5.2 Construction Standards

Future habitable buildings located within the specified building areas and provided with the requisite hazard management areas are to be designed and constructed to a minimum of BAL-19 standard under AS 3959-2009. Applicable permitted construction variations under AS 3959-2009 are outlined in Table 2 below. The minimum setbacks from bushfire-prone vegetation are demonstrated on the BHMP. All lots have a building area that can achieve BAL-19 separation. Most lots have a more restricted area that can achieve BAL-12.5 separation. Lots 9-11 can achieve BAL-LOW separation. It is noted that future development may be able to reduce non-exposed facades to BAL-12.5 if in accordance with clause 3.5 of AS 3959-2009.

A lower BAL rating may be possible for future developments subject to a separate assessment and certification of a specific building design.

Table 2 - Construction Requirements and Construction Variations (as per Table 4.1 of the Director's Determination)

Element Requirement

A. Polycarbonate Sheeting for walls and roofs.

May be used in exposures up to and including BAL 19.

Comment: refer to the TFS Chief Officer’s Bushfire Advisory Note 3.

B. Straw Bale Construction

Element Requirement

C. Shielding provisions under Section 3.5 of AS3959-2009

To reduce construction requirements due to shielding, building plans must include suitable detailed elevations or plans that demonstrate that the requirements of Section 3.5 of the Standard can be met.

Comment: Application of Section 3.5 of the Standard cannot result in an assessment of BAL – LOW.

5.3 Access

The final designs for roads and private access will occur during detailed design. The following requirements apply to the provision of roads and private access within the development.

The new subdivision road network will have a minimum width of 15 m. The subdivision will have road connections from Blowhole Road and the junction of Home Avenue and Derwent Avenue. The subdivision road will terminate in a cul-de-sac with minimum radius of 12 m.

The subdivision road (as required for access) must meet the following requirements:

• Two-wheel drive, all-weather construction;

• Load capacity of at least 20 tonnes (including bridges/culverts);

• Minimum carriageway width of 7.0m for a through road, or 5.5 m for a dead-end or cul-de-sac road;

• Minimum vertical clearance of 4.0m and horizontal clearance of 2.0 m from the edge of the carriageway;

• Cross falls of less than 3 degrees (1:20 or 5%);

• Maximum gradient of 15 degrees (1:3.5 or 28%) for sealed roads, and 10 degrees (1:5.5 or 18%) for unsealed roads;

• Curves have a minimum inner radius of 10m;

• Dead-end or cul-de-sac roads are not more than 200 m in length unless the carriageway is 7 m in width;

• Dead-end or cul-de-sac roads have a turning circle with a minimum 12 m outer radius; and

• Carriageways less than 7 m wide have ‘No Parking’ zones on one side, indicated by a road sign that complies with Australian Standard AS1743-2001 Road signs-Specifications.

Property Access

Private access less than 30 m in length is not subject to any additional design or construction standards.

Private access greater than 30 m must meet the following design and construction requirements:

• All-weather construction;

• Load capacity of at least 20t, including for bridges and culverts;

• Minimum carriageway width of 4m;

• Minimum vertical clearance of 4m;

• Minimum horizontal clearance of 0.5m from the edge of the carriageway;

• Dips less than 7 degrees (1:8 or 12.5%) entry and exit angle;

• Curves with a minimum inner radius of 10m;

• Maximum gradient of 15 degrees (1:3.5 or 28%) for sealed roads, and 10 degrees (1:5.5 or 18%) for unsealed roads; and

• Terminate with a turning area for fire appliances provided by one of the following:

(i) a turning circle with a minimum outer radius of 10m; or

(ii) a property access encircling the building; or

(iii) a hammerhead 'T' or 'Y' turning head 4m wide and 8m long.

• Private access greater than 200 m must also include passing bays of 2m additional carriageway width and 20m length provided every 200m.

• Private access greater than 30 m and serving 3 or more properties must also include passing bays of 2m additional carriageway width and 20m length provided every 200m.

5.4 Water

Each lot within the proposed subdivision must be provided with a water supply dedicated for firefighting. The site is located in an area with a reticulated water service which will be extended into the proposed subdivision. As such, fire hydrants must be provided within the proposed subdivision. Fire hydrants must be installed in accessible locations and all parts of future habitable buildings must be within 120 m of a fire hydrant measured as hose lay. The fire hydrants must be installed within the road reserve and constructed in accordance with Table 3.

Table 3 - Water Supply Specification

Table E4 Reticulated Water Supply for Fire fighting

A. Distance between building area to be protected and water supply

The following requirements apply:

a) The building area to be protected must be located within 120 metres of a fire hydrant; and

b) The distance must be measured as a hose lay, between the water connection point and the furthest part of the building area.

B. Design criteria for fire hydrants

a) fire hydrant system must be designed and constructed in accordance with TasWater Supplement to Water Supply Code of Australia WSA 03 – 2011-3.1 MRWA 2nd Edition; and

b) fire hydrants are not installed in parking areas.

C. Hardstand

A hardstand area for fire appliances must:

a) No more than three metres from the hydrant, measured as a hose lay;

b) No closer than six metres from the building area to be protected;

c) A minimum width of 3m constructed to the same standard as the carriageway; and

d) Connected to the property access by a carriageway equivalent to the standard of the property access.

5.5 Optional Protection Measures

The following recommendations are not specifically regulated under any planning or building standards at present hence do not form part of the bushfire hazard management plan. If implemented however, they will improve bushfire protection for future occupants.

Electrical Infrastructure

Overhead power lines are a common source of unplanned fires, particularly during high wind conditions. Where practicable, electricity connections to properties should be provided underground to remove this potential fire source.

Building Design

Building configuration can be utilised to improve building resilience. It is recommended that future developers of buildings within the subdivision consider adopting the following design features:

• Simple roof shapes with roof pitch at 18 or greater, to reduce the potential for ember accumulation. This measure ought to be combined with non-combustible gutter guards to prevent accumulation within guttering;

• Simple building shapes are preferable, as they reduce opportunity for embers and debris to be trapped against the building within re-entrant corners;

• Keep walls as low as possible. Large expansive walls present greater surface area to wind turbulence and to radiant heat;

• Slab-on-ground construction is generally more resilient than suspended slab construction.

6 Planning Requirements

The Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (‘the Planning Scheme’) is the relevant planning instrument for the assessment of the proposed development.

Compliance with the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code is addressed in Table 4.

Table 4 – Compliance with Bushfire Prone Areas Code

CLAUSE COMPLIANCE

E1.6.1.1 Subdivision: Provision of hazard management areas

A1 The proposed BHMP provides habitable building areas and associated hazard management areas for each lot adequate to accommodate BAL-19 rated development.

No hazard management areas are to be established on adjoining titles.

The BHMP is certified as compliant with A1(b).

CLAUSE COMPLIANCE

E1.6.1.2 Subdivision: Public access

A1 The BHMP shows the layout of the proposed public road (through road and cul-de-sac) that will facilitate firefighter access to fire hydrants and buildings. The proposed road complies with Table E1 of the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code.

Any private access is required to be provided in accordance with Table E2 of the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code.

No fire trails are proposed.

The BHMP is certified as being compliant with A1(b).

E1.6.1.3 Subdivision: Provision of water supply for fire fighting purposes

A1 The BHMP requires the installation of fire hydrants within 120 m of all building areas, consistent with the minimum requirements.

The proposal is certified as compliant with A1(c).

A Certificate of Compliance is attached as Appendix C.

7 Building Compliance

The Building Act 2016 and Building Regulations 2014 require that the proposed development is designed and constructed in accordance with the National Construction Code (‘NCC’).

This can be achieved by demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia’s Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions or by providing an Alternate Solution that satisfies the relevant Performance Requirements.

Clause 11G of the Building Regulations 2014 requires that the design of any building and associated work in a bushfire-prone area:

• Consider the BAL assessment determined in a bushfire hazard management plan; and

• Comply with the Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas – Version 2.1, 2017 (the ‘Director’s Determination’) and the relevant BCA Performance Requirements.

Clause 11D of the Building Regulations 2014 specifies that design and construction in accordance with the Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas – Version 1.2, 2017 (the ‘Director’s Determination’) can be taken as satisfying the BCA Performance Requirements.

Applicable permitted constructions variations under AS 3959-2009 are outlined in Table 2 below.

Element Requirement

D. Polycarbonate Sheeting for walls and roofs.

E. Straw Bale Construction

Element Requirement

F. Shielding provisions under Section 3.5 of AS3959-2009.

It is noted that:

• AS 3959-2009 does not consider the potential risk from existing neighbouring buildings or boundary fences igniting from ember attack and becoming a source of radiant heat, direct flame contact and embers;

• The BCA does not specify particular wind loading requirements for buildings in bushfire prone areas above what would be required under AS 4055.

Clause 11F(2)(a) allows for a bushfire hazard management plan prepared at the subdivision stage to be used in support of the building permit application, if no more than six years old.

Future development located on all proposed lots, in accordance with the specified building area and that meets the construction, hazard management area, water supply and access requirements of the BHMP can be accepted as complying with all relevant requirements of the Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas – Version 2.1, 2017.

8 Conclusion & Recommendations

The proposed subdivision is located in a bushfire-prone area with forest vegetation within, and external to, the site presenting the greatest risk to future development.

The Bushfire Hazard Management Plan prepared for the subdivision outlines the required protection measures including hazard management areas, building siting and construction, access, and water supply standards. Protection measures reduce bushfire risk to future residents, developments and to firefighters, as outlined in this report and the associated bushfire hazard management plan. The Bushfire Hazard Management Plan is certified as compliant with the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code.

Access is via the proposed road network and future private access. The proposed cul-de-sac has a minimum radius of 12 m.

Future developers of all proposed lots may rely on this report in support of their building permit applications to demonstrate compliance with the Building Regulations 2014, insofar as it regulates bushfire protection.

9 References

Department of Primary Industries and Water, The LIST, viewed 11 April 2018, www.thelist.tas.gov.au

Standards Australia, 2009, AS 3959-2009 – Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas, Standards Australia, Sydney.

Tasmanian Planning Commission, 2015, Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015, viewed 11 April 2018, www.iplan.tas.gov.au.

15 Home Avenue May 2018

APPENDIX A

Subdivision Plan

APPENDIX B

Bushfire Hazard Management Plan

191919

35.017

.2 15.6

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

53.745.7

6.2 17.7

4.07.5

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

12.322.3

42.718.3

896m²

699m²1500m²

1500m²1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

101552m²

1004987m²

Scale:

24-05-2018

Reference:JMG043

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-07

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

896m²

699m² 1500m²

1500m² 1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²POS

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

DRAWN BYSCALES @ A3

PROJECT NO.

REVISIONDWG NO.

PROJECT

Accepted

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

11/05/2018

BHMP 01.DWG

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

M.CLARK

FBEASLEYDELPHINSTONE

173034PH

MANAGEMENT PLANBUSHFIRE HAZARD

1. HAZARD MANAGEMENT AREASHAZARD MANAGEMENT AREAS MUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED INSECTION 5.1 OF THE BUSHFIRE REPORT IN ORDER TOMITIGATE THE SPREAD OF FIRE TO BUILDINGS ANDPROVIDE DEFENDABLE SPACE.

NB ALL LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION MUST BE MANAGEDAS A HAZARD MANAGEMENT AREA.

2. PUBLIC ROAD THE PUBLIC ACCESS MUST

COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUMSPECIFICATIONS IN SECTION 5.3OF THE BUSHFIRE REPORT.

3. FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES FIRE HYDRANT PROVISION MUST

COMPLY WITH SECTION 5.4 OF THEBUSHFIRE REPORT

4. BUILDING AREAS & AS 3959-2009CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

THE FUTURE HABITABLE BUILDINGS ON LOTS3 - 6, 18, 21 & 22 MUST BE LOCATEDFORWARD OF THE BAL-19 SETBACK LINE ANDBE CONSTRUCTED TO EITHER A MINIMUM BAL19 OR BAL 12.5 STANDARD DEPENDING ONTHE LOCATION OF THE DWELLING ON THESITE.

THE HABITABLE BUILDING ON LOTS 7 - 8, 12 -17 & 19-20 MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO AMINIMUM BAL 12.5 STANDARD.

THE HABITABLE BUILDING ON LOTS 9 - 11MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO A MINIMUM BALLOW STANDARD.

NB NON-HABITABLE BUILDINGS (CLASS 10STRUCTURES) MAY BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OFTHE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS AND ARENOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO AS3959-2009 UNLESS WITHIN 6.0 M OF AHABITABLE BUILDING.

BAL-12.5 MIN. SETBACK(38 m WIDTH)

BAL-LOW MIN. SETBACK(100 m WIDTH)

BAL-19 MIN. SETBACK(27 m WIDTH)

APPENDIX D

Certificate of Compliance

Certificate v4.0: Bushfire-Prone Areas Code (PD5.1) Page 1 of 5

BUSHFIRE-PRONE AREAS CODE CERTIFICATE1 UNDER S51(2)(d) LAND USE PLANNING AND APPROVALS ACT 1993

1. Land to which certificate applies2

Land that is the Use or Development Site that is relied upon for bushfire hazard management or protection. Name of planning scheme or instrument: Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

Street address: 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay 7052

Certificate of Title / PID: C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1, C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85 PID 7540990

Land that is not the Use or Development Site that is relied upon for bushfire hazard management or protection.

Street address:

Certificate of Title / PID:

2. Proposed Use or Development

Description of Use or Development: Subdivision of land into 22 residential lots and 3 public open space lots. Code Clauses:

❑ E1.4 Exempt Development ❑ E1.5.1 Vulnerable Use ❑ E1.5.2 Hazardous Use E1.6.1 Subdivision

1 This document is the approved form of certification for this purpose, and must not be altered from its original form. 2 If the certificate relates to bushfire management or protection measures that rely on land that is not in the same lot as the site for the use or development described, the details of all of the applicable land must be provided.

3. Documents relied upon

Documents, Plans and/or Specifications

Title: Plan 2 – Overall Concept Plan

Author: Rogerson & Birch Surveyors

Date: 26-03-2018 Version: Rev E

Bushfire Hazard Report

Title: 15 Home Avenue – Bushfire Report

Author: JMG Engineer and Planners

Date: May 2018 Version: 1.0

Title: 15 Home Avenue – Bushfire Hazard Management Plan

Date: 11-05-2018 Version: B01

Other Documents

Title:

Author:

Date: Version:

4. Nature of Certificate

❑ E1.4 – Use or development exempt from this code

Assessment Criteria Compliance Requirement Reference to Applicable

Document(s)

❑ E1.4 (a) Insufficient increase in risk

❑ E1.5.1 – Vulnerable Uses

Document(s)

❑ E1.5.1 P1 Residual risk is tolerable

❑ E1.5.1 A2 Emergency management strategy

❑ E1.5.1 A3 Bushfire hazard management plan

❑ E1.5.2 – Hazardous Uses

Document(s)

E1.6 – Development standards for subdivision

E1.6.1 Subdivision: Provision of hazard management areas Assessment Criteria Compliance Requirement Reference to Applicable

Document(s)

❑ E1.6.1 P1 Hazard Management Areas are sufficient to achieve tolerable risk

❑ E1.6.1 A1 (a) Insufficient increase in risk

E1.6.1 A1 (b) Provides BAL 19 for all lots Bushfire Report, BHMP

❑ E1.6.1 A1 (c) Consent for Part 5 Agreement

E1.6.2 Subdivision: Public and fire fighting access Assessment Criteria Compliance Requirement Reference to Applicable

Document(s)

❑ E1.6.2 P1 Access is sufficient to mitigate risk

E1.6.2 A1 (b) Access complies with Tables E1, E2 & E3 Bushfire Report, BHMP

E1.6.3 Subdivision: Provision of water supply for fire fighting purposes Assessment Criteria Compliance Requirement Reference to Applicable

Document(s)

E1.6.3 A1 (b)

Reticulated water supply complies with Table E4

Bushfire Report, BHMP

❑ E1.6.3 A1 (c) Water supply consistent with the objective

❑ E1.6.3 A2 (b)

Static water supply complies with Table E5

❑ E1.6.3 A2 (c) Static water supply is consistent with the objective

5. Bushfire Hazard Practitioner3

Name: Phone No:

Address: Fax No:

Hobart Email Address: Tasmania 7000

Accreditation No: Scope:

6. Certification I, certify that in accordance with the authority given under Part 4A of the Fire Service Act 1979 –

The use or development described in this certificate is exempt from application of Code E1 – Bushfire-Prone Areas in accordance with Clause E1.4 (a) because there is an insufficient increase in risk to the use or development from bushfire to warrant any specific bushfire protection measure in order to be consistent with the objectives for all the applicable standards identified in Section 4 of this Certificate.

There is an insufficient increase in risk from bushfire to warrant the provision of specific measures for bushfire hazard management and/or bushfire protection in order for the use or development described to be consistent with the objective for each of the applicable standards identified in Section 4 of this Certificate.

and/or

The Bushfire Hazard Management Plan/s identified in Section 3 of this certificate is/are in accordance with the Chief Officer’s requirements and can deliver an outcome for the use or development described that is consistent with the objective and the relevant compliance test for each of the applicable standards identified in Section 4 of this Certificate.

Signed: certifier

Date: Certificate No: J173034PH-C01

3 A Bushfire Hazard Practitioner is a person accredited by the Chief Officer of the Tasmania Fire Service under Part IVA of Fire Service Act 1979. The list of practitioners and scope of work is found at www.fire.tas.gov.au.

ABN 76 473 834 852 ACN 009 547 139

www.jmg.net.au

HOBART OFFICE

Hobart TAS 7000

Phone (03) 6231 2555

infohbt@jmg.net.au

LAUNCESTON OFFICE

Launceston TAS 7250

Phone (03) 6334 5548

infoltn@jmg.net.au

APPENDIX G

Traffic Impact Assessment

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

DEVELOPMENT

15 HOME AVENUE

BLACKMANS BAY

APRIL 2018

11 KYTHERA PLACE, ACTON PARK TASMANIA 7170

TEL: (03) 6248 7323 MOBILE: 0402 900 106

EMAIL: milglad@bigpond.net.au ABN: 51 345 664 433

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

DEVELOPMENT

15 HOME AVENUE

BLACKMANS BAY

APRIL 2018

TIA – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT

15 HOME AVENUE, BLACKMANS BAY

CONTENTS

Page Number

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. SITE DESCRIPTION 4

3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 5

4. EXISTING ROAD AND TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT 6

4.1 Road Characteristics 6

4.2 Traffic Activity 9

4.3 Crash Record 11

5. TRAFFIC GENERATION BY THE DEVELOPMENT 13

6. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT 14

6.1 Operational Impact of Increased Traffic Activity 14

6.2 Available Intersection Sight Distances 14

6.3 Internal Subdivisional Road Design 22

6.4 Public Transport Services 22

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24

8. REFERENCES 26

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Drawing detailing proposed subdivision layout

Attachment B – Metro route service and timetable for Blackmans Bay

1. INTRODUCTION

The mostly vacant area of land at 15 Home Avenue in Blackmans Bay is to be

subdivided into 22 lots for residential occupancy. The subdivisional roads will

connect to Home Avenue and to Blowhole Road.

This Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been undertaken in support of the

proposed residential subdivision development.

The TIA report addresses the traffic related issues that would be of interest to

the Kingborough Council. It considers the existing road and traffic

characteristics along Home Avenue and Blowhole Road in the area of the

development site and their junctions with Roslyn Avenue. An assessment is

made of the traffic activity that the subdivision development will generate and

the effect that this traffic will have on Home Avenue and Blowhole Road and

the Roslyn Avenue junctions.

Attention is also given to the proposed layout of the subdivision, the

subdivisional road design and access road junctions.

The report is based on the Department of State Growth (DSG) Traffic Impact

Assessment Guidelines. The techniques used in the investigation and

assessment incorporate best practice road safety, and traffic management

principles.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed subdivision development site is zoned ‘low density residential’.

The land lies within an area that is developed with residential dwellings.

There is a section of ‘environmental management’ land along the northern

boundary to the site and ‘open space’ land along the eastern boundary to the

The location of the development site has been highlighted on the extract from

the road atlas for this area, seen in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Extract of street atlas showing location of proposed

residential subdivision development site

DEVELOPMENT

3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The development under consideration is the subdivision of the land at 15

Home Avenue to create 22 residential lots.

Many of the lots will have an area between around 450m2 and 1,227m2.

However, there will be four lots with an area of 1,500m2 and three lots

between 2,2280m2 and 5,345m2.

There will be two subdivisional roads which will form a T-junction within the

site. One subdivisional road will be constructed as the eastward extension of

Home Avenue. It will curve to the southeast beyond the internal junction to

end within the subdivision site as a cul-de-sac. The other subdivisional road

will connect the above subdivision northwards to Blowhole Road.

Access to all the lots will be off the subdivisional roads.

The drawing showing the proposed subdivision layout is included with this

report as Attachment A.

4. EXISTING ROAD AND TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Road Characteristics

The proposed subdivision development will have direct access to Home

Avenue and Blowhole Road, both of which would have the function of local

access roads from their junction with Roslyn Avenue.

Home Avenue follows an eastward direction from Roslyn Avenue for a

distance of around 180m, then passes through a right-angled bend to the south

into Derwent Avenue which has a length of 160m to its junction with Wells

Parade.

Both Home Avenue and Derwent Avenue have a sealed width of 7.9m

between kerb faces. There is a footpath along both sides of Home Avenue and

along the western side of Derwent Avenue.

Blowhole Road also follows an eastward direction from Roslyn Avenue for a

distance of around 550m, then curves to the south into Ocean Esplanade. It

has a sealed width of around 5.0m but has no kerb and gutter or footpath along

its length.

Views along Home Avenue – Derwent Avenue and Blowhole Road

approaches to the proposed subdivisional road junctions are seen in

Photographs 4.1 to 4.4.

The 50km/h urban speed limit applies to all roads in this area, with a 40km/h

school speed limit applying to Roslyn Avenue before and after school.

The junction of both Home Avenue and Blowhole Road with Roslyn Avenue

is controlled with a give way sign and holding line.

Photograph 4.1: View to east along Home Avenue towards bend to right

into Derwent Avenue with subdivision site access to be straight ahead

Photograph 4.2: View to north along Derwent Avenue towards bend to

left into Home Avenue and subdivision site access to be to right at bend

Photograph 4.3: View to east along Blowhole Road with

subdivision site access to be on right at second power pole

Photograph 4.4: View to west along Blowhole Road with

subdivision site access to be on left just beyond shrubbery

4.2 Traffic Activity

In order to have some knowledge of the traffic activity in the area, a morning

and afternoon peak hour turning movement survey was undertaken at the

Home Avenue/Roslyn Avenue junction and the Blowhole Road/Roslyn

Avenue junction during the 8:00am - 9:00am and 4:30pm – 5:30pm periods on

24 April 2018 and 26 April 2018.

These days were within the school holiday period; therefore, reference has

also been made to a morning peak hour (8:00am to 9:00am) traffic survey

undertaken at the Tingira Road/Roslyn Avenue junction on Friday 23 March

2018. This junction is some 300m to the north of the Blowhole Road/Roslyn

Avenue junction.

In extrapolating the Roslyn Avenue traffic volumes at the Tingira Road

junction southwards along Roslyn Avenue to the Blowhole Road

junction, making allowance for traffic to and from side roads in between,

and having regard to the recent surveyed turning traffic volumes at the

Home Avenue/Roslyn Avenue and the Blowhole Road/Roslyn Avenue

junctions, the current normal morning and afternoon peak hour traffic

volumes at these two junctions have been determined to be as shown in

Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

Figure 4.1: Turning traffic volumes during 8:00am - 9:00am at

Home Avenue/Roslyn Avenue and Blowhole Road/Roslyn Avenue

215 NORTH

BLOWHOLE ROAD

ROSLYN AVENUE

HOME AVENUE

BAY COURT

Figure 4.2: Turning traffic volumes during 4:30pm - 5:30pm at

Home Avenue/Roslyn Avenue and Blowhole Road/Roslyn Avenue

4.3 Crash Record

All crashes that result in personal injury are required to be reported to

Tasmania Police. Tasmania Police record all crashes that they attend. Any

crashes that result in property damage only, which are reported to Tasmania

Police, are also recorded even though they may not visit the site.

387 NORTH

BLOWHOLE ROAD

ROSLYN AVENUE

395 10

HOME AVENUE

BAY COURT

Details of reported crashes are collated and recorded on a computerised

database that is maintained by DSG.

Information was requested from DSG about any reported crashes along Home

Avenue and Blowhole Road over the last five and a quarter years, since

January 2013. Advice has been received that the database has record of only

one crash along Home Avenue and five crashes along Blowhole Road.

The crash on Home Avenue occurred in April 2015 around midway along the

road as a result of an unspecified car manoeuvre; it resulted in property

damage only.

Three of the crashes along Blowhole Road occurred at the Roslyn

Avenue/Blowhole Road/Bay Court intersection in 2013, 2014 and 2016. All

were angle collisions with one resulting in minor injury.

The other two crashes occurred along Blowhole road between the Talone Road

junction and the location of the proposed subdivisional road junction. Both

were loss of control type crashes that occurred in 2014 and 2016. One crash

resulted in minor injury.

5. TRAFFIC GENERATION BY THE DEVELOPMENT

As outlined in Section 3 of this report the development being proposed is the

subdivision of land at 15 Home Avenue to create 22 residential lots.

In considering the traffic activity that dwellings on the lots will generate when

occupied, guidance is normally sought from the New South Wales, Road

Traffic Authority document – Guide to Traffic Generating Developments. The

RTA guide is a nationally well accepted document that provides advice on trip

generation rates and vehicle parking requirements for new developments.

The updated ‘Technical Direction’ to the Guide dated August 2013 advises

that the trip generation for residential dwellings in regional areas of New

South Wales is 7.4 trips/dwelling/day.

This is reasonably consistent with findings by this consultant for dwellings in

Tasmania. Surveys in the built-up areas of Tasmania over a number of years

have found that typically this figure is 8.0 trips/dwelling/day with smaller

residential units generating around 4 trips/unit/day and larger units generating

around 6 trip/unit/day.

Having regard to the above, it will be assumed that a trip generation rate of 8

trips/lot/day for single dwelling lots will apply to the proposed development.

For this subdivision development it is expected there will be an average trip

generation rate of 8.0 trips/lot/day for lots with one dwelling and the

residential units will have an average trip generation rate of 5.0 trips/unit/day.

It is expected some of the larger lots in the subdivision, not including the

1,500m2 lots at the eastern end of the site, will have multiple units.

Normally up to 25% of the lots within a subdivision development could be

developed with multiple residential units, 90 % of these lots with two units per

lot and 10% with three units per lot. This is based on advice from developers

as well as brief checks of existing more recent residential development areas.

Allowing for this and applying an average trip generation rate of 8.89

trips/lot/day, the proposed 22 lot residential subdivision development, when

fully developed and occupied, can be expected to generate some 196

vehicles/day and around 20 vehicles/hour during peak traffic periods based on

the normal 10% of the daily traffic movement occurring during the morning

and afternoon peak hour.

In considering the subdivision layout and road connections, virtually all traffic

movements will be to and from Roslyn Avenue and it is likely that 75% will

use Home Avenue, 25% will use Blowhole Road.

6. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT

This section of the report considers the impact that the traffic expected to be

generated by the proposed subdivision development will have on Home

Avenue, Blowhole Road and their junctions with Roslyn Avenue. An

assessment is also undertaken of the design of the subdivision access road

junctions and consideration is given to the proposed subdivision site layout

and internal road design.

6.1 Operational Impact of Increased Traffic Activity

The proposed subdivision development is expected to generate some 196

vehicles/day and around 20 vehicles/hour during peak traffic periods.

As indicated in the previous section of this report, the directional split in the

traffic between the two access roads to the subdivision lots is expected to

result in 5 vehicles/hour to use Blowhole Road and 15 vehicles/hour to use

Home Avenue during the peak traffic periods.

It is clear this additional subdivisional traffic will not create any operational

issues along Home Avenue, Blowhole Road or at the junction of these roads

with Roslyn Avenue.

Traffic volumes of up to 1,500 vehicles/hour can generally be accommodated

at intersections between conflicting traffic streams.

The future traffic conflict at the Home Avenue/Roslyn Avenue junction and

Blowhole Road/Roslyn Avenue junction in 10 years’ time, allowing for a 1%

p.a. growth in traffic along Roslyn Avenue, will be around 700 - 840

vehicles/hour during each of the peak hour periods.

This is around half the above maximum practical capacity. Therefore, the

traffic movements at both junctions will continue to operate at a quite

acceptable level of efficiency. This will also be the case if the number of

residential units within the subdivision will be significantly higher.

6.2 Available Intersection Sight Distances

A check has been made of the available sight distances along Home Avenue

and Blowhole Road at the location of the proposed subdivisional road

junctions.

The Home Avenue extension into the subdivision site is expected to have a

straight-line alignment off Home Avenue with Derwent Avenue forming a

right-angled T-junction.

With this junction geometry, good sight lines will be available in both

directions along Home Avenue for motorists entering from Derwent Avenue,

more than required for the speed environment.

Views along Home Avenue and the Derwent Avenue approaches to the

junction location are seen in Photographs 6.1 and 6.2.

Photograph 6.1: View to east along Home Avenue with

subdivisional road to continue straight ahead

Photograph 6.2: View of Derwent Avenue approach to

future Home Avenue junction

Blowhole Road in the area of the subdivisional road junction has a straight

horizontal alignment. Views of the sight lines along Blowhole Road from the

proposed road junction are seen in Photographs 6.3 to 6.6.

Measurements have determined the available intersection sight distances are

around 150m in both directions to and from turning vehicles at the future

junction.

These sight distances are more than required 80m for a 50km/h speed

environment. Current 85th percentile speed of vehicles along Blowhole Road

would be less than 50km/h.

The offending vegetation seen in Photographs 6.3 and 6.4 will be removed

with the construction of the road junction.

Photograph 6.3: View to east along Blowhole Road from

location of subdivisional access road

Photograph 6.4: View to west along Blowhole Road from

location of subdivisional access road

Photograph 6.5: View to east along Blowhole Road from

vehicle turning right into subdivisional access road

Photograph 6.6: View to west along Blowhole Road from rear of

vehicle turning right into subdivisional access road

The sight distances along Roslyn Avenue to and from vehicles turning at both

Home Avenue and Blowhole Road can be appreciated from the views in

Photographs 6.7 to 6.10.

All sight distances are more than required for an 85th percentile speed of

50km/h except the sight distance to the south for a vehicle entering Roslyn

Avenue from Blowhole Road. This sight distance has been measured to be

A speed survey of northbound vehicles approaching the Blowhole Road

junction has found the 85th percentile speed is 54km/h. The required sight

distance for this speed is 89m based on the Kingborough Interim Planning

Scheme and 108m based on Austroads guidelines.

The sight distance is restricted due to vegetation on the nature strip. Council

needs to address this sight distance deficiency as soon as practical.

Photograph 6.7: View to south along Roslyn Avenue from Blowhole Road

Photograph 6.8: View to north along Roslyn Avenue from Blowhole Road

Photograph 6.9: View to north along Roslyn Avenue from Home Avenue

Photograph 6.10: View to south along Roslyn Avenue from Home Avenue

6.3 Internal Subdivisional Road Design

Consideration has been given to the proposed layout and design of the

subdivisional road, as seen on the drawing in Attachment A.

The subdivisional road off Home Avenue needs to have a straight alignment

from the Home Avenue/Derwent Avenue junction into the subdivision with

Derwent Avenue to meet Home Avenue at right angles.

The internal subdivisional road junction will be located at a point where the

continuing road will have a straight alignment; therefore, the intersection sight

distances will be more than sufficient.

There are no concerns with proposed layout of the subdivisional roads,

including the bend and cul-de-sac at the south-eastern end of the site.

It has been determined the subdivision will generate 196 vehicles/day and 20

vehicles/hour with 75% of this traffic using Home Avenue and 25% using

Blowhole Road. There will be progressively less traffic along the

subdivisional roads into the subdivision.

When considering the desirable construction standard for new local residential

streets and minor collector roads, the width of the street must have design

characteristics which encourage driver behaviour that will be appropriate for

the street function and to among other things ensure good residential amenity

without the need to retrofit traffic management treatments into the future in

order to provide for a speed environment less than 50km/h and desirably

around 40km/h in local streets.

The current Local Government geometric design standards require street

widths that are far too wide for the intended local access street function.

Widths of 8.9m or greater between kerb faces are appropriate for higher

trafficked collector roads rather than local residential streets in this subdivision

that will carry less than 150 vehicles/day.

Home Avenue currently has a width of 7.9m between kerb lines.

With due regard to the above, it is recommended that the subdivisional road

between Derwent Avenue and the internal junction (Home Avenue extension)

be constructed to a width of 7.9m between kerb faces, the same as Home

Avenue, and the remainder of this subdivisional road as well as the

subdivisional road connecting to Blowhole Road be constructed to a width

between kerb faces of no more than 6.9m.

With these widths, there is not a need to provide any indented parking bays.

6.4 Public Transport Services

Metro Tasmania currently operates regular bus services along Roslyn Avenue.

There are bus stops for both directions of travel located on Roslyn Avenue

between Home Avenue and Blowhole Road. The bus stops are located up to

400m walking distance from most of the proposed residential lots and around

500m to the most distant lots.

Therefore, most lots will be within the normally accepted maximum walking

distance of 400m between bus stops and residential dwellings.

Metro Tasmania timetable and route map for this area is included with this

report in Attachment B.

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared to support the development

application for the construction of the proposed 22 lot residential subdivision

as detailed on the drawing in Attachment A.

The assessment has reviewed the existing road and traffic environment along

Home Avenue and Blowhole Road in the area of the subdivision development

site and at the Roslyn Avenue junctions.

Traffic surveys have determined the current traffic volumes in the area are

around 7,500 vehicles/day along Roslyn Avenue, around 300 vehicles/day on

Home Avenue and around 600 vehicles/day Blowhole Road near the Roslyn

Avenue junctions.

Over the last five and a quarter years since January 2013 there has been one

reported crash along Home Avenue and five crashes along Blowhole Road.

The Home Avenue crash was as a result of an unspecified car manoeuvre; it

resulted in property damage only.

Three of the five crashes along Blowhole Road occurred at the Roslyn

Avenue/Blowhole Road/Bay Court intersection; the other two crashes

occurred along Blowhole road between the Talone Road junction and the

proposed road to the subdivision. One of the intersection crashes and one

midblock crash resulted in minor injury.

It has been estimated that the 22-lot residential subdivision development will

generate around 196 vehicles/day and around 20 vehicles/hour during peak

traffic periods.

This additional traffic will not create any operational issues along the

surrounding road network, including the Roslyn Avenue/Home Avenue

junction and the Roslyn Avenue/Blowhole Road junction.

A check has been made of the available sight distances at affected road

intersections. The required sight distances at the intersections are quite

sufficient for the speed environment, except at the Roslyn Avenue/Home

Avenue junction.

The sight distance to the south along Roslyn Avenue from Blowhole Road has

been measured to be 72m. The required sight distance is 89m based on the

Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme and 108m based on Austroads

guidelines.

The sight distance is restricted due to vegetation on the nature strip and

Council needs to address this sight distance deficiency as soon as practical.

Consideration has been given to the proposed design of the subdivisional

roads. Overall, the proposed layout of the subdivision development is

supported as no concerns have been identified.

It is recommended that the subdivisional road between Derwent Avenue and

the internal junction (Home Avenue extension) be constructed to a width of

7.9m between kerb faces, the same as Home Avenue. It is further

recommended the remainder of this subdivisional road as well as the

subdivisional road connecting to Blowhole Road be constructed to a width

between kerb faces of no more than 6.9m. With these widths, there is not a

need to provide any indented parking bays.

Most of the lots will be within the normally accepted maximum walking

distance of 400m to the bus stops on Roslyn Avenue.

Overall it is concluded that the proposed development can be supported on

traffic grounds.

8. REFERENCES:

• Australian Standard AS 1742.2-2009 – Manual of uniform traffic

control devices Part 2: Traffic control devices for general use

• AUSTROADS – Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Road Safety Audit

• AUSTROADS – Guide to Road Design Part 4: Intersections and

Crossings General (2017)

• AUSTROADS – Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised

and Signalised Intersections (2017)

• AUSTROADS – Guide to Traffic Management Part 6:

Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings

• Road Traffic Authority NSW – Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments, 2002

• Road and Maritime Services (Transport) - Guide to Traffic

Generating Developments; Updated traffic surveys (August 2013)

• Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

ATTACHMENT A

Drawing detailing proposed subdivision layout

191919

35.017

.2 15.6

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

53.745.7

6.2 17.7

4.07.5

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

12.322.3

42.718.3

896m²

699m²1500m²

1500m²1500m²

1500m²

456m²457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²

995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

101552m²

1004987m²

Scale:

24-05-2018

Reference:JMG043

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-07

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

NTKTNPKO

PRKMNTKO NRKS

OMKMOVKM

PQKS QVKT

OTKMUKV

SKO NTKT

NSKUQKMTKR

RKS SKR

PKNPKN

RKQNKQSKOSKO

ONKPOTKN

NOKPOOKP

UVSã—

SVVã—NRMMã—

NRMMã—

QRSã—QRTã—

RRPã—

OVQMã—

TPUã—

VSNã—

VVOã—

VVRã—

NOOTã—

SRSã—

OOUMã—

UPTã—

TTMã—

SSNã—

STMã—

SSQã—

ROQRã—

RROã—

OMQPã—

qÜáë=éä~å=Ü~ë=ÄÉÉå=éêÉé~êÉÇ=çåäó=Ñçê=íÜÉ=éìêéçëÉ=çÑ=çÄí~áåáåÖ=éêÉäáãáå~êóëìÄÇáîëáçå~ä=~ééêçî~ä=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=äçÅ~ä=~ìí Üçêáíó=~åÇ=áë=ëìÄàÉÅí=íç=íÜ~í=~ééêçî~äK

^ ää=ãÉ~ëìêÉãÉåí ë=~åÇ=~êÉ~ë=~êÉ=ëìÄàÉÅí=íç=íÜÉ=Ñáå~ä=ëìêîÉóK

_~ëÉ=áã~ÖÉ=Äó=q^ pj^ m=EïïïK í~ëã~éKí~ëKÖçîK~ìFI= =pí~íÉ=çÑ=q~ëã~åá~_~ëÉ=Ç~í~=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=if pq=EïïïK íÜÉäáëíKí~ëKÖçîK~ìFI= =pí~íÉ=çÑ=q~ëã~åá~

mä~å=P=J=l îÉê~ää=ÅçåÅÉéí=mä~å=EåçêíÜ=Ä~êâÉê=áã~ÖÉF

a~íÉW

pÅ~äÉW

OSJPJOMNU

NWRMM==E N̂F jìåáÅáé~äáíóhfkd _l ol rd e

oÉÑÉêÉåÅÉWgjd MQP

mêçéçëÉÇ=pìÄÇáîáëáçåmob pbkq ^ qfl k=pfpqbop =mol mboq v

ob s ^ jb kajb kq p ao^ t k a^ qb ^ mmoK

^ mob if jf k^ ov =̀l mv =bj^ fib a=ql =gjd ^ _ NJNOJOMNT ^ __ kb t =i^ v l rq =C=ol ^ a ^ _ RJOJOMNU ^ _` `riJab Jp^ `=pef cqI=il q=̀e^ kd bp ^ _ VJOJOMNU ^ _a ol ^ a=pef cq=C=pKb=il q=̀e^ kd bp ^ _ OSJPJOMNU ^ _b

rkf q=NI=O=hbkkb av =aof s b`^ j_ of ad b=TNTMmel kb W=EMPFSOQU=RUVUbj^ fiW=~Çãáå]êÄëìêîÉóçêëKÅçãt b_W=ïïïK êÄëìêîÉóçêëKÅçã

^ ppl `f ^ qfl k

NR=el jb =̂ s bkrb

`KqKPQOTVLNI=̀KqKNVVUTQLN

_i^ `h j^ kp =_^ v

NMSRNJMR

NWNMMM==E P̂F

`KqKRRURQLUQ=C=̀KqKRRURQLUR

ATTACHMENT B

Metro route service and timetable for Blackmans Bay

Call 13 22 01 to check if a

wheelchair accessible bus is in

service on your route, other

than marked in the timetable

Signal the bus driver to stop

Be at your stop five minutes

before your bus is due

Recharge your Greencard on

the bus (cash only), online and

at Greencard agents

Save with Greencard

• 20% off all fares

• low daily caps

• free transfers within 90

minutes

Single-trip tickets can be

bought on the bus (cash only)

Visit www.metrotas.com.au

• trip planners

• maps and timetables

• fares

• travel tips

Download the free Metro Tas

app to

• manage your Greencard

• plan your trip

• get updates and service alerts

Metro Shop

Hobart City Interchange

22 Elizabeth St, Hobart

8am to 6pm Monday to Friday

During daylight savings

also open 9.30am to 2pm

on Saturdays

13 22 01 between 7am and 7pm

Monday to Friday

During daylight savings also

available 9.30am to 2pm on

Saturdays

Welcome aboard Metro

Kingston - Blackmans BayEffective 10 January 2016

Routes

Also shows Routes 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 417 & 418

408Blackmans Bay

to Hobart City

410Kingston

to Hobart City

428Blackmans Bay

to Hobart City

500Blackmans Bay

to Glenorchy

Blackmans Bay

to Hobart City407

Blackmans Bay

to Hobart City409

Blackmans Bay

to Hobart City427

For more information including timetables

maps and fares

www.metrotas.com.au

13 22 01

www.facebook.com/metrotasmania

@metro_tasmania

407 Blackmans Bay to Hobart City via Kingston Beach & Kingston

408 Blackmans Bay to Hobart City via Kingston

409 Blackmans Bay to Hobart City via Kingston Beach & Kingston

410 Kingston to Hobart City

427 Blackmans Bay to Hobart City via Kingston Beach, Kingston & Taroona

428 Blackmans Bay to Hobart City via Kingston & Taroona

500 Blackmans Bay to Glenorchy via Kingston, Hobart City & Moonah

Also shows Routes 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 417 & 418 between Kingston & Hobart City. For full details, refer to separate timetable

407, 408, 409, 410, 427, 428, 500 from Blackmans Bay & Kingston towards Hobart City & Glenorchy

Monday to Fridaymap ref Route number 427 427 428 408 416 407 409 500 407 415 412 418 500 409 411 407

am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am amA Blackmans Bay,Suncoast Dr/Reef Pde - - - - - - 7:02 - - - - - - 7:23 - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - 7:05 - - - - - - 7:26 - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 5:43 6:13 6:28 6:54 - 7:03 - 7:09 7:15 - - - 7:25 - - 7:39E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde 5:46 6:16 - - - 7:07 7:09 - 7:19 - - - - 7:30 7:37 7:43F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd 5:49 6:19 - - - 7:12 - - 7:24 - - - - - 7:44 7:48G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - 7:14 - - - - - - 7:35 - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - - 6:29 6:55 - - - 7:11 - - - - 7:27 - - -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr - - 6:32 6:57 - - - 7:14 - - - - 7:30 - - -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn - - 6:37 7:03 - - - 7:19 - - - - 7:35 - - -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd - - 6:40 7:07 7:14 - - 7:22 - s7:32 7:35 7:37 7:38 - - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 5:55 6:25 6:43 7:11 7:17 7:20 7:24 7:27 7:32 s7:35 7:38 7:40 7:43 7:45 7:52 7:56M Kingston, Browns Rd - - - 7:13 7:19 7:22 7:26 7:29 7:34 s7:37 7:40 7:42 7:45 7:47 7:54 7:58N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 6:02 6:32 6:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 6:21 6:51 7:15 7:31 7:37 7:40 7:44 - 7:52 s7:55 7:58 8:00 - 8:06 8:13 8:17P Hobart City Interchange Stop E - - - - - - - 7:49 - - - - 8:04 - - -Q Glenorchy Interchange - - - - - - - 8:17 - - - - 8:32 - - -

Monday to Friday (cont...)map ref Route number 500 412 407 409 417 415 500 407 408 409 407 408 407 410 408 415

am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am amA Blackmans Bay,Suncoast Dr/Reef Pde - - - 7:54 - - - - - 8:31 - - - - - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - 7:57 - - - - - 8:34 - - - - - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 7:45 - 7:54 - - - 8:05 8:15 8:26 - 8:41 8:56 9:06 - 9:26 -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - 7:58 8:01 - - - 8:19 - 8:38 8:46 - 9:09 - - -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - 8:03 - - - - 8:24 - - 8:52 - 9:12 - - -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - 8:06 - - - - - 8:43 - - - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 7:47 - - - - - 8:07 - 8:27 - - 8:57 - - 9:27 -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr 7:50 - - - - - 8:10 - 8:30 - - 9:00 - - 9:30 -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn 7:55 - - - - - 8:15 - 8:36 - - 9:05 - - 9:35 -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 7:58 8:04 - - 8:17 8:18 8:18 - 8:40 - - 9:08 - - 9:38 9:48L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 8:03 8:07 8:11 8:16 8:20 8:21 8:23 8:32 8:44 8:53 8:58 9:12 9:19 9:28 9:42 9:51M Kingston, Browns Rd 8:05 8:09 8:13 8:18 8:22 8:23 8:25 8:34 8:46 8:55 9:00 9:14 9:21 9:30 9:44 9:53N Hobart College - h8:18 - - h8:31 h8:32 - - - - - - - - - h10:02O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City, Macquarie St - k8:32 8:32 8:37 k8:45 k8:46 - 8:52 9:04 9:11 9:16 9:30 9:37 9:46 10:00 k10:14P Hobart City Interchange Stop E 8:27 - - - - - 8:47 - - - - - - - - -Q Glenorchy Interchange 8:55 - - - - - 9:16 - - - - - - - - -

am am am am am am am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pmA Blackmans Bay,Suncoast Dr/Reef Pde - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd - 10:00 - 10:27 - 11:00 - - 11:27 - 12:00 - 12:27 - 1:00 -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 10:03 - - - 11:03 - - - - 12:03 - - - 1:03 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 10:06 - - - 11:06 - - - - 12:06 - - - 1:06 -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - - - 10:28 - - - - 11:28 - - - 12:28 - - -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr - - - 10:31 - - - - 11:31 - - - 12:31 - - -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn - - - 10:36 - - - - 11:36 - - - 12:36 - - -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd - - - 10:39 - - - 11:35 11:39 - - - 12:39 - - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 9:58 10:13 10:28 10:43 10:58 11:13 11:28 11:38 11:43 11:58 12:13 12:28 12:43 12:58 1:13 1:28M Kingston, Browns Rd 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:40 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 1:30N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - - h12:24 - - - - -O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 10:16 10:31 10:46 11:01 11:16 11:31 11:46 11:56 12:01 12:16 k12:36 12:46 1:01 1:16 1:31 1:46P Hobart City Interchange Stop E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q Glenorchy Interchange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible bush Service travels via Hobart College on school days onlyk Service operates 5 minutes earlier during school vacations Service operates on school days only

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmA Blackmans Bay,Suncoast Dr/Reef Pde - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 1:27 - - 2:00 - 2:27 - 2:57 3:23 3:57 - 4:02 4:27 4:32 4:57 5:12E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - - 2:03 - - - 3:00 - 4:01 - - 4:31 - 5:01 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - - 2:06 - - - 3:05 - 4:06 - - 4:36 - 5:06 -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 1:28 - - - - 2:28 - - 3:24 - - 4:03 - 4:33 - 5:13I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr 1:31 - - - - 2:31 - - 3:27 - - 4:06 - 4:36 - 5:16J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn 1:36 - - - - 2:36 - - 3:33 - - 4:12 - 4:42 - 5:22K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 1:39 1:50 - - - 2:39 - - 3:37 - 4:14 4:16 - 4:46 - 5:26L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 1:43 1:53 1:58 2:13 2:28 2:43 2:58 3:13 3:41 4:14 4:17 4:20 4:44 4:50 5:14 5:30M Kingston, Browns Rd 1:45 1:55 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:43 4:16 4:19 4:22 4:46 4:52 5:16 5:32N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 2:01 2:11 2:16 2:31 2:46 3:01 3:18 3:33 4:01 4:34 4:37 4:40 5:04 5:10 5:34 5:50P Hobart City Interchange Stop E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q Glenorchy Interchange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday to Friday (cont...)map ref Route number 407 415 408 407 408 407 408 427 428 427 428 427 428 407

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm amA Blackmans Bay,Suncoast Dr/Reef Pde - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 5:27 - 5:37 5:57 5:57 6:23 6:35 7:02 7:49 8:52 9:49 10:52 11:49 f12:52E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde 5:31 - - 6:01 - 6:26 - 7:05 - 8:55 - 10:55 - f12:55F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd 5:36 - - 6:04 - 6:29 - 7:08 - 8:58 - 10:58 - f12:58G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - - 5:39 - 5:58 - 6:36 - 7:50 - 9:50 - 11:50 -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr - - 5:42 - 6:01 - 6:38 - 7:53 - 9:53 - 11:53 -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn - - 5:48 - 6:06 - 6:43 - 7:58 - 9:58 - 11:58 -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd - 5:50 5:51 - 6:09 - 6:46 - 8:01 - 10:01 - 12:01 -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 5:44 5:53 5:55 6:10 6:13 6:35 6:50 7:14 8:04 9:04 10:04 11:04 12:04 f1:04M Kingston, Browns Rd 5:46 5:55 - - 6:15 - 6:52 - - - - - - f1:06N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - - - - - -O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - 7:21 8:11 9:11 10:11 11:11 12:11 -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 6:04 6:14 - - 6:31 - 7:08 7:42 8:32 9:32 10:32 11:32 12:32 f1:22P Hobart City Interchange Stop E - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q Glenorchy Interchange - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Saturdaymap ref Route number 428 427 408 407 413 408 407 408 415 407 408 407 408 407 408 407

am am am am am am am am am am am am am pm pm pmD Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 6:30 7:00 7:37 8:09 - 8:31 9:04 9:31 - 10:04 10:31 11:04 11:31 12:04 12:31 1:04E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 7:03 - 8:12 - - 9:07 - - 10:07 - 11:07 - 12:07 - 1:07F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 7:06 - 8:16 - - 9:11 - - 10:11 - 11:11 - 12:11 - 1:11H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 6:31 - 7:38 - - 8:32 - 9:32 - - 10:32 - 11:32 - 12:32 -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr 6:34 - 7:41 - - 8:35 - 9:35 - - 10:35 - 11:35 - 12:35 -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn 6:39 - 7:45 - - 8:39 - 9:39 - - 10:39 - 11:39 - 12:39 -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 6:41 - 7:48 - 8:28 8:42 - 9:42 9:55 - 10:42 - 11:42 - 12:42 -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 6:44 7:11 7:51 8:20 8:30 8:45 9:15 9:45 9:57 10:15 10:45 11:15 11:45 12:15 12:45 1:15M Kingston, Browns Rd - - 7:53 8:22 8:32 8:47 9:17 9:47 9:59 10:17 10:47 11:17 11:47 12:17 12:47 1:17O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 6:53 7:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 7:13 7:40 8:09 8:38 8:48 9:03 9:33 10:03 10:15 10:33 11:03 11:33 12:03 12:33 1:03 1:33

Saturday (cont...)map ref Route number 413 408 407 408 407 413 408 407 408 407 408 415 407 408 427 413

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmD Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd - 1:31 2:04 2:31 3:04 - 3:31 4:04 4:31 5:04 5:31 - 6:03 6:31 7:10 -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - 2:07 - 3:07 - - 4:07 - 5:07 - - 6:06 - 7:13 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - 2:11 - 3:11 - - 4:11 - 5:11 - - 6:10 - 7:16 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - 1:32 - 2:32 - - 3:32 - 4:32 - 5:32 - - 6:32 - -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr - 1:35 - 2:35 - - 3:35 - 4:35 - 5:35 - - 6:35 - -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn - 1:39 - 2:39 - - 3:39 - 4:39 - 5:39 - - 6:39 - -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 1:25 1:42 - 2:42 - 3:25 3:42 - 4:42 - 5:42 6:00 - 6:42 - 7:25L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 1:27 1:45 2:15 2:45 3:15 3:27 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:02 6:14 6:45 7:21 7:27M Kingston, Browns Rd 1:29 1:47 2:17 2:47 3:17 3:29 3:47 4:17 4:47 5:17 5:47 6:04 6:16 6:47 - 7:29O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:30 -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 1:45 2:03 2:33 3:03 3:33 3:45 4:03 4:33 5:03 5:33 6:03 6:20 6:32 7:03 7:50 7:45

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible busf Service operates on Friday nights only

Saturday (cont...)map ref Route number 428 427 428 427 428 407

pm pm pm pm pm amD Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 7:49 8:52 9:49 10:52 11:49 12:52E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 8:55 - 10:55 - 12:55F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 8:58 - 10:58 - 12:58H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 7:50 - 9:50 - 11:50 -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr 7:53 - 9:53 - 11:53 -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn 7:58 - 9:58 - 11:58 -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 8:00 - 10:00 - 12:00 -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 8:03 9:03 10:03 11:03 12:03 1:04M Kingston, Browns Rd - - - - - 1:06O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 8:12 9:12 10:12 11:12 12:12 -P Hobart City, Macquarie St 8:32 9:32 10:32 11:32 12:32 1:22

Sunday & Public Holidaysmap ref Route number 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427

am am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmD Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 7:54 8:57 9:54 10:57 11:54 12:57 1:54 2:57 3:54 4:57 5:54 6:55 7:49 8:52E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 9:00 - 11:00 - 1:00 - 3:00 - 5:00 - 6:58 - 8:55F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 9:03 - 11:03 - 1:03 - 3:03 - 5:03 - 7:01 - 8:58H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 7:55 - 9:55 - 11:55 - 1:55 - 3:55 - 5:55 - 7:50 -I Algona Rd/Crystal Downs Dr 7:58 - 9:58 - 11:58 - 1:58 - 3:58 - 5:58 - 7:53 -J Hawthorn Dr, Kingston Fire Stn 8:03 - 10:03 - 12:03 - 2:03 - 4:03 - 6:03 - 7:58 -K Maranoa Rd/Redwood Rd 8:05 - 10:05 - 12:05 - 2:05 - 4:05 - 6:05 - 8:00 -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 8:08 9:08 10:08 11:08 12:08 1:08 2:08 3:08 4:08 5:08 6:08 7:06 8:03 9:03M Kingston, Browns Rd - - - - - - - - - - - - - -O Taroona, Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 8:17 9:18 10:18 11:18 12:18 1:18 2:18 3:18 4:18 5:18 6:17 7:15 8:12 9:12P Hobart City, Macquarie St 8:37 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40 6:37 7:35 8:32 9:32

407, 408, 409, 410, 427, 428, 500 from Glenorchy & Hobart City towards Kingston & Blackmans Bay

Monday to Fridaymap ref Route number 408 408 407 408 415 407 408 408 407 410 408 410 407 410 413 408 410

am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am amQ Glenorchy Interchange Stop H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 6:32 7:04 7:14 7:39 7:50 7:53 8:05 8:30 8:53 9:08 9:23 9:38 9:53 10:08 10:13 10:23 10:38O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -M Kingston, Browns Rd 6:47 7:20 7:30 7:56 8:07 8:10 8:22 8:46 9:10 9:23 9:38 9:53 10:08 10:23 10:28 10:38 10:53L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 6:49 7:22 7:32 7:58 8:09 8:12 8:24 8:48 9:12 9:25 9:40 9:55 10:10 10:25 10:30 10:40 10:55K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 6:51 7:25 - 8:01 8:11 - 8:27 8:51 - - 9:43 - - - 10:33 10:43 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn 6:53 7:28 - 8:04 - - 8:30 8:54 - - 9:46 - - - - 10:46 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr 6:58 7:34 - 8:10 - - 8:36 9:00 - - 9:52 - - - - 10:52 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 7:00 7:36 - 8:12 - - 8:38 9:02 - - 9:54 - - - - 10:54 -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - 7:37 - - 8:17 - - 9:17 - - - 10:16 - - - -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - 7:42 - - 8:22 - - 9:22 - - - 10:21 - - - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 7:03 7:39 7:45 8:15 - 8:25 8:41 9:05 9:25 - 9:57 - 10:24 - - 10:57 -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B Wells Pde/Clearwater Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Journey continues as Route No 407 407 500 407 415 408 407 407 408 - 407 - 408 - 413 407 -Journey continues to Hob Hob Gly Hob Wbg Hob Hob Hob Hob - Hob - Hob - Sng Hob -

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible bus

Journey continues to

Gly GlenorchyHob Hobart CitySng SnugWbg Woodbridge

Monday to Friday (cont...)map ref Route number 407 410 408 410 407 415 415 410 408 410 407 410 408 410 407 410 415

am am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmQ Glenorchy Interchange Stop H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 10:53 11:08 11:23 11:38 11:53 v12:05 s12:05 12:08 m12:18 12:38 12:53 1:08 1:23 1:38 1:53 2:08 v2:20O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N Hobart College - - - - - - s12:14 - h12:28 - - - - - - - -M Kingston, Browns Rd 11:08 11:23 11:38 11:53 12:08 v12:19 s12:25 12:23 12:38 12:53 1:08 1:23 1:38 1:53 2:08 2:23 v2:34L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 11:10 11:25 11:40 11:55 12:10 v12:21 s12:27 12:25 12:40 12:55 1:10 1:25 1:40 1:55 2:10 2:25 v2:36K Maranoa Rd before Redwood - - 11:43 - - v12:24 s12:29 - 12:43 - - - 1:43 - - - v2:39J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn - - 11:46 - - - - - 12:46 - - - 1:46 - - - -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr - - 11:52 - - - - - 12:52 - - - 1:52 - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - - 11:54 - - - - - 12:54 - - - 1:54 - - - -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd 11:16 - - - 12:16 - - - - - 1:16 - - - 2:16 - -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde 11:21 - - - 12:21 - - - - - 1:21 - - - 2:21 - -D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 11:24 - 11:57 - 12:24 - - - 12:57 - 1:24 - 1:57 - 2:24 - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B Wells Pde/Clearwater Ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Journey continues as Route No 408 - 407 - 408 415 415 - 407 - 408 - 407 - 408 - 415Journey continues to Hob - Hob - Hob Wbg Wbg - Hob - Hob - Hob - Hob - Wbg

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmQ Glenorchy Interchange Stop H - - - - - - - - - 3:11 - - - - - - -P Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P s2:20 2:23 e2:26 2:38 2:53 3:12 s3:15 3:20 3:30 3:50 v3:55 s3:55 4:00 w4:03 v4:06 s4:06 4:12O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N Hobart College s2:29 - e2:35 - - - s3:26 - - - - s4:06 - w4:12 - s4:17 -M Kingston, Browns Rd s2:40 2:38 e2:46 2:53 3:08 3:29 s3:37 3:37 3:47 4:07 v4:11 s4:17 4:17 w4:23 v4:22 s4:28 4:29L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy s2:42 2:40 e2:48 2:55 3:10 3:31 s3:39 3:39 3:49 4:09 v4:13 s4:19 4:19 w4:25 v4:24 s4:30 4:31K Maranoa Rd before Redwood s2:45 2:43 e2:51 - - - s3:42 3:42 - 4:12 v4:16 s4:22 - w4:28 v4:27 s4:33 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn - 2:46 - - - - - 3:45 - 4:15 - - - - - - -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr - 2:52 - - - - - 3:51 - 4:20 - - - - - - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - 2:54 - - - - - 3:53 - 4:23 - - - - - - -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - 3:37 - - - - - - - - - - 4:37F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - - - 3:15 - - - 3:54 - - - 4:24 - - - -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - - - 3:20 3:42 - - 3:59 - - - 4:29 - - - 4:42D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd - 2:57 - - 3:23 - - 3:56 4:02 4:26 - - 4:32 - - - -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - 3:45 - - - - - - - - - - 4:45B Wells Pde/Clearwater Ct - - - - - 3:50 - - - - - - - - - - 4:50

Journey continues as Route No 415 407 412 - 408 - 413 407 408 407 415 415 408 412 413 413 -Journey continues to Wbg Hob Mar - Hob - Sng Hob Hob Hob Wbg Wbg Hob Mar Sng Sng -

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmQ Glenorchy Interchange Stop H - - - - - 4:15 - - - - - - - - 5:15 - -P Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 4:20 s4:25 4:40 v4:45 s4:45 4:50 5:05 5:09 5:12 5:15 5:20 5:25 5:30 5:35 5:50 6:05 6:12O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N Hobart College - s4:36 - - s4:56 - - - - - - - - - - - -M Kingston, Browns Rd 4:37 s4:46 4:57 v5:01 s5:06 5:07 5:22 5:26 5:29 5:32 5:37 5:42 5:47 5:52 6:07 6:21 6:28L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 4:39 s4:49 4:59 v5:03 s5:09 5:09 5:24 5:28 5:31 5:34 5:39 5:44 5:49 5:54 6:09 6:23 6:30K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 4:42 - - v5:06 s5:12 5:12 - 5:31 - 5:37 5:42 - 5:52 - 6:11 - -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn 4:45 - - - - 5:15 - - - - 5:45 - - - 6:13 - -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr 4:51 - - - - 5:20 - - - - 5:51 - - - 6:17 - -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 4:53 - - - - 5:23 - - - - 5:53 - - - 6:19 - -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - 5:37 - - - - - - - 6:35F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - s4:54 5:04 - - - 5:29 - - - - 5:49 - 5:59 - 6:27 -E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - s4:58 5:09 - - - 5:34 - 5:42 - - 5:54 - 6:03 - 6:32 6:40D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 4:56 - 5:12 - - 5:26 5:37 - - - 5:56 5:57 - - 6:22 6:35 -C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - 5:45 - - - - - - - 6:43B Wells Pde/Clearwater Ct - - - - - - - - 5:50 - - - - - - - 6:48

Journey continues as Route No 407 411 408 417 417 407 408 418 - 416 407 408 412 411 407 408 -Journey continues to Hob How Hob Gor Gor Hob Kin Cyg - Mid Kin Hob Mar How Kin Hob -

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible buse Service operates on Monday,Tuesday, Thursday and Friday during school term onlyh Service travels via Hobart College on school days onlym Service operates 5 minutes later during school vacations Service operates on school days onlyv Service operates during school vaction onlyw Service operates on Wednesdays during school term only

Cyg CygnetGor GordonHob Hobart CityHow HowdenKin Kingston CentralMar MargateMid MiddletonSng SnugWbg Woodbridge

Monday to Friday (cont...)map ref Route number 415 408 407 427 428 427 428 427 428 427

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm am amQ Glenorchy Interchange Stop H - - - - - - - - - -P Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:10 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 f12:10 f1:10O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - 7:31 8:31 9:31 10:31 11:31 f12:31 f1:31N Hobart College - - - - - - - - - -M Kingston, Browns Rd 6:31 6:46 7:01 - - - - - - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 6:33 6:48 7:03 7:39 8:39 9:39 10:39 11:39 f12:39 f1:39K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 6:35 6:50 - - 8:41 - 10:41 - f12:41 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn - 6:52 - - 8:43 - 10:43 - f12:43 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr - 6:57 - - 8:48 - 10:48 - f12:48 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - 6:59 - - 8:50 - 10:50 - f12:50 -G Auburn Rd/Heath Ct - - - - - - - - - -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - 7:07 7:43 - 9:43 - 11:43 - f1:43E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - 7:11 7:46 - 9:46 - 11:46 - f1:46D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd - 7:01 7:13 7:49 8:52 9:49 10:52 11:49 f12:52 f1:49C Wells Pde/Kulgoa Pl - - - - - - - - - -B Wells Pde/Clearwater Ct - - - - - - - - - -

Journey continues as Route No 415 427 - 428 427 428 427 428 427 -Journey continues to Wbg Hob - Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob -

Saturdaymap ref Route number 427 428 407 415 408 407 408 407 408 407 408 407 413 408 407 408 407

am am am am am am am am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pmP Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 6:58 7:28 8:01 8:10 8:31 9:01 9:31 10:01 10:31 11:01 11:31 12:01 12:15 12:31 1:01 1:31 2:01O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 7:17 7:49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -M Kingston, Browns Rd - - 8:15 8:25 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:15 10:45 11:15 11:45 12:15 12:29 12:45 1:15 1:45 2:15L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 7:26 7:56 8:18 8:27 8:48 9:18 9:48 10:18 10:48 11:18 11:48 12:18 12:32 12:48 1:18 1:48 2:18K Maranoa Rd before Redwood - 7:58 - 8:29 8:50 - 9:51 - 10:51 - 11:51 - 12:34 12:51 - 1:51 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn - 8:00 - - 8:52 - 9:53 - 10:53 - 11:53 - - 12:53 - 1:53 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr - 8:05 - - 8:57 - 9:58 - 10:58 - 11:58 - - 12:58 - 1:58 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - 8:07 - - 8:59 - 10:00 - 11:00 - 12:00 - - 1:00 - 2:00 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd 7:30 - 8:22 - - 9:22 - 10:22 - 11:22 - 12:22 - - 1:22 - 2:22E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde 7:34 - 8:27 - - 9:27 - 10:27 - 11:27 - 12:27 - - 1:27 - 2:27D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 7:37 8:09 8:30 - 9:01 9:30 10:03 10:30 11:03 11:30 12:03 12:30 - 1:03 1:30 2:03 2:30

Journey continues as Route No 408 407 408 415 407 408 407 408 407 408 407 408 413 407 408 407 408Journey continues to Hob Hob Hob Wbg Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Sng Hob Hob Hob Hob

Saturday (cont...)map ref Route number 413 408 407 408 407 415 408 407 408 407 413 408 427 428 427 428 427

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmP Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 2:15 2:31 3:01 3:31 4:01 4:15 4:31 5:01 5:31 6:01 6:15 6:31 7:10 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:29 8:31 9:29 10:31 11:29M Kingston, Browns Rd 2:29 2:45 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:29 6:45 - - - - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 2:32 2:48 3:18 3:48 4:18 4:32 4:48 5:18 5:48 6:18 6:32 6:48 7:38 8:38 9:38 10:38 11:38K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 2:34 2:51 - 3:51 - 4:34 4:51 - 5:51 - 6:34 6:50 - 8:40 - 10:40 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn - 2:53 - 3:53 - - 4:53 - 5:53 - - 6:52 - 8:42 - 10:42 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr - 2:58 - 3:58 - - 4:58 - 5:58 - - 6:57 - 8:47 - 10:47 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave - 3:00 - 4:00 - - 5:00 - 6:00 - - 6:59 - 8:49 - 10:49 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - - 3:22 - 4:22 - - 5:22 - 6:22 - - 7:42 - 9:42 - 11:42E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - - 3:27 - 4:27 - - 5:27 - 6:27 - - 7:45 - 9:45 - 11:45D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd - 3:03 3:30 4:03 4:30 - 5:03 5:30 6:03 6:30 - 7:01 7:48 8:51 9:48 10:51 11:48

Journey continues as Route No 413 407 408 407 408 415 407 408 407 408 413 - 428 427 428 427 428Journey continues to Sng Hob Hob Hob Hob Wbg Hob Hob Hob Hob Sng - Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob

Saturday (cont...)map ref Route number 428 427

am amP Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 12:10 1:10O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 12:31 1:29M Kingston, Browns Rd - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 12:38 1:38K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 12:40 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn 12:42 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr 12:47 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 12:49 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 1:42E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 1:45D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 12:51 1:48

Journey continues as Route No 407 -Journey continues to Hob -

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible busf Service operates on Friday nights only

Hob Hobart CitySng SnugWbg Woodbridge

Sunday & Public Holidaysmap ref Route number 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427

am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pmP Hobart City Franklin Sq Stop P 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 12:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 4:10 5:10 6:10 7:10 8:10 9:10O Channel Hwy/Illawong Cr 8:29 9:32 10:32 11:32 12:32 1:32 2:32 3:32 4:32 5:32 6:32 7:29 8:29 9:29M Kingston, Browns Rd - - - - - - - - - - - - - -L Kingston Central, Channel Hwy 8:38 9:41 10:41 11:41 12:41 1:41 2:41 3:41 4:41 5:41 6:41 7:38 8:38 9:38K Maranoa Rd before Redwood 8:40 - 10:44 - 12:44 - 2:44 - 4:44 - 6:43 - 8:40 -J Hawthorn Dr, KingstonFire Stn 8:42 - 10:46 - 12:46 - 2:46 - 4:46 - 6:45 - 8:42 -I Algona Rd/Opal Dr 8:47 - 10:51 - 12:51 - 2:51 - 4:51 - 6:50 - 8:47 -H Woodlands Dr/Edison Ave 8:49 - 10:53 - 12:53 - 2:53 - 4:53 - 6:52 - 8:49 -F Kingston Beach, Beach Rd - 9:45 - 11:45 - 1:45 - 3:45 - 5:45 - 7:42 - 9:42E Roslyn Ave/Wells Pde - 9:49 - 11:49 - 1:49 - 3:49 - 5:49 - 7:45 - 9:45D Blackmans Bay, Illawarra Rd 8:51 9:53 10:56 11:53 12:56 1:53 2:56 3:53 4:56 5:53 6:54 7:48 8:51 9:48

Journey continues as Route No 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 428 427 -Journey continues to Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob Hob -

Explanations

Wheelchair accessible bus

Hob Hobart City

GlenorchyInterchange

Metro SpringfieldInterchange

Hobart CityInterchange

Blackmans BaySuncoast Dr

Kingston CentralChannel Hwy

Blackmans BayIllawarra Rd

Continues below left

Continues via Sandy Bay Rdto join below left

Continues to Howden

Continues above right

Continues viaSandy Bay Rd to

join above right

Continues viaChannel Hwy

HobartCollege

Royal HobartHospital

UTASMedical Science

Precinct

ElizabethCollege

Proctors Rd

nnel H

Huon H

merleas R

Church St Beach Rd

nnel H

Baynton StH

t Auburn Rd

Tanina

Roslyn Ave

oyal R

Jindabyne Rd

Hiern RdO

ood Rd

Villag

Hawthorn Dr

Algona RdW

Pearsall Ave

Illawarra Rd

Suncoas t D

erbox Rd E

dlands Dr

Edison

rnett St

Olinda Gr

Southern Ou

quarie

lins St

Antill StRegent St

Molle St

Byron St

Sandy Bay R

Harrington St

Murray St

Argyle StElizabeth St

pbell St

Risdon Rd

Derwent Park RdSpringfield Ave

Forster St

Albert Rd

losa S

t Eady St

BlackmansBay

Kingston

KingstonBeach

BonnetHill

Glenorchy DerwentPark

Moonah

NewTown

MountStuart

NorthHobart

Hobart

BatteryPoint

SandyBay

MountNelson

Dynnyrne

SouthHobart

Taroona

Routes 407, 410, 427

Routes 408, 428, 500

Route 409

Routes 411, 412, 413,415, 416, 417, 418

Variant of route

Timing point

Interchange

Hospital

Educational institution

Shopping centre

Map not to scale

Legend

Route Map 407, 408, 409, 410, 427, 428, 500

APPENDIX H

Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

AboriginalVersion 2 Final

Report Assessment Heritage

roposedP Bay Blackmans Avenue,

Home 51 at Subdivision

AUTHOR: Stuart27 7004 TAS Hobart, South St Apsley

Sainty Rocky andHuys

CLIENT: JMG

.13 2. 8201

15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Subdivision Proposal: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table of Contents

Page Executive Summary 1 1.0 Project Outline 8 1.1 Project Details 8 1.2 Aims of the Investigation 8

1.3 Project Limitations 9 1.4 Project Methodology 9

2.0 Environmental Setting of the Study Area 15

2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Landscape Setting of the Study Area 15

3.0 Ethno-historic Background 22 3.1 Ethno-historic Overview 22

3.2 Aboriginal Social Organisation in South East Tasmania 25 4.0 Background Archaeology 38

4.1 Regional Studies 38 4.2 Previous Investigations in the Vicinity of the Study Area 43 4.3 Results of the AHR Database Search 45

5.0 A Predictive Model of Aboriginal Site Type Distribution 47

5.1 Introduction to Predictive Modelling 47 5.2 Predictive Models: Strengths and Weaknesses 47 5.3 Predictive Model of Aboriginal Site Type Distribution for the Study Area 47

6.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area 50 7.0 Survey Results and Discussion 55

7.1 Summary Survey Results 55 7.2 Further Discussions 59

8.0 Assessment of Site Significance 62 8.1 Assessment Guidelines 62 8.2 The Burra Charter 62 8.3 Significance Criteria Relevant to Indigenous Sites 63 8.4 Summary Significance Ratings for the Recorded Aboriginal Sites 64 8.5 Scientific Significance for the Recorded Aboriginal Sites 65 8.6 Aesthetic Significance for the Recorded Aboriginal Sites 66 8.7 Historic Significance for the Recorded Aboriginal Sites 66

Table of Contents

0 Consultation with Aboriginal Communities and Statement of

Aboriginal Significance 67 10.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements 69

10.1 State Legislation 69 10.2 Federal Legislation 70

11.0 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan 73

11.1 Summary Recommendations 73 11.2 Detailed Management Recommendations for Sites AH144 and AH13388 76 11.3 General Recommendations 77

12.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan 78 References Cited 80 Glossary of Terms 83 Appendix 1 Gazetteer of Recorded Sites 87 Appendix 2 Detailed Site Descriptions 89 Appendix 3 Consultation Record 97 List of Figures Figure i: Map showing the location of registered Aboriginal sites located within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (Map based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017) 2 Figure ii: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries 7 Figure 1: Topographic map showing the general location of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area 12 Figure 2: Topographic map showing the boundaries of the 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay 13 Figure 3: Aerial image showing the boundaries of the 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay 14 Figure 4: The general topographic setting of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 17 Figure 5: Geology underlying the study area. Image modified from The LIST (Geological Polygons 1:25K) accessed 11 December 2017 18 Figure 6: The location of the study area which is situated within the territory of the South East Nation (Map taken from Ryan (2012:13) 27

Table of Contents Page List of Figures Figure 7: Map showing the location of registered Aboriginal sites located within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (Map based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017) 46 Figure 8: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility 50 Figure 9: Survey transects walked by the field team across the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area 54 Figure 10: Topographic map showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries 57 Figure 11: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries 58 Figure 12: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries 75 List of Tables Table i: Registered Aboriginal heritage sites within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017) 1 Table ii: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 4 Table iii: Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 5 Table iv: Summary Management Recommendations for the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 5 Table 1: Registered Aboriginal heritage sites within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017) 45 Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the study area 51 Table 3: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 56 Table 4: Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 65 Table 5: Summary Management Recommendations for the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 73 Table 6: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area 88 List of Plates Plate 1: Rocky Sainty, the Aboriginal Heritage Officer for this project 11 Plate 2: View south across the sandy shoreline of Blackmans Bay Beach 19 Plate 3: View east at the intertidal rock platforms at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach 19 Plate 4: View east across the study area, showing the cleared and landscaped grounds 20

Table of Contents

Page List of Plates Plate 5; View south-east across the study area showing landscaped gardens and formed walking path 20 Plate 6: View south-east at existing buildings within the study area 21 Plate 7: Driveway running through the study area, to the existing buildings 21 Plate 8: View east across the western portion of the study area showing typical levels of surface visibility, restricted to 20% due to grass cover 51 Plate 9: View west along the northern boundary of the study area, showing grass cover restricting surface visibility, and a walking track providing a discrete locale of improved visibility 52 Plate 10: View north along the east boundary of the study area, with a walking track providing improved visibility 52 Plate 11: An erosion scald in the central portion of the study area providing a locale of improved visibility 53 Plate 12: An erosion scald in the southern portion of the study area providing a locale of improved visibility 53

Page | 1

Executive Summary Project Background JMG are undertaking the planning approvals for a proposed residential subdivision on a 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, in South East Tasmania (see Figure 1). The property is located at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach. The eastern boundary of the property is bordered by Ocean Esplanade, with Blowhole Road running along the northern boundary of the site. Figures 2 and 3 show the property boundaries. The sub-division project is in the early planning phase, and the proposed Masterplan for the development footprint is yet to be finalised. CHMA Pty Ltd and Rocky Sainty (Aboriginal Heritage Officer) has been engaged by JMG (on behalf of the proponent) to undertake an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the subdivision proposal. The outcomes of the assessment will be used to inform the Masterplan design. This report presents the findings of the assessment. Registered Aboriginal Sites in the Vicinity of the Study Area As part of Stage 1 of the assessment process, a search was undertaken of the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR) to determine whether any registered Aboriginal heritage sites are located within, or in the general vicinity of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area. The search results show that there are a total of five registered Aboriginal heritage sites that are located within a 1km radius of the study area (search results provided by Kate Moody on the 4-12-2017). All five sites are classified as shell middens, with one of these shell middens also having a single stone artefact in association with the deposit. Table i provides the summary details for these five sites, with Figure i showing the location of the sites in relation to the study area boundaries. Of these five sites, there is one site that appears to be situated within the study area boundaries (site AH144). This site is highlighted in red in Table i. Table i: Registered Aboriginal heritage sites within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017)

AH Number

Site Type Locality Grid Reference Easting (GDA94)

Grid Reference Northing (GDA94)

144 Shell Midden Blackmans Bay 526612 5239182

2970 Shell Midden, Isolated Artefact Blackmans Bay 526712 5238182

Page | 2

Figure i: Map showing the location of registered Aboriginal sites located within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area

(Map based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017)

Page | 3

The Results of the Field Survey Assessment The field survey assessment was conducted over a period of 1 day (21-12-2017) by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Rocky Sainty (AHO). The field team walked a total of 2.2km of survey transects across the study area, with the average width of each transect being 5m. The survey transects were aligned so as to provide coverage over all parts of the study area. During the course of the field survey, the field recorded two Aboriginal heritage sites (sites AH144 and AH13388). Site AH144 is a previously registered site that was identified through the AHR search request as being potentially situated within the study area boundaries. The site classified on the AHR as a Shell midden. The site is located along the south-eastern boundary of the study area, on the lower eastern side slopes of a low relief hill, around 50m inland (west) of the coast. It comprises a low to moderate density scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring approximately 50m x 10m. The midden material is mostly confined to a benched slope area, where the hill slope gradient decreases to around 1-2⁰ to form a level area, that is elevated around 5m-7m above the nearby coastal rock platforms. A range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. The shell midden material is typically highly fragmented. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. A single stone artefact was also identified in association with the midden material. Site AH13388 is a newly recorded site, which is classified as a Shell midden. The site is located in the north-western portion of the study area and comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi), with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present. No stone artefacts or bone were identified in association with the shell material. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. The site is located within a very heavily disturbed context, being situated within a landscaped garden area, where the native vegetation has been entirely cleared, and the area replanted with introduced grasses, and a variety of exotic tree species. Table ii provides the summary details for sites AH144 and AH13388, with the site locations shown in Figure ii. The detailed site descriptions for these two sites are provided in Appendix 2 of this report. No other Aboriginal sites or specific areas of elevated cultural heritage sensitivity were identified within the bounds of study area. Despite constraints in surface visibility, these

Page | 4

negative results are assessed as being a reasonably accurate reflection of the absence of Aboriginal sites for the remainder of the study area. The detailed survey results and discussios are presented in section 7 of this report. Table ii: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area AH No. Grid Reference

(GDA 94)

Site Type Site Description

AH13388 E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351

Shell Midden The site is positioned on the flat summit of a low relief hill, around 250m inland (west) of the north end of Blackmans Bay Beach. The site comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi), with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present.

AH144 E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162

Shell midden/Isolated artefact

The site is positioned on the flat summit of a low relief hill, around 50m inland (west) of the north end of Blackmans Bay Beach. The site comprises a low to moderate density scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring approximately 50m x 10m, along the eastern boundary of the property. The midden material is mostly confined to a benched slope area, where the hill slope gradient decreases to around 1-2⁰ to form a level area, that is elevated around 5m-7m above the nearby coastal rock platforms. A range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. Artefact details - Grey chert flake piece 18mm x 13mm x 9mm

Significance Assessments Two Aboriginal sites were recorded during the present field survey (sites AH144 and AH13388). These two sites have been assessed and allocated a rating of significance, based on the criteria presented in section 8.2. As discussed in section 8.2, Aboriginal sites are usually assessed in terms of their scientific and social significance. The concepts of Aesthetic significance and Historic significance are rarely applied in the assessment of Aboriginal sites unless there is direct evidence for European/Aboriginal contact activity at the site, or the site has specific and outstanding aesthetic values. However, based on advice received from AHT, aesthetic and historic significance values

Page | 5

have also been taken into consideration as part of the assessment of sites AH144 and AH13388. A five tiered rating system has been adopted for the significance assessment; low, low-medium, medium, medium-high and high. Table iii provides the summary details for significance ratings for sites AH144 and AH13388. A more detailed explanation for the assessment ratings are presented in section 8. A statement of social significance, prepared by Rocky Sainty, is presented in section 9 of this report. Table iii: Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 AH Site Number

Site Type Scientific Significance

Aesthetic Significance

Historic Significance

Social Significance

AH144 Shell midden /Isolated artefact

Low-Medium Medium N/A Medium

AH13388 Shell midden Low Medium N/A Low-medium Management Recommendations Heritage management options and recommendations provided in this report are made on the basis of the following criteria:

Consultation with Rocky Sainty (Aboriginal Heritage Officer); The legal and procedural requirements as specified in the Aboriginal Heritage Act

1975 (The Act); The results of the investigation as documented in this report; and Background research into the extant archaeological and ethno-historic record for the

study area and the surrounding region. The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of the proposed subdivision at Home Avenue Blackmans Bay on the Aboriginal cultural heritage resources present within the study area. Table iv provides a summary overview of the management recommendations. The more detailed recommendations are presented in section 11 of this report. Table iv: Summary Management Recommendations for the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area AH No. Grid Reference

(GDA 94) Site Type Management Recommendation

AH144 E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162

Site should be conserved in-situ and not impacted. Prior to development commencing, a durable, high visibility temporary barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of the site, with a 5m buffer applied. Barricades to be removed at completion of development works.

Page | 6

AH No. Grid Reference (GDA 94)

Site Type Management Recommendation

Construction workers to be made aware of the barricaded zone and informed that this site is not to be impacted. The medium term management measures outlined in section 11.2 should be followed post construction. If site may be impacted by the development then seek Permit. Sub-surface investigations may be required.

AH13388

E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351

Shell midden

If feasible, site should be conserved in-situ and not impacted. Prior to development commencing, a durable, high visibility temporary barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of the site, with a 5m buffer applied. Barricades to be removed at completion of development works. Construction workers to be made aware of the barricaded zone and informed that this site is not to be impacted. The medium term management measures outlined in section 11.2 should be followed post construction. If site may be impacted by the development then seek Permit.

Remainder of the Study Area

If, during the course of the proposed development works, previously undetected archaeological sites or objects are located, the processes outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be followed (see section 12). A copy of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be kept on site during all ground disturbance and construction work. All construction personnel should be made aware of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (the Act). Copies of this report should be submitted to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) and the Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) for review and comment.

Page | 7

Figure ii: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries

Page | 8

1.0 Project Outline 1.1 Project Details JMG are undertaking the planning approvals for a proposed residential subdivision on a 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, in South East Tasmania (see Figure 1). The property is located at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach. The eastern boundary of the property is bordered by Ocean Esplanade, with Blowhole Road running along the northern boundary of the site. Figures 2 and 3 show the property boundaries. The sub-division project is in the early planning phase, and the proposed Masterplan for the development footprint is yet to be finalised. CHMA Pty Ltd and Rocky Sainty (Aboriginal Heritage Officer) has been engaged by JMG (on behalf of the proponent) to undertake an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the subdivision proposal. The outcomes of the assessment will be used to inform the Masterplan design. This report presents the findings of the assessment. 1.2 Aims of the Investigation The principal aims of the current Aboriginal Heritage assessment are as follows.

To undertake an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment of the 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay property (the study area) in accordance with the process outlined by AHT and standards of archaeological best practice.

Search the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR) to identify previously registered Aboriginal heritage sites within and in the general vicinity of the study area.

Undertake relevant archaeological, environmental and ethno-historical background research to develop and understanding of site patterning within the study area.

To locate, document and assess any Aboriginal heritage sites located within the study area.

To assess the archaeological and cultural sensitivity of the study area. To assess the scientific and Aboriginal cultural values of any identified Aboriginal

cultural heritage sites located within the study area. Consult with (or ensure the Aboriginal community representative consults with)

Aboriginal organisation(s) and/or people(s) with an interest in the study area in order to obtain their views regarding the cultural heritage of the area.

To develop a set of management recommendations aimed at minimising the impact of the 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay subdivision proposal on any identified Aboriginal heritage values.

Prepare a report which documents the findings of the Aboriginal heritage assessment, and meets the standards and requirements of the current Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Procedures prepared by AHT, Department of Primary industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

Page | 9

1.3 Limitations of the Investigation All archaeological investigations are subject to limitations that may affect the reliability of the results. The main constraint to the present investigation was restricted surface visibility due primarily to grass and other vegetation cover, and the presence of built structures such as buildings and driveways within the central and western parts of the study area. At the time of the field survey, surface visibility across the study area was estimated to range between 10% to 40%, with the average being 20%. These constraints in visibility limited the effectiveness of the survey assessment to some extent. The issue of surface visibility is further discussed in section 6 of this report. 1.4 Project Methodology A three stage project methodology was implemented for this assessment. Stage 1 (Pre-Fieldwork Background Work) Prior to field work being undertaken, the following tasks were completed by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist). Consultation with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) was contacted and informed that a field survey was to be undertaken for the 15 Home Avenue Subdivision Project. As part of this initial contact a search request of the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR) was submitted to AHT in order to ascertain the presence of any previously registered sites in the vicinity of the study area (AHR search request submitted on the 28-11-2017). The collation of relevant documentation for the project As part of Stage 1 the following research was carried out and background information was collated for this project:

A review of the Aboriginal heritage Register (AHR) and the collation of information pertaining to any registered heritage sites located within the general vicinity of the study area;

Maps of the study area; Relevant reports documenting the outcomes of previous Aboriginal heritage

studies in the vicinity of the study area; Ethno-historic literature for the region; References to the land use history of the study area; GIS Information relating to landscape units present in the study area; Geotechnical information for the study area, including soil and geology data.

Consultation with Rocky Sainty (Aboriginal Heritage Officer) Rocky Sainty is the designated Aboriginal Heritage Officer for the present investigations. As part of Stage 1 works Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Rocky Sainty were in regular contact. The main purpose of this contact was to discuss the scope of the

Page | 10

present investigations, to ratify the proposed methodology for the investigations and to co-ordinate the timeframes for implementing field work. Stage 2 (Field Work) Stage 2 involved the field work component of the project. The field survey assessment was conducted over a period of 1 day (21-12-2017) by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Rocky Sainty (AHO). The field team walked a total of 2.2km of survey transects across the study area, with the average width of each transect being 5m. The survey transects were aligned so as to provide coverage over all parts of the study area. As part of the field survey assessment, the field team attempted to relocate and record any registered Aboriginal sites that were reported through the AHR search results as potentially being situated within the bounds of the study area. Section 6 provides further details as to the survey coverage achieved by the field assessment. Where Aboriginal heritage sites were identified, the following site features were recorded.

- The spatial extent of the site (polygon co-ordinates). - The nature of Aboriginal heritage deposits and features associated with the site. - Any intra-site variations that occur. - The condition of each site, and any notable impacts to the site. - Photos and site maps. - Proposed management recommendations (as discussed between the

archaeologist and AHO). AH site recording forms have been prepared and submitted for all sites recorded during the field survey program. The results of the field investigation were discussed by Rocky Sainty and Stuart Huys. This included the potential cultural and archaeological sensitivity of the study area, the significance of recorded sites, and appropriate management options for recorded sites. Stage 3 (Report Preparation) Stage three of the project involves the production of a Draft and Final Report that includes an analysis of the data obtained from the field survey, an assessment of archaeological sensitivity and management recommendations. The report has been prepared by Stuart Huys in consultation with Rocky Sainty. The report has been structured to comply with the standards and requirements of the current Guide to the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Process prepared by AHT, Department of Primary industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

Page | 11

Plate 1: Rocky Sainty, the Aboriginal Heritage Officer for this project

Page | 12

Figure 1: Topographic map showing the general location of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area

Page | 13

Figure 2: Topographic map showing the boundaries of the 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay

Page | 14

Figure 3: Aerial image showing the boundaries of the 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay

Page | 15

2.0 Environmental Setting of the Study Area 2.1 Introduction Prior to undertaking an archaeological survey of the study area, it is necessary to characterise the landscape. This includes considering environmental factors such as topography, geology, climate, vegetation and past and current landscape use. An assessment of the environmental setting helps to develop understanding of the nature of Aboriginal occupation and site patterning that might be expected to occur across the study area. In addition, it must be remembered that in Aboriginal society, the landscape extends beyond economic and technological behaviour to incorporate social geography and the embodiment of Ancestral Beings. The archaeological context is generally only able to record the most basic aspects of Aboriginal behaviour as they relate to artefact manufacture and use and other subsistence related activities undertaken across the landscape such as raw material procurement and resource exploitation. The distribution of these natural resources occurs intermittently across the landscape and as such, Aboriginal occupation and associated archaeological manifestations occur intermittently across space. However, the dependence of Aboriginal populations on specific resources means that an understanding of the environmental resources of an area accordingly provides valuable information for predicting the type and nature of archaeological sites that might be expected to occur within an area. The primary environmental factors known to affect archaeological patterning include the presence or absence of water, both permanent and ephemeral, animal and plant resources, stone artefact resources and terrain. Additionally, the effects of post-depositional processes of both natural and human agencies must also be taken into consideration. These processes have a dramatic effect on archaeological site visibility and conservation. Geomorphological processes such as soil deposition and erosion can result in the movement of archaeological sites as well as their burial or exposure. Heavily vegetated areas can restrict or prevent the detection of sites, while areas subject to high levels of disturbance may no longer retain artefacts or stratified deposits. The following sections provide information regarding the landscape context of the study area including topography, geology, soils and vegetation. 2.2 Landscape Setting of the Study Area The study area is located at Blackmans Bay, in the Southern Region of Tasmania. It is located on the north-east end of of a prominent north south trending peninsula which separates North West Bay and the River Derwent (see Figure 4). The peninsula is around 6km in length (north-south) and ranges in width from between 2-3km. The Tinderbox Hills are the dominant landscape feature on the peninsula.

Page | 16

Blackmans Bay Beach is situated on the western margins of the lower reaches of the River Derwent Estuary. The River Derwent estuary is a ‘ria’ or drowned river valley formed by coastal submergence about 6,000 years ago. The coast in this area is a medium energy, mixed shoreline, where Blackmans Bay Beach (a sandy shoreline) interfaces with extensive intertidal rock platforms to the north and south (see Plates 2 and 3). This mixed shoreline hosts a broad range of marine shell fish species which would have been an important component of the traditional Aboriginal diet. To the north and south of Blackmans Bay Beach are a series of steep cliffs that line the western foreshores of the River Derwent. The cliffs are vertical in this area, and tower to a height of around 30m above the extensive intertidal rock platforms. There are no named water courses that are situated within a 2km radius of the study area. There is an ephemeral drainage gully that runs immediately to the north of the study area boundary, emptying into the River Derwent at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach. The study area encompasses 3.6ha, and is located at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach, where the sandy shoreline interfaces with the intertidal rock platforms. The terrain across the study area is characteristically gently undulating, with the slope gradient in the range of 2-7⁰, and the direction of slope being west to east. The underlying geology of the study area is illustrated in Figure 5. The entire study area lies on unfossiliferous glaciomarine interbedded non-fissile and fissile siltstone and silty sandstone, with common bioturbation and lonestones, rare pebbly beds and fossiliferous beds. The top beds consist of laminated grey to brown siltstone. The information on the soil types across the study area is partially unavailable from The List. The soils in the northern part of the study area have been identified as Kurosols, according to the Australian Soil Classification. They are podzolic soils on mudstone 1. Soil Profile Class: Forcette. They are described as poor to imperfectly drained grey brown texture contrast soils that have been developed on Permian siltstone bedrock and colluvium on undulating to rolling (3-32%) land, characterised by rainfall of <750mm. It is highly probable that this type of soils extends southward across the entire study area. The vegetation structure across the entire study area is classified on TheList as Urban Land. The native vegetation across the entire 3.6ha study area has been cleared as part of past farming and urban development. The area has been extensively landdcaped, and replanted with intoruced grasses, and a mixture of exotic and native tree plantings. There are a number of buildings that have been constructed on the property, as well as access driveways, and a series of formed walking paths (see Plates 4-7). As a result of this vegetation clearing, landscaping and development, any Aboriginal heritage sites that may be situated within the study area will have been subject to moderate levels of disturbances.

Page | 17

Figure 4: The general topographic setting of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area

Page | 18

Figure 5: Geology underlying the study area. Image modified from The LIST

(Geological Polygons 1:25K) accessed 11 December 2017

Page | 19

Plate 2: View south across the sandy shoreline of Blackmans Bay Beach

Plate 3: View east at the intertidal rock platforms at the northern end of Blackmans Bay beach

Page | 20

Plate 4: View east across the study area, showing the cleared and landscaped grounds

Plate 5; View south-east across the study area showing landscaped gardens and formed walking path

Page | 21

Plate 6: View south-east at existing buildings within the study area

Plate 7: Driveway running through the study area, to the existing buildings

Page | 22

3.0 Ethno-historic Background 3.1 Ethno-historic Overview The following provides a brief overview of the nature of pre-contact Aboriginal groupings, Aboriginal concepts of land ownership, and the relationship of both these to Aboriginal land use in Australia. The purpose is to establish a basic framework of understanding regarding Aboriginal social organisation, within which the archaeology of the study area may be viewed. The overview presented here reveals the complexities of Aboriginal societies across Australia. It indicates the interrelated nature of the environment, religion and social structure in pre-contact Aboriginal societies and has implications for discussions of the archaeological record. The model of Aboriginal society divided into a series of tribes, based on Tindale’s 1974 is considered by contemporary anthropologists as largely defunct. However, this model permeates concepts of Australian Aboriginal social organisation and warrants a brief discussion. The tribe is described by early anthropologists as having rights over a defined tract of land, that included control over entry to people from outside and the right to hunt and extract resources from within the bounds of that area (Keen 2010:46). Several researchers have argued that this concept does not account for the complexities of social interaction and organisation found in Aboriginal society (eg Keen 2004). There has recently been a shift to attempts to describe Aboriginal society as multi layered and to explore interconnected relationships that operated within broad social groups. It is the band that is generally considered by anthropologists as the basic social and economic unit in Australian Aboriginal society (Service 1966, Peterson 1976). The band is defined as a small scale population, comprised of between two to six extended family units, or about 14 – 33 people who cooperate in the food quest (Service 1966; Keen 2004:106). The composition of this group (in terms of numbers) was not rigid; group size fluctuated in response to factors such as the availability of resources and visiting kin (Peterson 1976). Individual bands are seen to occupy and exploit a specific range (Service 1966). The concept of a band’s ‘range’ is not easily defined, and is therefore somewhat problematical to delineate. The ideal method of defining range would be to identify the outermost points of an area used by a group in order to demonstrate the total area, or range, in which that band operated. Yet, as Peterson (1986) points out, the kind of evidence needed to achieve this, (details of daily movements over several years) is not available for any group within Australia. Nor is such evidence likely to be discernible in the archaeological record. The practical alternative, both from an archaeological and an anthropological perspective, is to identify the base camps used over a period of time by a group. This provides a rough equivalent of a band’s range.

Page | 23

Bands were not socially or culturally isolate, but rather interacted with each other in a variety of ways. Typically, these interactions involved visitations, marriage, ceremonies and trade. Through these interactions, links were established or re-affirmed between neighbouring bands. The result was the formation of a cluster of bands, wherein there was some sense of collective identity, often expressed in terms of possessing a common and distinctive language (White & Cane 1986). It is these groups of interrelated bands that form the basic understanding of the ‘tribe’, but which are perhaps more usefully considered as broad social groups with loose geographical and cultural affiliations. Keen (2004:135) argues that a shared language did not necessarily indicate shared cosmic beliefs or social customs, nor did language or dialect clearly define social groups. Linguistic inheritance could be multi-layered. Trigger (1992:104) records how in some northern Australian societies most people were (a) multi-lingual and (b) adopted a primary linguistic label based on whether their present circumstances were aligned. This implies that linguistic affiliation was perhaps a less formal and more adaptive social mechanism. Trigger (1992:105) suggests that this undermines the concept of linguistic groups, which was a characteristic often used in the past to define ‘tribes’. Interestingly, Keen (2004:170) suggests that group identity was ‘most clearly defined’ in areas rich in resources, such as coastal zones, while people in more arid environments had less strongly applied rules governing identify. This reflects the imperative for desert people to be on solid relationships with their neighbours, to ensure economic support when resources were low. The following section discusses issues of Aboriginal connection to the land in more detail. Environmental Determinants of Social Organisation In cultures across the world it is impossible to separate natural landscapes from cultural landscapes (White 2003:188). From an archaeological perspective, it is equally impossible to discuss economy and subsistence without reference to the environment. As Sutton (2008:170) explains, WEH Stanner explored the connectedness of economy, environment and spirituality over forty years ago. This has come to the fore in contemporary anthropology. Stanner’s famous paper ‘Aboriginal territorial organisation: estate, range, domain and regime’ published in Oceania in 1965 was a benchmark as it provided a new framework within which to define and discuss Aboriginal land ownership (Peterson 2008:185). This framework separated concepts of land ownership from the land that people actually used. Peterson (2008:185) suggests that this was a fundamental shift that has influenced the last forty years of anthropological debate. In coastal and riverine environments where a higher population densities could be supported compared to desert environments, people could lead more sedentary lives (Keen 2004:103). In these situations the social organisation of neighbouring groups could become more individualised; whereas in more arid climates people relied on being

Page | 24

able to traverse vast tracts of land to access food and water, requiring closer social relations with neighbouring people (Keen 2004:103). This argument reflects Louis Binford’s model of ‘foragers’ and ‘collector’ societies. Foragers are highly mobile groups that move regularly and as a whole to new locations on order to exploit resources. In contrast, collector societies may move less often but rely on individual members of a society venturing out beyond the camp site location in order to provide the group with resources to continue residing at the location (Keen 2004:104). Keen (2004:104) suggests that most Australian Aboriginal societies fall within Binford’s ‘collectors’ model: forming home bases and voyaging out from these bases to exploit resources from the surrounding area, which could be very large. It was economically vital for Aboriginal people to be organised into bands, as this made groups more effective at surviving. Subsistence is more efficient and reliable if people are organised into groups that are larger than the nuclear family. This increases the number of ‘producers’ (people who can actively provide food for a group) and acts as a buffer against the sickness, injury or death of any one individual (Keen 2004:105). However, these groups could never become too large, as increased numbers reduce the mobility level of the band, as well as potentially leading to broader social disintegration (Keen 2004:106). The range of a band had to be capable of providing for the survival of the group for much of the year. Keen (2004) takes an economic view of range and presents a case for the range of a group to be determined by access to preferred food resources. As Keen argues, availability of foods, food preferences, production techniques and methods of transport all affect the means by which Aboriginal people across Australia were able to access food resources at varying times of the year. These factors therefore greatly affected mobility; groups had to be able to mobilise and move to where the preferred, available and accessible foods were located (Keen 2004:23). The factors that influence selection of a ‘home base’ are varied and illustrate the nature of pre-contact Aboriginal societies. Access to fresh water is probably the most fundamental requirement, and will be common to all home base sites. Distance to food resources is the next consideration. As Keen (2004:104) notes, it may be that home sites are better located adjacent to less transportable resources, rather than in areas where there is the highest abundance of food. The distance that an individual collector can travel within a single day forms an important scope of the range of the home base, and therefore the size of the resource pool available. Keen (2004:104) suggests that in hunter gatherer societies around the world, a distance of 20-30km is considered the maximum foraging distance from a home base. People could then establish smaller temporary camps away from the central home site to enable longer foraging journeys (Keen 2004:105).

Page | 25

Despite the difficulties faced in defining ranges, Peterson (1986) believes there is good evidence for supposing that bands are localised and generally have bounded and exclusive ranges. The most significant evidence is ethnographic accounts recording the elaborate rites of entry accorded to visitors when entering a band’s range (see Peterson 1986). However, there is no evidence to suggest that members of a band actively defended the boundaries of these ranges (Peterson 1986). Rather, it appears that the boundaries of a group’s ‘range’ were not necessarily clearly demarcated lines. Trigger describes these overlapping boundaries as ‘zones of transition’ (Trigger 2010:155). Ancestral law was the defining principle that controlled access to country and landmarks, including water sources (Keen 2004:299). Tied to this notion are concepts of cosmology, religion and the ongoing influence of the ancestors (Keen 2004:303). Keen suggests that: ‘ancestral significance integrated country, resources and technologies into the all-encompassing framework of ancestral law, not only as a mode of control, but as a way of being.’ (Keen 2004:303). Myers has also argued that ownership of territory was largely vested in knowledge of the ‘stories, objects, and ritual associated with the mythological ancestors of the Dreaming at a particular place (in Peterson 2008:192). 3.2 Aboriginal Social Organisation in South East Tasmania According to Jones (1974), the social organisation of Tasmanian Aboriginal society appears to have consisted of three social units, these being the hearth group, the band and the Tribe. The hearth group was the basic family unit and would generally have consisted of a man and woman, their children, aged relatives and sometimes friends and other relatives. The size of hearth groups would generally range from between 2-8 individuals (Jones 1974: Plomley 1983). Plomley (1983) provides a description made by Peron of a hearth group he encountered at Port Cygnet.

“There were nine individuals in this family, and clearly they represented a hearth group, because Peron visited their campsite with its single hut. The group comprised an older man and wife, a younger man and wife, and five children, one a daughter (Oure-Oure) of the older man and wife, and the other four the children of the younger man and wife” (Plomley 1983:168).

The band appears to have been the basic social unit and was comprised of a number of hearth groups (Jones 1974). Jones (1974:324-325) suggests that the band owned a territory and that the boundaries of this territory would coincide with well-marked geographic feature s such as rivers and lagoons. Whilst the band often resided within its territory, it also foraged widely within the territories of other bands. Brown (1986:21) states that the band was led by a man, usually older that the others and who had a reputation as a formidable hunter and fighter. Brown also suggests that the band (as well as the hearth group) was ideally exogamous, with the wife usually moving to her husband’s band and hearth group.

Page | 26

Each band was associated with a wider political unit which has been termed a Tribe. Despite difficulties with the concept of the tribe as the basis of understanding pre-contact Aboriginal society outlined above, it is a useful term to describe the broadly grouped people who occupied a certain geographical area. Jones (1974:328-329) describes the Tribe as being:

“…that agglomeration of bands which lived in contiguous regions, spoke the same language or dialect, shared the same cultural traits, usually intermarried, had a similar pattern of seasonal movement, habitually met together for economic and other reasons, the pattern of whose peaceful relations were within the agglomeration and of whose enmities and military adventures were directed outside it. Such a tribe had a territory, consisting of the sum of the land owned by its constituent bands…The borders of a territory ranged from a sharp well defined line associated with a prominent geographic feature to a broad transition zone. “

According to Ryan (Ryan 2012:14), the Aboriginal population of Tasmania was aligned within a broad framework of nine Tribes, with each Tribe comprising between six to fifteen bands. The mean population of each Tribe is estimated to have been between 350 and 470 people, with overall population estimates being in the order of between 3000-5000 people prior to European occupation (Ryan 2012:14-15). Ryan (2012:13) presents a map showing the approximate boundaries for the nine Tasmanian Aboriginal Tribes. This map shows that the study area falls within the boundaries of land occupied by the South East Nation (see Figure 6). The South East Nation were a maritime people with their territory encompassing 555km of coast line and their economy based on coastal resources. The boundaries of their territory extended from the west bank of the Derwent River, around present day New Norfolk down to South Cape, and inland to the Huon Valley. The territory included all the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Bruny Island. In total, the territory of the South East tribe encompassed 3500km² (Ryan 2012:39-40). It is believed that the South East Tribe probably consisted of seven individual bands. However, only four bands were definitively recorded by the early European settlers. Of these four bands, it is possible that the study area falls within the range of the Mouheneenner Band who occupied the land around present day Hobart (Ryan 2012:40). However, it is also thought that a separate band occupied the area around North West Bay, in which case the study area would likely fall within the territory of this North West Bay band (Ryan 2012:40).

Page | 27

Figure 6: The location of the study area which is situated within the territory of the South East Nation (Map taken from Ryan (2012:13) Ethnographic and Historical Sources The D’Entrecasteaux Channel was the theatre for much of the early contact between European explorers and the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. The south east people therefore bore the brunt of successive waves of contact, but were also the subject of early ethnographic observations that provide a glimpse into their daily lives. From 1772

Page | 28

when French Captain Marion Dufresne went ashore, both French and British ships anchored in the channel at regular intervals over the next thirty years (Plomley 2008:22). The French explorers in particular recorded pertinent observations on the Aboriginal people of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. The voyages of Marion Dufresne (1772-73), Bruni D’Entrecasteaux (1792-93) and Nicholas Baudin (1802-03) are especially relevant to the present study. All of these voyages included scientists, naturalists, geographers, astronomers, surgeons and artists who recorded a significant body of work. The artists Charles Alexandre Lesueur and Nicholas-Martin Petit on the Baudin expedition created a detailed pictorial record of the Aboriginal people of the Channel (see Bonnemains et al 1988). The Subsistence Economy of the South East People Information gleaned from the variety of ethnographic and historical sources for south east Tasmania provides some illustration of the subsistence economy in this region. There are a number of ethno-historic accounts that comment on the prevalence of shellfish and crustaceans in the diet of the local inhabitants (see Plomley 1966 and 1983). The archaeological evidence (in the form of midden sites) provides testimony to this. In contrast, archaeological evidence for the consumption of fish is comparatively very sparse. This has led to some suggestions that fish was not a component of the diet of the Tasmanian Aborigines (see Jones 1974). At Adventure Bay in 1777 Cook reported how Aboriginal people refused a gift of fish (AT 2010:10). Robinson also recorded an instance of trying to convince his Aboriginal companions to eat fish, and the strong reluctance which they demonstrated (Plomley 2008:59). Ethnographic accounts also indicate that terrestrial fauna was an important component of the Aboriginal diet. This is particularly the case with kangaroos and wallabies, which appear to have been hunted en masse at certain times of the year. McGowan (1985:92), for example reports that in May 1804 a large group of Aborigines, variously estimated to be up to 500 individuals, including men women and children were observed hunting kangaroo near the first European settlement at Risdon Cove. Robinson provides an account of the ‘chief’ Mannalargennana of the Oyster Bay tribe cooking wallaby:

…The animal is first thrown on the fire whole as is their custom with all animals, and when the hair is singed they take the carcase off the fire and rub off the scorched hair with their hands. This practice is tenaciously observed with all animals except the possum; the fur of this animal is first pulled off previous to its being placed on the fire. After the chief has rubbed the hair off the wallaby, he broke the fore leg by twisting it with his hands…He then cut the hind legs, after which he made a hole in the belly with his fingers and pulled out the entrails and

Page | 29

then thrust in some hot ashes, the animal being previously roasted outside. (Plomley 1966:548-549).

Possum also seems to have been frequently hunted. Plomley (1966:533) describes possums being knocked down out of trees with waddies, or people climbed trees to reach possum holes. Women again are recorded as hunting possum. Robinson records how foot and hand holes were cut in trees to assist climbing and the women used fibre ropes to pull themselves up the trunk (Plomley 1966:533). Unfortunately, there are very few accounts available for the hunting of other terrestrial fauna. It is likely that a much wider range of species were targeted, including echidna and smaller marsupials. In the midlands region, birds and eggs appear to have also formed a major component of the diet of the local inhabitants, with swans, ducks and red bills being some of the main species targeted (Plomley 1966: 217). However, there are very few historical accounts are available for South East Tasmanian regarding the hunting of birds and gathering of eggs. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that this also was carried out at certain times of the year. Only a few plant foods are documented in the ethohistoric accounts as having been eaten. This includes a bulbous plant known as ‘native bread’ and a plant that has the appearance of asparagus which was found by the roots of peppermint trees (Plomley 1966). It is very likely that many more plant foods were eaten by the local Aboriginal population. Jones (1971:91-95) for example lists 70 edible plant species that are available in Tasmania, and are likely to have been consumed at times of seasonal availability. This would include tree ferns, fern roots, pig face and a variety of sea weeds. Material Culture The ethnographic observations of early European explorers provide a valuable snapshot into aspects of the material cultural and social customs of the Aboriginal people of south east Tasmania. These observations are especially valuable where they describe to those items and practices that do not survive in the archaeological record. Clothing, shelter, weapons and hunting tools are all aspects of material culture described in ethnographic sources. While the early European explorers generally recorded the people of South East Tasmania as being mostly naked, there are references to kangaroo skin being used for capes, slings and binding for wounds. Both William Anderson (Cook’s surgeon in 1777 when he anchored briefly in Adventure Bay) and Labillardiere (the 1793 expedition anchored in Recherche Bay) recorded seeing kangaroo skin used to bind injured feet (Dyer 2005:25). This was very effective it would seem as the people were able to keep up with their companions (Dyer 2005:26). Cook also recorded women using kangaroo skin slings to carry children, and there are several illustrations of this in the paintings by

Page | 30

Petit and Lasueur from the Baudin expedition (Bonnemains et al 1988). Baudin’s diaries suggest that women wore kangaroo skins slung across their shoulders, which provided both warmth and a means of carrying children and other items (Cornell 1974:329). Ethnographic sources document a range of shelters used in Tasmania. The most common in the south east were simple windbreaks of thick strips of bark woven together and supported on vertical wooden poles, as seen in the artwork from the Baudin expedition (Bonnemains et al 1988). These shelters were often built facing west, offering protection against the cold winds off the Channel to the east (AT 2010:16). The other major type of shelter in south eastern Tasmania was a durable, weatherproof structure made from bending leafy branches together to form a ‘beehive’ looking hut (AT 2010:15). Robinson reported seeing huts that were decorated with symbols he recognised as similar to those observed in rock engraving sites at Cape Grim (Plomley 2008:17). In June 1804 Lieutenant Governor Collins made contact with Aboriginal people living on the Huon River (Plomley 2008:18). He recorded an ‘Aboriginal village’ with about twenty families congregated at the site. Labilliare similarly documented seeing a group of 5-6 huts made of ‘leafy branches’ and surrounded by a single fire, suggesting communal cooking, and piles of shellfish (AT 2010:16). Plomley (1983:185-194) provides a comprehensive account of the weapons and hunting implements used by the Tasmanian Aborigines, based on the ethnographic accounts. It appears that the two main weapons used by the local inhabitants were the spear and the club. The spear was a simple flexible rod with a point at one end, the length of which appears to have varied significantly from between 6-12 feet. Spears in south east Tasmania do not seem to have been hafted with points, nor were they barbed (AT 2010:17). The waddie or club is described as a piece of wood about 60cm long, 2.5cm in diameter and slightly tapered toward the gripping end. This item is reported to have been used as a throwing stick as well as a club. In addition, Labilliardere records women at Recherche Bay collecting shellfish using a small chisel like wooden implement to prise the shellfish from the rocks (Plomley 1983:22). In many of the early ethnographic accounts for the south east region, there is reference to the baskets carried by the Aboriginal people. The ethnographic sources indicate at least four different types of basket making in south east Tasmania. There are a number of reports of water vessels constructed from the fronds of giant kelp which could hold up to five to ten litres of water (see Labillardiere 1800:190). Other types include braided baskets made from bark and dried seaweed, woven rush baskets and grass baskets made from a grass called an iris that grew on Bruny Island (AT 2010:17). One of the more detailed descriptions of basket manufacture comes from Robinson while he was on Bruny Island:

Page | 31

The native basket is made of rushes of a species of grass called iris. In preparing them for use they place the same on a slow fire which gives them a tenacity that enables the manufacturer to twist them into threads. These are plaited together and then formed into a basket which in shape is somewhat semiglobular. (Plomley 1966:58)

There are numerous ethnographic accounts for the south east region describing the watercraft used by the local inhabitants. From these accounts it appears that the south east people were active in their travels between the mainland and the numerous offshore islands. One of the most detailed descriptions of these watercraft comes from Louis Freycinet, an officer on the Naturalist in 1802:

We have seen them and have measured several. They had the same dimensions and were constructed in exactly the same way. Three roles of the bark of the eucalypt made up its whole structure…These bundles when taken separately, resemble in a way the yard of a vessel, were joined at their ends, and this caused them to stick up in a point and make up the whole of the canoe. The assemblage was made quite firm with a sort of grass or sedge. In this state, the craft had the following dimensions-

Length inside 2.95m Breadth outside 0.89m Total height 0.65m Depth inside 0.22m Size at the ends 0.27m

The savages can put five or six peoples in these canoes; but more commonly only three or four are taken at a time. Their paddles are plain pieces of wood… Usually they sit down to manoeuvre their canoes; in that case they place bundles of grass to serve as seats. At other times they stand up. We have seen them cross the Channel only in fine weather. One can imagine that such a fragile and imperfect craft would never be able to make their way, let alone keep afloat, in a rough sea… It is to be noted that they always put a fire at one end of their canoes, and to prevent the fire from spreading they place under it a bed of earth or ashes of sufficient thickness. (Plomley 1983:119-120).

Interestingly, although stone artefacts dominate the archaeological record for Tasmania (and Australia generally), there are few ethnographic accounts in Tasmania documenting their use. Those observations that are made, primarily relate to the finding of stone implements at camp sites. Frustratingly, there are virtually no accounts regarding the form of the implements, how they were made and used. Robinson reports that he:

Page | 32

Obtained a stone from one of the Bruny natives with which they sharpen their waddies…It has the resemblance of flint and is found at the Isthmus of Brune [sic] (Plomley 1966:113)

One of the very few descriptions of Aboriginal people carrying out quarrying activity comes from Raynor who recounted that his father had come across about 20-30 Aborigines, men, women and children, at a quarry near Plenty on the southern side of the middle Derwent Valley:

Noisily chatting, they were breaking the stone into fragments, either by dashing them on the rocks or by striking them with other stones, and picking up the sharp edged ones for use… (Raynor in Roth 1899:151)

This quarry was subsequently visited by Rhys Jones, who noted that the quarried material was an indurated cherty hornfel and that the quarry extended over an area of about 2 ½ hectares (Jones 1971:456). Aboriginal people of south east Tasmania are described as frequently bearing tattoos and cicatrices. The ethnographers generally describe these as decorative, although it is likely that they held a range of other meanings as well. Robinson described the process of cutting the skin with a sharp stone and rubbing the wound with charcoal or red ochre mixed with animal fat (Plomley 2008:137). The scarring was observed on both men and women and typically was either in the form of a series of short lines, or straight, concentric or circular liens across the chest (AT 2010:25). At Rocky Bay Labillieire noted that people rubbed their bodies with powdered charcoal and records one man whose cropped hair was ‘plastered with ochre’ (AT 2010:25). Burial Practices Burial customs were also observed by the ethnographers. Cremation was the usual form of disposing of a deceased person (Plomley 2008:17). The cremated remains were observed by Robinson to sometimes be wrapped in kangaroo skins and carried as an amulet by members of the deceased person’s clan (AT 2010:21). Robinson reports on a funeral pyre built by both men and women of branches and twigs. The body was placed on the pyre with bound arms and legs. This was left to burn for a day, with the relatives returning the following day. The remains were collected and burnt a second time, after which the ash was scattered through the grass (Plomley 2008:17). Other burial practices in the south east region include internment and burial in hollow trees. Illustrations from the Baudin expedition show ‘tombs’ at Maria Island (Bonnemains et al 1988:131). These were bark tepee-like constructions built over remains that have been covered in fibres or leaves weighted down by rocks (Bonnemains et al 1988:131). The practice of placing remains in hollow trees in the south east region is reported by Robinson (Plomley 2008; AT 2010:21). Hollow tree burials are perhaps associated with violent deaths, as occurred in the Central Highlands (AT 2010:20).

Page | 33

Land Management Aboriginal people across South Eastern Tasmania appear to have actively managed their environment. Historical sources provide numerous references to burning vegetation. AT (2010:9) suggest that this had a range of applications, including modifying the environment, attracting terrestrial game, encouraging edible plant regrowth and maintaining pathways used to travel across the country. Robinson recorded that Aboriginal people in the south east would travel along ‘well beaten paths’ and leave abalone shells at drinking places along rivers (Plomley 2008:59). Aboriginal pathways were also utilised by the first European settlers to the area. The Aboriginal people of the south east greatly valued fire and there are several first-hand accounts of fire being transported by means of burning torches or ‘fire brands’. In 1777 Bligh recorded seeing a basket of white ‘flint like stones’ at Adventure Bay (AT 2010:12). These are likely to have been fire brands. Baudin in 1802 reported seeing a ‘multiplicity of fires’ burning in ‘on all sides’ from where his ship was anchored in North West Bay (AT 2010:12). Captain Hamlin reported to Baudin watching two Aboriginal men pull up their canoe at North West Bay and walk into the scrub, setting fire to the undergrowth as they walked (AT 2010:12). Contact Marion Dufresne’s 1772 landing illustrates the complex nature of contact on the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. Marion begins by describing a peaceful meeting between one of his longboats and a group of about forty Aboriginal men on the beach (Smith 2003:13-14). The French interpret the gestures of the Aboriginal party to be welcoming; two French sailors strip off their clothes and swim ashore. Upon reaching land, an Aboriginal man offered Marion a burning torch, which the French considered to be a gift of welcome. The parties exchanged items such as mirrors and buttons, and singing and dancing ensued. However, at the approach of a second French boat the Aboriginal men took up their spears that had been lying on the beach. Marion and his party obviously felt threatened and retreated to their boat. Marion recorded that spears and stones rained down upon his men. They responded by firing a musket volley which wounded several men and was later found to have killed one of the Aboriginal men. Upon finding the body later upon the beach Marion described broken spears that had been placed around the body as an offering (Smith 2003:13-14). Another significant moment in contact history occurred when D’Entrecasteaux’s two ships the Recherche and the Esperance were anchored for five weeks in what is now Recherche Bay (Smith 2003:15). D’Entrecasteaux made detailed records of the bay, the Aboriginal people living there and Tasmanian flora and fauna. They established an observatory and were responsible for taking the first measurements of the earth’s magnetic field in the southern hemisphere from this observatory (Smith 2003:16).

Page | 34

The scientist Labillardiere and gardener La Haye happened upon a group of about forty Aboriginal men, women and children in February 1793 while exploring the land around the Recherche Bay settlement (Dyer 2005:89). Labillardiere approached the eldest man and offered him some biscuit, demonstrating that it could be eaten by eating some himself. Labilliardiere then held out his hand and the man:

…gave me his, inclining himself a little and raising at the same time his left foot…these motions were accompanied by a most pleasing smile. (Dyer 2005:89)

Labilliardiere and La Haye were guided back to their ship by some of the Aboriginal party, who assisted them through the scrub (Dyer 2005:90). This episode is remarkable in the social customs of greetings that it records, and also in the friendliness of the cultural encounter. Perhaps of greatest relevance to the study area are the observations recorded by Baudin, who anchored in North West Bay in the summer of 1802 – 1803 (Cornell 1974:311). Baudin spent some weeks exploring the south east coast and observing the Aboriginal people. His journals describe numerous meetings with Aboriginal people that were generally amicable on both sides. Baudin and his men investigated the North West Bay River as a possible source of fresh water (Cornell 1974:311). The astronomers of the expedition camped at site in the vicinity of the North West Bay River mouth in the hope of observing Jupiter pass across the sun on the night of the 22nd January 1803 (Cornell 1974:312). Baudin records numerous fires along the beaches of North West Bay, and observes Aboriginal people crossing from the D’Entrecasteaux Channel in what he describes as their ‘miserable canoes’ (Cornell 1974:312). In his meetings with the Aboriginal people of D’Entrecasteaux Channel Baudin describes how ‘mutual trust was immediately established’ (Cornell 1974:302). This was achieved through the exchange of gifts such as mirrors, buttons and knives from the Europeans. However, he notes that the Aboriginal people generally declined to eat any of the biscuits or bread offered by the French. Englishman Captain Walsh reported the friendly cultural relations that were established on Bruny Island when he visited in 1828 (Plomley 2008:49). By 1828 of course, the British settlement of Van Dieman’s Land was well established. The chief at the time is recorded as an older woman called Nelson and up to fifty people were known to gather at Bruny Island and the southern channel to meet arriving government ships. The Europeans and Aboriginal people hunted and fished together, with the Europeans trading bread for shellfish and other fresh foods (Plomley 2008:49). However, Robinson was later told of a Mr Taw who had found a severed Aboriginal hand on the beach at Bruny Island, and had also taken a skeleton from Bruny which he presented to Dr Grant (Plomley 2008:750). It is clear from such varying accounts that contact in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel was complex and multi-faceted.

Page | 35

Frontier Violence It appears that outside the initial settlements at Risdon and Sullivan’s Cove, there was a brief period or amicable relations between Aboriginal people and the European settlers. This is certainly a pattern documented in other parts of Tasmania, for example at Brighton (CHMA 2011) and AT (2010) that there is evidence to suggest this applies to the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. However, any period of friendly relations was short lived and by 1806 there were reports of Aboriginal people attacking settlers at Brown’s River (AT 2010:6). In 1802 Baudin described Aboriginal people he met along the Channel as gentle and peaceful, but by 1806 James Kelly reported that a group of 300 Aboriginal people had gathered at Brown’s River and prevented Kelly’s party from collecting water (AT 2010:9). However, when Knopwood also met a group of several hundred Aboriginal people at Brown’s River he reported that both groups were on very friendly terms and exchanged gifts (AT 2010:9). It is possible that while Kelly was seeking to obtain a resource, Knopwood was there to visit the people, which may have influenced the outcomes of each encounter. At any event, by the 1810s in the immediate vicinity of Hobart, pressure for resources was putting a strain on the colony, and leading to increasing conflict with the Aboriginal people of the surrounding districts. In the first years of the settlement at Hobart the surrounding areas became vital hunting grounds supplying kangaroo meat to the struggling colony on the brink of starvation (Alexander 2006:5). The economic importance of the kangaroo hunters to the success of the colony cannot be over emphasised. Without the supply of kangaroo meat the government would have been unable to meet the rations and maintain the settlement (Boyce 2009:52). The reliance of the colonisers on kangaroo brought them into direct conflict with the Aboriginal people. At first, the Europeans were at an advantage as they had hunting dogs that greatly increased the numbers of kangaroo that a hunter could kill (Boyce 2009:52). But, Aboriginal people quickly adapted to the use of dogs, an example of rapid cultural and economic adaptation. This brought the two groups onto a more even par (Boyce 2009:66). This period of parity only lasted while the European population was small; as early as 1806 the kangaroo populations around Hobart had been decimated and the hunters were being forced to move further north, towards the Brighton district (Boyce 2009:54). The British settlement was literally starving, and there was a strong economic imperative for hunters to extend to the north in search of fresh sources of game. As the settlement continued to expand, both the colonists need for a meat supply, and their transformation of the hunting grounds into cleared, pastoral farms set the scene for an escalation in conflict (Boyce 2009).

Page | 36

Clashes with Aboriginal communities became more frequent and more violent as European settlement expanded. Lieutenant Governor George Arthur proclaimed Martial Law in November 1828, leading to the active pursuit, capture and death of many Aboriginal people. A bounty was introduced in February 1830 of five pounds for every adult captured and two pounds for each child. In the two years between November 1828 and November 1830 some twenty Aboriginal people were captured and a further sixty lost their lives (Ryan 1996:102). This violence culminated in the declaration in November 1828 of Martial Law against the Aboriginal people in the ‘settled areas’ (Ryan 1996:101). A series of six ‘roving parties’ were established for the purposes hunting and capturing the remaining Aboriginal occupants of the settled areas. This military action resulted in a general increase in the scale of violent conflict between Europeans and Aboriginals, and by 1830 it was decided that a full scale military offensive was required in order to quell the Aboriginal uprising. This operation, termed the ‘Black Line’, involved the assembly of 2000 men in October 1830. They formed a human chain that swept through the settled districts over a period of three weeks, with the aim of driving the remnant Aboriginal populations from these areas. The Black Line was Governor Arthur’s response to repeated insistence from settlers that Aboriginal people should be removed from the midlands (Alexander 2006:15). This reflects the level which conflict had reached by 1830. Martial Law was finally revoked in 1832 (Ryan 1996:112-113). The Black Line itself proved to be a dismal failure, with the total capture of two Aborigines and death of another three. However, it was sufficiently distressing to the general Aboriginal community that more than two hundred people subsequently allowed themselves to be persuaded by George Augustus Robinson (the ‘Protector of Aborigines’) to relocate to Flinders Island in exchange for food, shelter and safety (Lines 1991:47). They were further promised that they would be returned to their former homes on the Tasmanian mainland as soon as possible. By 1835 the majority of the 220 Aborigines who arrived with Robinson at the Wybalenna Aboriginal establishment on Flinders Island had died from inadequate shelter, insufficient provisions and introduced disease. Birth rates were extremely low and few children survived infancy. In 1847 six Aborigines at Wybalenna made a petition to Queen Victoria asking that the promises made to them be honoured. In October 1847, the surviving 47 Aborigines were transferred to their final settlement at Oyster Cove. Only forty four people survived the trip (Lines 1991:47). The Oyster Cove settlement was located just to the north of Kettering. Conditions at Oyster Cove were only marginally better than at Wybalenna and the Aboriginal population continued to experience high mortality rates. However, throughout the 1850s and 1860s the European settlers recorded numerous anecdotes of Aboriginal people at Oyster Cove maintaining elements of their pre-contact lifestyle (AT 2010:26). The best

Page | 37

known example is Fanny Cochrane who married ex-convict William Sawyer. She is reputed to have practiced traditional shellfish gathering, basket making, medicine and religious practices (AT 2010:27). Implications of the Ethnographic Record The ethnographic record of observations by the early European explorers reveals many aspects of the past that are not preserved in the archaeological record. The nature of contact, albeit seen from a European perspective, is described in detail by several ethnographers (for example Labillardiere, Baudin and Robinson). These records show the complex nature of contact, the curiosity, fear, welcoming and confusion of two vastly different cultures coming together.

Page | 38

4.0 Background Archaeology 4.1 Regional Studies The study area is within the south-east region of Tasmania. There have been a number of Aboriginal archaeological studies undertaken within the south-east region over the past two decades. The majority of these have been in the form of survey assessments associated with proposed development activities, and have focused on discreet areas (these are summarised in section 4.2) However, there has also been some broader research based investigations undertaken in the region. Probably the most comprehensive of these and the one most pertinent to the present investigations are that of Officer (1980) and Brown (1986). Officer (1980) Iain Officer (1980) carried out an extensive survey of the Derwent Estuary region, as part of his thesis works. The areas covered by the survey investigations extended from Blinking Billy Point (west bank of River) and Trywork (east bank of River), upstream to New Norfolk. The survey assessment in this area involved walking a series of survey transects along the shoreline of the River, with transects in some areas extending up to 1km inland from the River. In the course of his investigations, Officer recorded a total of 416 midden sites. Of these, 298 were located on the east bank of the River and 118 on the west bank (Officer 1980). The shell midden sites identified by Officer were predominantly comprised of mussel (Mytilus planulatus, Xenostrobus secures or Brachidontes rostratus) and oyster (Ostrea angasi). A wide range of other shell fish species were represented in low numbers at a number of these sites (Officer 1980). Stone artefacts were observed at 33 of the recorded midden sites (28 artefacts on the east bank and 5 artefacts on the west bank). A wide range of stone material types were represented in these artefact assemblages, including cherty hornfels, silicified breccia, mudstone, chalcedony, quartz, basalt and dolerite (Officer 1980). Bone material was observed at only four midden site locations, indicating that for whatever reason, bone material in middens on the Derwent River is a rare occurrence (Officer 1980). One of the areas intensively surveyed by Officer (1980) was Bedlam Walls, which lies on the east side of the Derwent River, between Geilston Bay and Risdon Cove and extends up to 1.2km inland from the shore of the River. This area incorporates the present Study Area. Officer (1980) recorded a total of 74 sites in this area (sites AH 1184-1257). The vast majority of sites are classified as middens, however, three stone quarries and one rock shelter was also identified. A large number of the midden sites (28%) are described as being extensive, covering in excess of 1000m², with the largest site being over

Page | 39

8000m² (Officer 1980). The midden sites range from being located immediately on the shore line through to up to 530m inland from the shore. The dominant shell material represented in these midden sites was the black mussel (Mytilus planulatus) and oyster (Ostrea angasi). Officer (1980) notes that a local resident (Dr Jacklyn) also recorded a large number of Aboriginal sites in the Bedlam Walls area, in the period between 1965-1973. The sites recorded by Officer (1980) included those site identified by Dr Jacklyn. Officer identified an additional 19 midden sites to those identified by Jacklyn. As part of his recording efforts, Dr Jacklyn carried out an extensive salvage of stone artefacts in the Bedlam Walls area. Jennings (1983) subsequently undertook an analysis of this collection. Jennings (1983) reports that of the 1016 pieces of stone material collected by Dr Jacklyn, 991 pieces are determined as being stone artefacts, giving an average artefact density for the area of 381 artefacts/km². The majority of artefacts were collected from the shoreline area between Shag Bay and Geilston Bay (641 artefacts). Of the 991 artefacts, 633 were un-worked and 358 are worked. Stone material types represented in the assemblage include hornfels, quartzites, chalcedony and sub-basaltic hornfels (Jennings 1983). Brown (1986) Steve Brown (1986) was engaged to carry out the South East Tasmanian Archaeology Project. This was one of nine regional overview studies, funded through National Estate grants, which were directed at examining the Aboriginal archaeological resources of Tasmania. The aims or duty statement for the South East Tasmanian Archaeology Project was to define the prehistory of the region and to define present and potential future impacts on the Aboriginal heritage resources in the region. As part of his research design, Brown (1986:49-50) divided the landscape of the south-east region into landform unit types. Five major landform unit divisions were identified. These were;

- small offshore islands, - Bruny Island, - coastal and estuarine environments (consisting of coastal margins, coastal

plains, river estuaries, lagoons and swamps), - inland hills, plains and river valleys, and - inland mountains (alpine plateau).

Brown (1986:49-50) then collated available archaeological data for these landscape units, including the range of site types present, the site components and the distribution and frequency of sites. The data was generated from previous archaeological investigations undertaken in the region, as well as the findings from the field work carried out by Brown.

Page | 40

The field survey investigations implemented by Brown (1986:50-52) involved a selective sampling procedure, where block surveys were undertaken at three designated areas, these being Bruny Island, the Coal River, and Bothwell. In addition, more general survey assessments were carried out at a variety of locations. Of the five landscape units identified by Brown (1986), the most pertinent to the present investigations are the coastal and estuarine environments. The following provides an overview of the findings, as presented by Brown (1986) for these five landform units. Small Offshore Islands There is large number of offshore islands situated off the coast of South East Tasmania. The largest of these is Bruny Island, which because of its size was treated as a separate landform unit by Brown (1986). The remaining islands range in size from a few kilometres square to less than a hundred metres square. Brown (1986) notes that very few of these islands had been surveyed for Aboriginal sites, and that only a handful of sites had been recorded on a few islands, specifically Partridge Island, Betsey Island and Sterile Island. As part of his field work, Brown (1986) carried out very brief survey assessments of both Partridge Island and Betsey Island. At Partridge Island Brown (1986) identified four Aboriginal sites (three isolated artefacts and a stone arrangement). Brown (1986) acknowledges the very preliminary nature of the assessment carried out of the Island and states that until further detailed inspections were undertaken, any discussions of the archaeological resources of the island would be meaningless. Bruny Island Bruny Island is around 50km in length and up to 10km wide, and is located just off the South-east coast of Tasmania. Brown (1986) reports that 162 sites had been recorded on Bruny Island at the time of writing the report. Of these, 112 sites were recorded by Brown as part of his investigations, with the remaining 50 sites having been previously recorded. The site types recorded include 61 isolated artefacts, 87 artefact scatters, 24 midden and shell scatter sites, four stone quarries and three stone arrangements (N.B. It appears that some of these recorded sites are composite site, comprising different site features, and as a result the figures for recorded sites do not match). Brown (1986) suggests that the extent and distribution of archaeological sites on Bruny Island demonstrate a widespread use and exploitation of the Island. It is noted that sites are predominantly distributed away from the sandy coastlines, occurring most frequently on the edges of the lagoons and marshes of the Island. Brown (1986) speculates that these were probably areas where a variety of resources were concentrated.

Page | 41

Inland Hills, Plains and River Valleys This landscape unit was the largest of the five unit divisions established by Brown (1986) for the South-east Tasmanian region. It is also the most pertinent landscape unit in relation to the present investigation, as the study area lies within a River valley system. Brown (1986:93-97) reports that open artefact scatters are the most common site type identified in the Inland Hills, Plains and River Valley zone. The greatest number of these sites is reported as occurring on the valley and creek floors and the foot slopes adjoining these areas. It appears that site and artefact densities appear to be comparatively much lower on mid and upper hill slopes and on ridges and crests. The largest artefact scatters (those comprising over 50 artefacts) have a number of site location factors in common. They are all situated on well drained sandy soils. They are in slightly elevated positions above river and creek floodplains. They usually have a northerly aspect, and finally the sites are generally situated in close proximity to a fresh water source. For medium and small sized artefact scatters there appears to be no distinct pattern of distribution (Brown 1986:93-97). The range of stone artefacts identified at sites in this zone includes the debris of stone artefact manufacturing and maintenance (fragments, flakes, flake fragments, flaked pieces and cores). Retouched stone artefacts include a large variety of scrapers. Unmodified cobbles have also been identified at a range of sites. The reduction of stone material appears to have occurred mainly at the source location. Backed artefacts appear to absent from the site assemblages in this zone, and in South-east Tasmania in general, and pebble choppers appear to be rare (Brown 1986:94). Numerous stone quarry/procurement sites have been identified in the Inland Hills and Plains zone. These sites range in size from areas where a few boulders of cobbles have been flaked through to extensive sites such as the Oyster Cover quarry site. The quarried stone material types include silcrete, quartzites, cherty hornfels, chalcedony and silicified breccia (Brown 1986:95). Sandstone rock shelters and overhangs are common in the Inland hills and Plains zone. In the majority of instances artefacts are not found on the shelter floor surfaces. Brown (1985:94) postulates that this may be due to accelerated depositional rates in sandstone shelters. Paintings have been recorded at two sandstone rock shelters, with both occurring near Ellendale in the upper Derwent Valley (Brown 1985:97). Interestingly, Brown (1986:96) reported that no ochre sources, ochre quarries, or stone arrangements had been identified in this zone. Coastal and Estuarine Regions The Coastal and Estuarine Regions consists of coastal margins, coastal plains, river estuaries, lagoons and swamps. It encompasses the Derwent River.

Page | 42

Brown (1986:79) notes that shell middens are by far the most common site type occurring within the coastal and estuarine environmental zone. A number of trends were observed in relation to the distribution of this site type within the coastal and estuarine environmental zone, and the composition of materials at these sites. These are summarised as follows.

- Middens are generally not present in areas with steep shore profiles. - The greatest number of middens was identified on coast lines which contain a

mixture of rocky headlands and short sandy beaches (mixed coast areas). - On long sandy beaches the volume of midden material was found to decline with

distance from a rocky coast. - Middens are essentially comprised of two types; rocky coastal and bay estuarine,

reflecting different landscape settings. However, middens with shell species common to both these types occur in intermediate zones such as estuary and lagoon mouths.

- The largest rocky coastal shell middens occur on rocky headlands and points, with associated rock platforms, where abalone, turbo, mussels and limpets occur.

- The bay estuarine type middens are generally composed predominantly of mussel and oyster shellfish species. The largest middens are found immediately adjacent to the shoreline, near to the shell fish resources. A few sizeable middens have been noted up to 500m inland, with smaller middens having been identified up to 1km inland.

- Shell middens in South-east Tasmania are comprised almost entirely of shell, and rarely contain large numbers of stone artefacts or faunal remains (Brown 1986:79-82).

Inland Mountains and Alpine Plateaus All areas that are over 600m in altitude were classified as mountainous, and those areas over 1200m in altitude were classified as Alpine Plateau. This covered two main areas in the South-east Tasmanian Region, these being the Mt Wellington and Mt Field Massifs, with adjacent bordering areas including the Hartz Mountains. Brown (1986) reported that only two Aboriginal sites had been recorded in the Alpine areas. Both sites are situated on the Mt Field Massif, with one being a small artefact scatter and the other an isolated artefact. Brown (1986) sees this as evidence that at least some Alpine areas were being visited by Aboriginal people, probably as part of occasional foraging excursions during periods of good weather. Overview for the South-East Tasmanian Region In summary, Brown (1986:99-102) has identified the following broad patterns of site type distribution in South-East Tasmania.

- Aboriginal archaeological sites occur in all parts of the landscape. - The coastal margins (including off shore islands), coastal plains and river

estuaries are very rich in archaeological resources and contain a high density of sites with large quantities of archaeological remains. The Derwent Estuary in particular was an area of rich archaeological resources.

Page | 43

- Inland sites are dominated by open artefact scatters and isolated artefacts. Artefact densities are highest along the river, rivulet and creek valley floors and adjacent to lower hill slopes, particularly where the hill slopes are gently inclined, with a north aspect, and have sandy well drained soils.

- Shell middens most frequently occur in close proximity to shellfish resources, particularly on cliff tops or headlands where there is easy access to these resources.

- Stone artefact quarries most frequently occur where there is a surface expression of geological contact zones, in particular between Jurassic dolerite and Triassic or Permian strata.

As a general statement, Brown (1986:102) summarises that site numbers and densities in South-east Tasmania are greatest within 300m of the present coastline and in the immediate vicinity of coastal lagoons. In terms of environmental factors determining site location, Brown (1986:103) is of the opinion that topography is perhaps the most consistent and important factor. Sites in general, but particularly the larger ones (in terms of artefact numbers) are very seldom found on steep gradient slopes. In terms of duration of Aboriginal occupation, Brown (1986:99-100) believes that the South-eastern Tasmanian region has probably been occupied by Aboriginal people for the past 20 000 years. However, he acknowledges that there are no conclusive dates for sites beyond 6000 years old for the region. Pleistocene dates have however been obtained for sites in close proximity to the region (Beginners Luck Cave and a cave on the Weld River). 4.2 Previous Investigations in the Vicinity of the Study Area There have been a series of archaeological investigations associated with proposed developments that have been undertaken within the general vicinity of the study area at Blackmans Bay. The following provides a brief overview of the findings of these investigations. CHMA (2013) Assessment of the North west Bay Pipeline Project – Stage 2 Dru Point to Blackmans Bay CHMA (2013) was engaged by GHD to implement an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the Stage 2 Dru Point to Blackmans Bay Pipeline Project. The preferred route option for the pipeline ran from the Dru Point Sewerage Treatment Plant, across North West Bay to Stinkpot Bay at Howden, and then north-east through to Blackmans Bay. During the course of the field survey assessment CHMA (2013) recorded three Aboriginal sites. Two of these sites were previously registered sites that were reported as being located in the immediate vicinity of the preferred pipeline route (sites AH 0348 and AH7946). The third site (AH11882) was a newly recorded site.

Page | 44

Site AH0348 is an Aboriginal site complex that is located at Dru Point. The site was first recorded in the 1970s, with the original description noting that evidence of Aboriginal stone procurement/quarrying activity was identified at Dru Point, and that cherty hornfel and quartzite stone materials was the focus of this quarrying activity. Subsequent investigations undertaken at this site by Maynard (2008) and CHMA (2011b) failed to detect any evidence for this quarrying activity. CHMA (2011b:65-67) did record an artefact scatter along a section of the foreshore margins on the north-east edge of Dru Point, between grid references E522762 N5236134 to E522739 N5236253. In addition, a sparse scatter of shell material was identified along the southern margins of the Dru Point Reserve Road, approximately 100m inland from the eastern shoreline of Dru Point (between grid references E522613 N5236208 and E522650 N5236179). Given the close spatial proximity of the artefact scatter and shell material to the site features recorded by Maynard, and to the original grid reference provided for site AH0348, these two areas were categorised by CHMA (2011b) as being part of site AH0348. Site AH7946 was originally recorded by Leigh Maynard in 1998, and was described as a linear shell midden deposit with an associated artefact scatter that is located on the small headland that fringes the northern margins of Stinkpot Bay at Howden. CHMA (2013) identified a shell midden deposit and stone artefact at this location. The shell midden deposit was observed to extend along a 160m long section of a 40cm wide walking track that runs along the southern edge of the headland. A sparse and highly fragmented scatter of shell material was identified along this track. The density of shell material appears to increase around the south-western termination point of the headland. The main shell species noted was oyster, with brown and black mussel also present. A single silcrete stone artefact was recorded in association with the midden material. Site AH11882 was an isolated artefact which is situated within the eastern portion of the Peter Murrell Reserve, approximately 10m to the west of Brightwater Road in Blackmans Bay. The artefact was located on the gentle upper slopes of a prominent hill, associated with the Tinderbox Hills, on a large erosion scald measuring 20m x 10m The search of the AH register undertaken by CHMA (2013) showed that there was one other registered site that is located within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline route, this being site AH11704. The site was described as a small artefact scatter comprising two stone artefacts that are located on the short walking track leading down from Brightwater Road to Stinkpot Bay. The artefacts are spread approximately 35m apart on the track, with one artefact located at grid reference E523656 N5237164 and the second artefact at E523620 N5237132. Despite an extensive search in this area, CHMA (2013) was unable to re-locate these artefacts. CHMA (2013:66-67) were of the opinion that the area of Dru Point on the west margins of North West Bay, and Stinkpot Bay, on the east margins of North West Bay were the

Page | 45

two most sensitive areas traversed by the preferred pipeline route. The remainder of the preferred pipeline route, from Brightwater Road through to the termination point at Blackmans Bay was assessed as being of low to very low archaeological sensitivity. This assessment was based on the very low density of Aboriginal sites observed in this area, the high levels of disturbance along much of the proposed route alignment, and the very low likelihood of undetected Aboriginal heritage sites to be present. CHMA (2016) TasWater Blackmans Bay Rising Main Renewal Project Most recently, CHMA (2016) were engaged by GHD (on behalf of TasWater) to undertake an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the Blackmans Bay Rising Main Renewal Project. The proposed Rising Main corridor was approximately 300m in length, and ran within coastal reserve, just to the south of Suncoast Drive in Blackmans Bay. The route commences at an existing sewer rising main at the Blackmans Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant. No Aboriginal heritage sites or potential areas of elevated archaeological sensitivity were identified during the field survey assessment, and a search of the AHR showed that there are no registered Aboriginal sites that are located either within, or in the immediate vicinity of the Rising Main corridor. 4.3 Results of the AHR Database Search As part of Stage 1 of the assessment process, a search was undertaken of the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR) to determine whether any registered Aboriginal heritage sites are located within, or in the general vicinity of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area. The search results show that there are a total of five registered Aboriginal heritage sites that are located within a 1km radius of the study area (search results provided by Kate Moody on the 4-12-2017). All five sites are classified as shell middens, with one of these shell middens also having a single stone artefact in association with the deposit. Table 1 provides the summary details for these five sites, with Figure 7 showing the location of the sites in relation to the study area boundaries. Of these five sites, there is one site that appears to be situated within the study area boundaries (site AH144). This site is highlighted in red in Table 1. Table 1: Registered Aboriginal heritage sites within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area (based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017)

AH Number

Site Type Locality Grid Reference Easting (GDA94)

Grid Reference Northing (GDA94)

2970 Shell Midden, Isolated Artefact Blackmans Bay 526712 5238182

Page | 46

Figure 7: Map showing the location of registered Aboriginal sites located within a 1km radius of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area

(Map based on the results of the AHR search results dated 4-12-2017)

Page | 47

5.0 Predictive Modelling 5.1 Introduction to Predictive Modelling Predictive modelling, in an archaeological context, is a fairly straight forward concept and has been utilised by archaeologists in Australia for a number of years as a tool for undertaking research into Aboriginal heritage sites. In summary, predictive modelling involves the collation of information generated from previous archaeological research in a given region, and using this information to establish patterns of Aboriginal site distributions within the landscape of that particular region. On the basis of perceived patterns of site distribution, Archaeologists can then make predictive statements regarding the potential for various Aboriginal site types to occur within certain landscape settings, and can make preliminary assessments regarding the potential archaeological sensitivity of landscape types within a given region. 5.2 Predictive Models; Strengths and Weaknesses It should be acknowledged that most, if not all predictive models have a number of potential inherit weaknesses which may serve to limit their value. These include, but may not be limited to the following.

1) The accuracy of a predictive model is directly influenced by the quality and quantity of available site data and information for a given region. The more data available and the greater the quality of that data, the more likely it is that an accurate predictive model can be developed.

2) Predictive modelling works very well for certain types, most particularly isolated artefacts and artefact scatters, and to a lesser extent scarred trees. For other site types it is far more difficult to accurately establish distribution patterns and therefore make predictive modelling statements. Unfortunately, these site types are generally the rarer site types (in terms of frequency of occurrence) and are therefore generally the most significant sites.

3) Predictive modelling (unless it is very sophisticated and detailed) will generally not take into account micro-landscape features within a given area. These micro features may include (but is certainly not limited to) slight elevations in the landscape (such as small terraces) or small soaks or drainage depressions that may have held water. These micro features have been previously demonstrated to occasionally be focal points for Aboriginal activity.

4) Predictive modelling to a large extent is often predicated on the presence of water courses. However, in some instances the alignment of these water courses has changed considerably over time. As a consequence the present alignment of a given water course may be substantially different to its alignment in the past. The consequence of this for predictive modelling (if these ancient water courses are not taken into account) is that predicted patterns of site distributions may be greatly skewed.

5.3 A Predictive Model of Site Type Distribution for the Study Area The findings of previous archaeological investigations undertaken within and in the general vicinity of the study area (see Section 4 of this report for details) indicates

Page | 48

that the most likely site types that will be encountered within the study area will be shell middens. There is also a possibility that artefact scatters and/or isolated artefacts may be encountered. The following provides a definition of these site types and a general predictive statement for their distribution within the study area. Shell Midden Sites Definition Middens range in thickness from thin scatters to stratified deposits of shell and sediment up to 2m thick. In addition to shell which has accumulated as food refuse, shell middens usually contain other food remains such as bone from fish, birds and terrestrial animals and humus from the decay of plant and animal remains. They also commonly contain charcoal and artefacts made from stone, shell and bone. Predictive Statement

- Middens are generally not present in areas with steep shore profiles. - The greatest number of middens was identified on coastlines which contain a

mixture of rocky headlands and short sandy beaches (mixed coast areas). - On long sandy beaches the volume of midden material was found to decline

with distance from a rocky coast. - Middens are essentially comprised of two types; rocky coastal and bay

estuarine, reflecting different landscape settings. However, middens with shell species common to both these types occur in intermediate zones such as estuary and lagoon mouths.

- The bay estuarine type middens are generally composed predominantly of mussel and oyster shellfish species. The largest middens are found immediately adjacent to the shoreline, near to the shellfish resources. A few sizeable middens have been noted up to 500m inland, with smaller middens having been identified up to 1km inland.

- Shell middens in South-east Tasmania are comprised almost entirely of shell, and rarely contain large numbers of stone artefacts or faunal remains.

Applying this observed pattern to the study area, it would be expected that midden deposits may be encountered within the study area, particularly along the eastern boundary, which is closest to the coastal foreshores. Being a mixed, medium energy shoreline, it would be anticipated that a broad range of shell fish species may be present in the midden deposit. Artefact Scatters and Isolated artefacts Definition Isolated artefacts are defined as single stone artefacts. Where isolated finds are closer than 50 linear metres to each other they should generally be recorded as an Artefact Scatter. Artefact scatters are usually identified as a scatter of stone artefacts lying on the ground surface. For the purposes of this project, artefact scatters are defined as at least 2 artefacts within 50 linear metres of each other.

Page | 49

Artefacts spread beyond this can be best defined as isolated finds. It is recognised that this definition, while useful in most instances, should not be strictly prescriptive. On some large landscape features for example, sites may be defined more broadly. In other instances, only a single artefact may be visible, but there is a strong indication that others may be present in the nearby sediments. In such cases it is best to define the site as an Isolated Find/Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD). Artefact scatters can vary in size from two artefacts to several thousand, and may be representative of a range of activities, from sporadic foraging through to intensive camping activity. In rare instances, camp sites which were used over a long period of time may contain stratified deposits, where several layers of occupation are buried one on top of another. Predictive Statement: Previous archaeological research in the region has identified the following pattern of distribution for this site type.

- Stone artefact scatters are numerous within the larger river valley systems. - The largest open artefact scatters tend to be situated on well drained sandy

soils, in slightly elevated positions above river and creek floodplains, with a north aspect.

- Site and artefact densities on the lower lying flood plains of water courses tend to be comparatively lower. This may be reflective of the fact these low lying areas were less favoured as camp locations, due to such factors as rising damp and vulnerability to flooding; and

- Site and artefact densities also tend to be comparatively lower in areas away from water courses, and on moderate to steeply sloping terrain.

Applying this broad pattern of site distribution to the study area, it would be anticipated that artefact scatters and isolated artefacts would be most likely to occur on elevated and level landscape features, particularly where these occur in close proximity to the ephemeral creek that runs along the north boundary of the study area.

Page | 50

6.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area Survey Coverage Survey coverage refers to the estimated portion of a study area that has actually been visually inspected during a field survey. The field survey assessment was conducted over a period of 1 day (21-12-2017) by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Rocky Sainty (AHO). The field team walked a total of 2.2km of survey transects across the study area, with the average width of each transect being 5m. The survey transects were aligned so as to provide coverage over all parts of the study area. As part of the field survey assessment, the field team attempted to relocate and record any registered Aboriginal sites that were reported through the AHR search results as potentially being situated within the bounds of the study area (site AH144). Figure 9 shows th alignment of the survey transects walked by the field team. Surface Visibility Surface Visibility refers to the extent to which the actual soils of the ground surface are available for inspection. There are a number of factors that can affect surface visibility, including vegetation cover, surface water and the presence introduced gravels or materials. The main constraint to the present investigation was restricted surface visibility due primarily to grass and other vegetation cover, and the presence of built structures such as buildings and driveways within the central and western parts of the study area (see Plates 8 and 9). At the time of the field survey, surface visibility across the study area was estimated to range between 10% to 40%, with the average being 20%. This is in the low range (see Figure 8 for guidelines to surface visibility). The occasional embankment cuttings and erosion scalds provided locales of improved visibility (see Plates 10-12). In an effort to increase the effective coverage of the survey, any areas where there was improved visibility was targeted by the field team and inspected in detail. Visibility

Full (100%) High (75%) Medium (50%) Low (24%) None (0%) Figure 8: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility

Page | 51

Effective coverage Variations in both survey coverage and surface visibility have a direct bearing on the ability of a field team to detect Aboriginal heritage sites, particularly site types such as shell middens isolated artefacts and artefact scatters, which are the main site types that are predicted to occur in the study area. The combination of survey coverage and surface visibility is referred to as effective survey coverage. Table 2 presents the estimated effective survey coverage achieved during the course of the survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area. The overall effective coverage is estimated to have been 2 200m². This level of effective coverage is generally considered sufficient for the purposes of determining the likely extent and nature of Aboriginal sites that may be located within the study area boundaries. Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the study area Total Area Surveyed Estimated Average

Surface Visibility Effective Survey Coverage

2 200m x 5m = 11 000m² 20% 2 200 m²

Plate 8: View east across the western portion of the study area showing typical levels

of surface visibility, restricted to 20% due to grass cover

Page | 52

Plate 9: View west along the northern boundary of the study area, showing grass

cover restricting surface visibility, and a walking track providing a discrete locale of improved visibility

Plate 10: View north along the east boundary of the study area, with a walking track

providing improved visibility

Page | 53

Plate 11: An erosion scald in the central portion of the study area providing a locale

of improved visibility

Plate 12: An erosion scald in the southern portion of the study area providing a locale

of improved visibility

Page | 54

Figure 9: Survey transects walked by the field team across the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay study area

Page | 55

7.0 Survey Results and Discussion 7.1 Summary Survey Results During the course of the field survey, the field recorded two Aboriginal heritage sites (sites AH144 and AH13388). Site AH144 is a previously registered site that was identified through the AHR search request as being potentially situated within the study area boundaries. The site classified on the AHR as a Shell midden. The site is located along the south-eastern boundary of the study area, on the lower eastern side slopes of a low relief hill, around 50m inland (west) of the coast. It comprises a low to moderate density scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring approximately 50m x 10m. The midden material is mostly confined to a benched slope area, where the hill slope gradient decreases to around 1-2⁰ to form a level area, that is elevated around 5m-7m above the nearby coastal rock platforms. A range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. The shell midden material is typically highly fragmented. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. A single stone artefact was also identified in association with the midden material. Site AH13388 is a newly recorded site, which is classified as a Shell midden. The site is located in the north-western portion of the study area and comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi), with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present. No stone artefacts or bone were identified in association with the shell material. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. The site is located within a very heavily disturbed context, being situated within a landscaped garden area, where the native vegetation has been entirely cleared, and the area replanted with introduced grasses, and a variety of exotic tree species. Table 3 provides the summary details for sites AH144 and AH13388, with the site locations shown in Figures 10 and 11. The detailed site descriptions for these two sites are provided in Appendix 2 of this report. No other Aboriginal sites or specific areas of elevated cultural heritage sensitivity were identified within the bounds of study area. Despite constraints in surface visibility, these negative results are assessed as being a reasonably accurate reflection of the absence of Aboriginal sites for the remainder of the study area. This is discussed in more detail in section 7.2.

Page | 56

Table 3: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area AH No. Grid Reference

(GDA 94)

AH13388 E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351

AH144 E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162

Page | 57

Figure 10: Topographic map showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries

Page | 58

Figure 11: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries

Page | 59

7.2 Further Discussion Site Distributions and Site Contents Previous archaeological research in the South East Tasmanian region has identified a very distinctive pattern of site distribution for the estuarine environmental settings, including the Derwent Estuary. This is summarised below.

- The greatest number of middens was identified on coastlines which contain a mixture of rocky headlands and short sandy beaches (mixed coast areas).

- On long sandy beaches the volume of midden material was found to decline with distance from a rocky coast.

- Middens are essentially comprised of two types; rocky coastal and bay estuarine, reflecting different landscape settings. However, middens with shell species common to both these types occur in intermediate zones such as estuary and lagoon mouths.

- The bay estuarine type middens are generally composed predominantly of mussel and oyster shellfish species. The largest middens are found immediately adjacent to the shoreline, near to the shellfish resources. A few sizeable middens have been noted up to 500m inland, with smaller middens having been identified up to 1km inland.

- Shell middens in South-east Tasmania are comprised almost entirely of shell, and rarely contain large numbers of stone artefacts or faunal remains.

The two Aboriginal sites identified during the current investigations (AH144 and AH13388) are generally consistent with this observed regional pattern, both in terms of distribution in the landscape, as well as the midden contents. Site AH144 is the largest of the two shell middens, and is located on an elevated and level benched slope area, within 50m of the coastal foreshores at the northern end of Blackmans Bay beach, where the snady shoreline interfaces with intertidal rock platforms. A broad range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. These shell fish species are commonly recorded in other midden sites in the region, and reflect the mixed shoreline setting. Only one stone artefact was identified in the deposit. Site AH13388 is a discrete shell midden deposit that is located on the flat summit of a low relief hill, in the north-western portion of the study area, around 250m inland (west) of the coast. The comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi), with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present. No stone artefacts or bone were identified in association with the shell material.

Page | 60

Potential for Addition Undetected Aboriginal Sites to be Present in the Study Area As described in Section 6 of this report, surface visibility across the study area was variable, ranging between 10% to 40%, with the average being 20%. This is in the low range (see Figure 8 for guidelines to surface visibility). Given these constraints, it can’t be stated with certainty that there are no additional undetected Aboriginal sites present within the study area boundaries. With this acknowledged, the field survey did provide a high level of survey coverage of the study area footprint, and there still was sufficient visibility to generate a general impression as to the extent of Aboriginal heritage resources in this area, with an estimated 2 200m² of effective coverage achieved. The negative survey results for the remainder of the study area are therefore assessed as being a reasonable indication that site and artefact densities across the remainder of the study area are likely to be low very low. The most likely site type to be present would be sparse shell midden deposits, isolated artefacts or small artefact scatters, representing sporadic Aboriginal activity. General Interpretations The two sites recorded during the current investigations, together with the AHR site record for the general surrounds of the study area, provide tangible archaeological evidence that this section of the River Derwent estuary, around Blackmans Bay, was regularly frequented by the local Aboriginal inhabitants. The main focus of the activity appears to have been the shell fish resources that were available in abundance along the foreshores, and easily accessible from the area around Blackmans Bay beach. To the north and south of the beach, there are steep cliffs present along the foreshore margins, which would have made accessing these shell fish resources far more difficult. Site AH144 appears to be the larger of the two shell middens, and is probably representative of a favoured “dinner time” camp. The site is positioned on an elevated, well drained and quite level landscape feature, within 50m of the resource rich foreshores. The location provides easy access to these estuarine resources, and affords a comfortable location for the procured resources to be taken back to and consumed. The size of the midden deposit, the density of midden deposit present, and the site contents is consistent with this location having been utilised by small groups of people, on a seasonal short term basis as a camp location. Site AH13388 is a sparse scatter of shell midden material that is probably representative of an occasional “dinner time” camp, that may have been utilised at times of inclement weather, where people sought a sheltered location, away from prevailing coastal winds. Neither of the sites recorded during the investigations are representative of more intensive and long term occupation. At these types of sites, it would be expected that larger and denser midden deposits would be present, as well as a range of stone tool types, representing a broader range of activities. Such sites would most probably be situated along the foreshores of the River Derwent, in very close proximity to a

Page | 61

permanent fresh water source. They are also likely to occur in association with well drained sand deposits. The area around Kingston Beach, where the Browns River enters the River Derwent, is a prime example of such a location. Although there is a small creek that is located at the northern end of blackmans Bay beach, it is ephemeral, and likely to be dry for much of the year. The absence of any permanent water source around blackmans Bay beach would be prohibitive for longer term, more intensive occupation in this area.

Page | 62

8.0 Site Significance Assessments The following provides an outline of the processes used to assess the significance of the Aboriginal heritage sites that were identified during the course of the assessment. 8.1 Assessment Guidelines There are several different ways of defining types of significance, and many practitioners have developed their own system of significance assessment. However, as Sullivan and Pearson (1995) point out, there seems to be a general advantage in using a set of criteria which is already widely accepted. In Australia cultural significance is usually assessed against the Burra Charter guidelines and the Australian Heritage Commission guidelines (ICOMOS 1988, 1999). 8.2 The Burra Charter Under the guidelines of the Burra Charter ‘cultural significance’ refers to the ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations’ of a ‘place’ (ICOMOS 1999:2). The guidelines to the Burra Charter comment :

“Although there are a variety of adjectives used in definitions of cultural significance in Australia, the adjectives ‘aesthetic’, ‘historic’, ‘scientific’ and social’ ... can encompass all other values”.

The following provides the descriptions given for each of these terms. Aesthetic Value Aesthetic value includes aspects of sensory perception for which criteria can and should be stated. Such criteria may include consideration of the form, scale, colour, texture and materials of the fabric; the smells and sounds associated with the place and its use (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). Historic Value A place may have historic value because it has influenced, or has been influenced by, an historic figure, event, phase or activity. It may also have historic value as the site of an important event. For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where the settings are substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. However, some events or associations may be so important that the place retains significance regardless of subsequent treatment (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). Scientific Value The scientific or research value of a place will depend upon the importance of the data involved or its rarity, quality or representativeness and on the degree to which the place may contribute further substantial information.

Page | 63

A site or a resource is said to be scientifically significant when its further study may be expected to help current research questions. That is, scientific significance is defined as research potential (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). Social Value The social value of a place is perhaps the most difficult value for heritage professionals to substantiate (Johnston 1994). However, social value is broadly defined as ‘the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political, natural or other cultural sentimental to a majority or minority group’ (ICOMOS 1988:30). In What is Social Value, Johnston (1994) has provided a clear definition of social value:

“Social value is about collective attachment to places that embody meaning important to a community, these places are usually community owned or publicly accessible or in some other way ‘appropriated’ into people’s daily lives. Such meanings are in addition to other values, such as the evidence of valued aspects of history or beauty, and these meanings may not be apparent in the fabric of the place, and may not be apparent to the disinterested observer”. (Johnston 1994:10)

Although encompassed within the criterion of social value, the spiritual value of a place is a more recent addition to the Burra Charter (ICOMOS 1999:1). Spiritual value is predominantly used to assess places of cultural significance to Indigenous Australians. The degree to which a place is significant can vary. As Johnston (1994:3) has stated when trying to understand significance a ‘variety of concepts [are] used from a geographical comparison (‘national’, ‘state’, ‘local’) to terms such as ‘early’, ‘rare’, or ‘seminal’’. Indeed the Burra Charter clearly states that when assessing historic significance, one should note that for:

“any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where the setting are substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive”. (ICOMOS 1988:29)

8.3 Significance Criteria Relevant to Indigenous Sites Indigenous heritage sites and places may have educational, tourism and other values to groups in society. However, their two principal values are likely to be in terms of their cultural / social significance to Aboriginal people and their scientific / archaeological significance. These are the two criteria that are commonly used in establishing the significance of Aboriginal sites. The following provides an explanation of these criteria. 1) Aboriginal Cultural / Social Significance This relates to the value placed upon a site or suite of sites by the local or regional Aboriginal community. The identification and assessment of those sites that are significant to Aboriginal people is a matter for Aboriginal people. This assessment can only be made by the appropriate Aboriginal representatives of the relevant communities.

Page | 64

2) Scientific (Archaeological) Significance Archaeological significance values (or scientific values) generally are assessed on the potential of a site or place to generate knowledge through archaeological research or knowledge. Bowdler (1984) states that the scientific significance should be assessed according to timely and specific research questions (research potential) and site representativeness. Research potential entails the potential of a site or suite of sites for scientific research and excavation. This is measured in terms of a site's ability to provide information on aspects of Aboriginal culture. In this respect, the contents of a site and their state of preservation are important considerations. Representativeness takes account of how common a site type is (Bowdler 1984). That is, it allows sites to be evaluated with reference to the known archaeological record within the given region. The primary goal of cultural resource management is to afford the greatest protection to a representative sample of sites throughout a region. The corollary of a representative site is the notion of a rare or unique site. These sites may help to understand the patterning of more common sites in the surrounding area, and are therefore often considered of archaeological significance. The concept of a rarity cannot be easily separated from that of representativeness. If a site is determined to be rare, then it will by definition be included as part of the representative sample of that site type. The concepts of both research potential and representativeness are ever changing variables. As research interests shift and archaeological methods and techniques change, then the criteria for assessing site significance are also re-evaluated. As a consequence, the sample of site types which are used to assess site significance must be large enough to account for the change in these variables. 8.4 Summary Significance Ratings for Aboriginal Sites Two Aboriginal sites were recorded during the present field survey (sites AH144 and AH13388). These two sites have been assessed and allocated a rating of significance, based on the criteria presented in section 8.2. As discussed in section 8.2, Aboriginal sites are usually assessed in terms of their scientific and social significance. The concepts of Aesthetic significance and Historic significance are rarely applied in the assessment of Aboriginal sites unless there is direct evidence for European/Aboriginal contact activity at the site, or the site has specific and outstanding aesthetic values. However, based on advice received from AHT, aesthetic and historic significance values have also been taken into consideration as part of the assessment of sites AH144 and AH13388. A five tiered rating system has been adopted for the significance assessment; low, low-medium, medium, medium-high and high. Table 4 provides the summary details for significance ratings for sites AH144 and AH13388. A more detailed explanation for the

Page | 65

assessment ratings are presented in sections 8.5 to 8.8. A statement of social significance, prepared by Rocky Sainty, is presented in section 9 of this report. Table 4: Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 AH Site Number

Site Type Scientific Significance

Aesthetic Significance

Historic Significance

Social Significance

AH144 Shell midden /Isolated artefact

Low-Medium Medium N/A Medium

AH13388 Shell midden Low Medium N/A Low-medium 8.5 Scientific Significance for Recorded Sites Sites AH144 and AH13388 are both classified as a shell middens. Shell middens are a very common site type within the South East Region of Tasmania (as evidenced through regional studies and the results of the AHR search). The scientific values attributed to midden sites therefore primarily relate to the information that can be generated from these sites regarding Aboriginal settlement patterns in the region (research potential), as opposed to site rarity. When assessing the research potential of a site, the contents of a site and their state of preservation are important considerations. As a general rule for the present assessment, the larger the site (in terms of spatial extent), the thicker the deposit of midden material, and the more intact the site is, the higher the research potential and associated significance that is attributed to the site. The sites rated the highest significance are generally those that display all these qualities, and also have evidence of lenses of midden deposit or stratified midden deposit, which could in future inform researchers as to changes in occupation patterns at the site over time. Site AH144 is a low to moderate density deposit of shell midden material, with an associated Isolated stone artefact. The shell species represented in the midden deposit (warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone), as well as the artefact type (chert flake) are commonly represented in other middens in the region. The shell midden material appears to be predominantly confined to the soil surface, with no evidence of shell lenses present. The site is in a quite disturbed context, being situated on landscaped grounds that have been cleared of native vegetation. The potential for any intact sub-surface midden deposits is assessed as being limited. On this basis, site AH144 is assessed as being of Low-Medium scientific significance. Site AH13388 is a sparse, discrete deposit of shell midden material, comprising just two shell fish species (Mud oyster and pipi). Again, these shell fish species are well represented in other midden sites across the region. The shell midden material appears to be predominantly confined to the soil surface, with no evidence of shell lenses present. The site is in a disturbed context, being situated on landscaped grounds that have been cleared of native vegetation. The potential for any intact sub-surface midden

Page | 66

deposits is assessed as being limited. On this basis, site AH13388 is assessed as being of Low scientific significance. 8.6 Aesthetic Significance for Recorded Sites Aesthetic value includes aspects of sensory perception for which criteria can and should be stated. Such criteria may include consideration of the form, scale, colour, texture and materials of the fabric; the smells and sounds associated with the place and its use (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). Sites AH144 and AH13388 are both situated within a somewhat modified landscape, being within landscaped grounds, where the native vegetation has largely been cleared. The modification of the landscape has to some extent diminished the aesthetic significance of the sites. However, both sites do fringe the picturesque margins of Blackmans Bay, which elevates the aesthetic values of the sites to Medium. 8.7 Historic Significance for Recorded Sites A place may have historic value because it has influenced, or has been influenced by, an historic figure, event, phase or activity. It may also have historic value as the site of an important event. For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where the settings are substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. However, some events or associations may be so important that the place retains significance regardless of subsequent treatment (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). Historic significance is not an attribute often considered when assessing the significance of Aboriginal sites, unless there is direct evidence for some form of European/Aboriginal contact activity. In this instance no such evidence exists for sites AH144 and AH13388. As such the concept of historic significance is not applicable to these sites.

Page | 67

9.0 Consultation with Aboriginal Communities and Statement of Aboriginal Significance The designated Aboriginal Heritage Officer (AHO) for this project is Rocky Sainty. One of the primary roles of the Aboriginal Heritage Officer is to consult with Aboriginal community groups. The main purpose of this consultation process is: - to advise Aboriginal community groups of the details of the project, - to convey the findings of the Aboriginal heritage assessment, - to document the Aboriginal social values attributed to Aboriginal heritage resources

in the study area, - to discuss potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage sites, and - to document the views and concerns expressed by the Aboriginal community

representatives. Rocky Sainty has undertaken the Aboriginal community consultation component for this project. As part of this process, Rocky Sainty has provided a range of Aboriginal groups with a copy of this report for review and comment. The outcomes of the Aboriginal community consultation program is presented in Appendix 3 of this report. Rocky Sainty has provided a statement of the Aboriginal cultural values attributed to the sites identified during the present investigations, as well as a statement of significance for the cultural values encompassed within the study area corridor. This statement is presented below. Statement of Cultural/Social Significance by Rocky Sainty Aboriginal heritage provides a direct link to the past, however is not limited to the physical evidence of the past. It includes both tangible and intangible aspects of culture. Physical and spiritual connection to land and all things within the landscape has been, and continues to be, an important feature of cultural expression for Aboriginal people since creation. Physical evidence of past occupation of a specific place may include artefacts, living places (middens), rock shelters, markings in rock or on the walls of caves and/or rock shelters, burials and ceremonial places. Non-physical aspects of culture may include the knowledge (i.e. stories, song, dance, weather patterns, animal, plant and marine resources for food, medicines and technology) connected to the people and the place. While so much of the cultural landscape that was lutruwita (Tasmania) before invasion and subsequent colonization either no longer exists, or has been heavily impacted on, these values continue to be important to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, and are relevant to the region of the project proposal.

Page | 68

We identified two Aboriginal sites during our survey assessment of the study area at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay, with both sites being shell middens. Although these two sites have both already been impacted by vegetation clearing and landscaping, they are still important to our community, as they represent a physical link with our ancestors, and provide tangible evidence for occupation of this area by our people in the past. I would therefore advocate that these sites are protected from impact by the proposed subdivision. I note that the Masterplan is in the preliminary stages, so I would recommend that these sites are excluded from the development footprint, and that measures are put In place to protect the sites during the development process. These measures are presented in the management recommendations section of this report (section 11) Even if the site of the project proposal contains no evidence of Aboriginal heritage there is always the cultural resources (flora, fauna, aquaculture or any other resource values that the earth may offer) and the living landscape, which highlight the high significance to the Aboriginal cultural heritage values to the country. The study area has been disturbed through past land clearing, landscaping and urban development. As a consequence of this activity much of the native vegetation has disappeared from this area. In a broader setting, the study area is located on the edge of Blackmans Bay which was a great source of food resources for my people, particularly in terms of shell fish species.

Page | 69

10.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements The following provides an overview of the relevant State and Federal legislation that applies for Aboriginal heritage within the state of Tasmania. 10.1 State Legislation In Tasmania, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (the Act) is the primary Act for the treatment of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Act is administered by the Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage through Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE). AHT is the regulating body for Aboriginal heritage in Tasmania and ‘[n]o fees apply for any application to AHT for advice, guidance, lodgement or permit application’. The Act applies to ‘relics’ which are any object, place and/or site that is of significance to the Aboriginal people of Tasmania (as defined in section 2(3) of the Act). The Act defines what legally constitutes unacceptable impacts on relics and a process to approve impacts when there is no better option. Aboriginal relics are protected under the Act and it is illegal to destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic, unless in accordance with the terms of a permit granted by the Minister. It is illegal to sell or offer for sale a relic, or to cause or permit a relic to be taken out of Tasmania without a permit (section 2(4) qualifies and excludes ‘objects made, or likely to have been made, for purposes of sale’). It should be noted that with regard to the discovery of suspected human skeletal remains, the Coroners Act 1995 takes precedence. The Coroners Act 1995 comes into effect initially upon the discovery of human remains, however once determined to be Aboriginal the Aboriginal Heritage Act overrides the Coroners Act. In August 2017, the Act was substantively amended and the title changed from the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. As a result, the AHT Guidelines to the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Process were replaced by the Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Procedures. The Standards and Procedures are named in the statutory Guidelines of the Act issued by the Minister under section 21A of the Act. Other amendments include:

An obligation to fully review the Act within three years. Increases in maximum penalties for unlawful interference or damage to an

Aboriginal relic. For example, maximum penalties (for deliberate acts) are 10,000 penalty unites (currently $1.57 million) for bodies corporate other than small business entities and 5,000 penalty units (currently $785,000) for individuals or small business entities; for reckless or negligent offences, the maximum penalties are 2,000 and 1,000 penalty units respectively (currently $314,000 and $157,000). Lesser offences are also defined in sections 10, 12, 17 and 18.

Prosecution timeframes have been extended from six months to two years.

Page | 70

The establishment of a statutory Aboriginal Heritage Council to advise the Minister.

Section 21(1) specifies the relevant defence as follows: “It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under section 9 or 14 if, in relation to the section of the Act which the defendant is alleged to have contravened, it is proved … that, in so far as is practicable … the defendant complied with the guidelines”.

10.2 Commonwealth Legislation There are also a number of Federal Legislative Acts that pertain to cultural heritage. The main Acts being; The Australian Heritage Council Act 2003, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (Comm) The Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 defines the heritage advisory boards and relevant lists, with the Act’s Consequential and Transitio nal Provisions repealing the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. The Australian Heritage Council Act, like the Australian Heritage Commission Act, does not provide legislative protection regarding the conservation of heritage items in Australia, but has compiled a list of items recognised as possessing heritage significance to the Australian community. The Register of the National Estate, managed by the Australian Heritage Council, applies no legal constraints on heritage items included on this list. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987. This Federal Act is administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (SEWPaC) with the Commonwealth having jurisdiction. The Act was passed to provide protection for the Aboriginal heritage, in circumstances where it could be demonstrated that such protection was not available at a state level. In certain instances, the Act overrides relevant state and territory provisions. The major purpose of the Act is to preserve and protect from injury and desecration, areas and objects of significance to Aborigines and Islanders. The Act enables immediate and direct action for protection of threatened areas and objects by a declaration from the Commonwealth minister or authorised officers. The Act must be invoked by, or on behalf of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or organisation. Any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person or organization may apply to the Commonwealth Minister for a temporary or permanent 'Stop Order' for protection of threatened areas or objects of significant indigenous cultural heritage. The Commonwealth Act 'overrides' State legislation if the Commonwealth Minister is of the opinion that the State legislation (or undertaken process) is insufficient to protect the

Page | 71

threatened areas or objects. Thus, in the event that an application is made to the Commonwealth Minister for a Stop Order, the Commonwealth Minister will, as a matter of course, contact the relevant State Agency to ascertain what protection is being imposed by the State and/or what mitigation procedures have been proposed by the landuser/developer. In addition to the threat of a 'Stop Order' being imposed, the Act also provides for the following: If the Federal Court, on application from the Commonwealth Minister, is satisfied that

a person has engaged or is proposing to engage in conduct that breaches the 'Stop Order', it may grant an injunction preventing or stopping such a breach (s.26). Penalties for breach of a Court Order can be substantial and may include a term of imprisonment;

If a person contravenes a declaration in relation to a significant Aboriginal area, penalties for an individual are a fine up to $10,000.00 and/or 5 years gaol and for a Corporation a fine up to $50,000.00 (s.22);

If the contravention is in relation to a significant Aboriginal object, the penalties are $5,000.00 and/or 2 years gaol and $25,000.00 respectively (s.22);

In addition, offences under s.22 are considered 'indictable' offences that also attract an individual fine of $2,000 and/or 12 months gaol or, for a Corporation, a fine of $10,000.00 (s.23). Section 23 also includes attempts, inciting, urging and/or being an accessory after the fact within the definition of 'indictable' offences in this regard.

The Commonwealth Act is presently under review by Parliament and it is generally accepted that any new Commonwealth Act will be even more restrictive than the current legislation. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Comm) This Act was amended, through the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No1) 2003 to provide protection for cultural heritage sites, in addition to the existing aim of protecting environmental areas and sites of national significance. The Act also promotes the ecologically sustainable use of natural resources, biodiversity and the incorporation of community consultation and knowledge. The 2003 amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 have resulted in the inclusion of indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage sites and areas. These heritage items are defined as: ‘indigenous heritage value of a place means a heritage value of the place that is of significance to indigenous persons in accordance with their practices, observances, customs, traditions, beliefs or history; Items identified under this legislation are given the same penalty as actions taken against environmentally sensitive sites. Specific to cultural heritage sites are §324A-324ZB.

Page | 72

Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No1) 2003 (Comm) In addition to the above amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to include provisions for the protection and conservation of heritage, the Act also enables the identification and subsequent listing of items for the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists. The Act establishes the National Heritage List, which enables the inclusion of all heritage, natural, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and the Commonwealth Heritage List, which enables listing of sites nationally and internationally that are significant and governed by Australia. In addition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987, amendments made to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) enables the identification and subsequent listing of indigenous heritage values on the Commonwealth and/or National Heritage Lists (ss. 341D & 324D respectively). Substantial penalties (and, in some instances, gaol sentences) can be imposed on any person who damages items on the National or Commonwealth Heritage Lists (ss. 495 & 497) or provides false or misleading information in relation to certain matters under the Act (ss.488-490). In addition, the wrongdoer may be required to make good any loss or damage suffered due to their actions or omissions (s.500).

Page | 73

11.0 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan 11.1 Summary Recommendations Heritage management options and recommendations provided in this report are made on the basis of the following criteria:

Consultation with Rocky Sainty (Aboriginal Heritage Officer); The legal and procedural requirements as specified in the Aboriginal Heritage Act

1975 (The Act); The results of the investigation as documented in this report; and Background research into the extant archaeological and ethno-historic record for the

study area and the surrounding region. The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of the proposed subdivision at Home Avenue Blackmans Bay on the Aboriginal cultural heritage resources present within the study area. Table 5 provides a summary overview of the management recommendations. The more detailed recommendations are presented in section 11.2 below. Table 5: Summary Management Recommendations for the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area AH No. Grid Reference

(GDA 94) Site Type Management Recommendation

AH144 E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162

Site should be conserved in-situ and not impacted. Prior to development commencing, a durable, high visibility temporary barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of the site, with a 5m buffer applied. Barricades to be removed at completion of development works. Construction workers to be made aware of the barricaded zone and informed that this site is not to be impacted. The medium term management measures outlined in section 11.2 should be followed post construction. If site may be impacted by the development then seek Permit. Sub-surface investigations may be required.

Page | 74

AH No. Grid Reference (GDA 94)

Site Type Management Recommendation

AH13388

E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351

Shell midden

If feasible, site should be conserved in-situ and not impacted. Prior to development commencing, a durable, high visibility temporary barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of the site, with a 5m buffer applied. Barricades to be removed at completion of development works. Construction workers to be made aware of the barricaded zone and informed that this site is not to be impacted. The medium term management measures outlined in section 11.2 should be followed post construction. If site may be impacted by the development then seek Permit.

Remainder of the Study Area

If, during the course of the proposed development works, previously undetected archaeological sites or objects are located, the processes outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be followed (see section 12). A copy of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be kept on site during all ground disturbance and construction work. All construction personnel should be made aware of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (the Act). Copies of this report should be submitted to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) and the Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) for review and comment.

Page | 75

Figure 12: Aerial image showing the spatial extent of Aboriginal sites AH144 and AH13388 within the 15 Home Avenue study area boundaries

Page | 76

11.2 Detailed Management Recommendations for Sites AH144 and AH13388 Sites AH144 and AH13388 are both situated within the bounds of the 15 Home Avenue study area, and are therefore potentially under threat of impact from the subdivision proposal. It is recommended that both sites should be conserved in-situ, and that the following measures should be implemented to ensure that the sites are not impacted during the course of development works.. - Where required, the proposed development Masterplan should be modified to

ensure that these two sites are not impacted by the development. - The boundaries of the two sites should be plotted onto the revised Masterplan. - Proposed development works should not encroach to within 5m of the identified

boundaries of the two sites. - Prior to development works commencing, durable, high visibility temporary

barricading should be erected around the identified boundaries of each site, with a 5m buffer applied. The barricading should be installed under the direction of a qualified archaeologist and an AHO. This is to ensure that each site has been adequately protected. At the completion of development works the barricading should be removed.

- All construction workers should be informed of the location of the two sites and informed that the sites are not to be impacted. Consideration should be given to providing construction workers with a site specific cultural heritage induction presentation, which informs them of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the study area, and the importance of protecting these values.

Medium Term Measures Discussions will be held with AHT, the proponent, and the Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) regarding the following.

The merits of erecting interpretative signage within the conservation areas. If interpretative signage is agreed on, then the appropriate wording for the signage and construction design will need to be finalised.

The landscaping of the conservation areas. In particular whether these zones will be left in their present state, or whether they should be re-vegetated with selected plant species. Any landscape works should involve minimal soil disturbance.

As specified in section 10.1 of this report, all Aboriginal relics are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (The Act). It is illegal to destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic, unless in accordance with the terms of a permit granted by the Minister. Therefore, if it appears that there is a possibility that either site may be impacted by the development proposal, then the proponent will need to apply for and obtain a Permit prior to construction works commencing.

Page | 77

11.3 General Recommendations - If, during the course of proposed construction works, previously undetected

archaeological sites or objects are located, the processes outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be followed (see section 12). A copy of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be kept on site during all ground disturbance and construction work. All construction personnel should be made aware of the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (the Act).

- Copies of this report should be submitted to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) and the Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) for review and comment.

Page | 78

12.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan The following section describes the proposed method for dealing with unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal sites and objects. The plan provides guidance to the proponent so that they may meet their obligations with respect to heritage in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 and the Coroners Act 1995. Please Note: There are two different processes presented for the mitigation of these unanticipated discoveries. The first process applies for the discovery of all cultural heritage sites or features, with the exception of skeletal remains (burials). The second process applies exclusively to the discovery of skeletal remains (burials). Discovery of Cultural Heritage Items Section 14 (1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 states that “Except as otherwise stated in this Act, no person shall, otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a Permit granted by the Minister on the recommendation of the Director – destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic.” Accordingly, the following processes should be implemented if a suspected relic is encountered. Step 1 If any person believes that they have discovered or uncovered Aboriginal cultural heritage materials, the individual should notify any machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works should stop immediately. Step 2 A buffer protection zone of 10m x 10m should be established around the suspected cultural heritage site or items. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed within this ‘archaeological zone’ until such time as the suspected cultural heritage items have been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out. Step 3 Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in Hobart (ph 1300 487 045) should be contacted immediately and informed of the discovery. AHT will make necessary arrangements for the further assessment of the discovery. Based on the findings of the assessment, appropriate management recommendations should be developed for the cultural heritage find.

Page | 79

Discovery of Skeletal Material Step 1 Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence. Step 2 Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators. Step 3 A buffer protection zone of 50m x 50m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed with this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed. Step 4 The relevant authorities (police) will be contacted and informed of the discovery. Step 5 Should the skeletal remains be suspected to be of Aboriginal origin, then Section 23 of the Coroners Act 1995 will apply. This is as follows:

1) The Attorney General may approve an Aboriginal organisation for the purposes of this section.

2) If, at any stage after a death is reported under section 19(1), a coroner suspects that any human remains relating to that death may be Aboriginal remains, the coroner must refer the matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney General (In this instance TALSC).

3) If a coroner refers a matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General – (a) The coroner must not carry out any investigations or perform any duties or

functions under this Act in respect of the remains; and (b) The Aboriginal organisation must, as soon as practicable after the matter is

referred to it, investigate the remains and prepare a report for the coroner. 4) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the

remains are Aboriginal remains, the jurisdiction of the coroner under this Act in respect of the remains ceases and this Act does not apply to the remains. In this instance the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 will apply, and relevant Permits will need to be obtained before any further actions can be taken.

5) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are not Aboriginal remains, the coroner may resume the investigation in respect of the remains.

Page | 80

References Cited Australian ICOMOS. 1988. Guidelines to the Burra Charter. Australian ICOMOS. 1999. The Burra Charter. Alexander, A. 2006. Brighton and Surrounds. Brighton Council: Brighton, Tas. Austral Tasmania (AT). 2010. Kingston Bypass Historical Research Report. Unpublished report to Pitt and Sherry. Bonnemains, Jacqueline, Elliot Forsyth and Bernard Smith (eds). 1988. Baudin in Australian Waters: the artwork of the French voyage of discovery to the southern lands 1800-1804. Oxford University Press and the Australian Academy of the Humanities: Melbourne. Bowdler, S 1984 ‘Archaeological Significance as a mutable quality.’ In Sullivan, S and Bowdler, S (eds.) Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology. Department of Prehistory, ANU Canberra. Boyce, J. 2009. Van Diemen’s Land. Black Inc: Melbourne. Brown, S. 1986 Aboriginal Archaeological Resources in South East Tasmania. An Overview of the Nature and Management of Aboriginal Sites. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania. Occasional Paper No.12. CHMA 2013 North West Bay Pipeline Project: Stage 2 Dru Point to Blackmans Bay. A report to GHD. CHMA 2016 Blackmans Bay Rising Main Renewal Project: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. A report to GHD. Cornell, Christine (trans.) 1974. The Journal of Post Captain Nicolas Baudin, Commander in Chief of the Corvettes Geographe and Naturaliste. Libraries Board of South Australia: Adelaide. Dyer, Colin. 2005. The French Explorers and the Aboriginal Australians 1772-1839. University of Queensland Press: St Lucia, Qld. Johnston, C 1994 ‘ What is Social Value : a discussion paper.’ Australian Heritage Commission Technical Publications : Series Number 3. Jones, R. 1971 Rocky Cape and the Problems of the Tasmanians. Unpublished PhD Thesis (University of Sydney).

Page | 81

Jones, R. 1974 Tasmanian Tribes. Appendix in Tindale, N.B. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. University of California Press. Keen, Ian. 2004. Aboriginal Economy and Society: Australia at the threshold of colonisation. Oxford University Press: Melbourne. Keen, Ian. 2010. Indigenous Participation in Australian Economies: historical and anthropological perspectives. ANU E Press: Canberra. Labillardiere, J.J.H. 1800 Voyage in search of La Perouse performed by order of the Constituent Assembly during the year 1791, 1792, 1793 and 1794. John Stockdale. London. Lines W 1991. Taming the Great South Land: a history of the conquest of nature in Australia. University of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia McGowan, A. 1985 Archaeological Investigations at Risdon Cove Historic Site: 1978-1980. National Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania, Occasional Paper No.10. Marquis-Kyle, P and Walker, M 1992 The Illustrated Burra Charter. Australian ICOMOS Inc. Officer, I 1980 Survey of Derwent River Aboriginal midden and quarry sites. Unpublished B.Ed. Thesis (TCAE Hobart). Pearson, M. and Sullivan, S. (1995) Looking After Heritage Places. Melbourne University Press. Peterson, N. 1976 The Natural and Cultural Areas of Aboriginal Australia: a preliminary analysis of population groupings with adaptive significance. In N. Peterson (ed) Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra. Peterson, N. 1986. Australian Territorial Organization. Oceania Monograph. University of Sydney. Peterson, N. 2008. ‘Too Sociological’? Revisiting ‘Aboriginal Territorial Organisation’. In Hinkson, Melinda and Jeremy Beckett (eds). Appreciation of Difference: WEH Stanner and Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press: Canberra. Plomley, N.J.B 1966 Friendly Mission: The Journals of Augustus Robinson 1829-1834. Tasmanian Historical research Association, Hobart. Plomley, N.J.B. 1983 (ed.) The Baudin Expedition and the Tasmanian Aborigines 1802. Blubberhead Press Hobart.

Page | 82

Plomley, N.J.B. (ed). 2008. Friendly Mission: the Tasmanian journals and papers of George Augustus Robinson, 1829-1834. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery: Launceston and Quintus, Launceston, Tas: Hobart. Roth, H.L. 1899 The Aborigines of Tasmania. (F. King and Sons. London). Ryan, L. 2012. The Tasmanian Aborigines: a History Since 1803. Allen and Unwin: Crow’s Nest. Service, E.R. 1966. The Hunters. Prentice, Hall, Inc. New Jersey Smith, Steven. 2003. Tasmania’s French Connection: a report on the Goddard Spain-Jaloustre scholarship 2002. S. Smith: Hobart. Spanswick, S. and D. Kidd. 2000. Revised Hobart Reconnaissance Soil Map of Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment. Stanner, W.H. 1965. Aboriginal Territorial Organisation: estate, range, domain and regime. Oceania 36(1):1-26. Sutton, Peter. 2008. ‘Stanner and Aboriginal Land Use: Ecology, economic change and enclosing the commons’. In Hinkson, Melinda and Jeremy Beckett (eds). Appreciation of Difference: WEH Stanner and Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press: Canberra. Trigger, David. 1992. Whitefell Comin’: Aboriginal responses to colonialism in northern Australia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Trigger, David. 2010. ‘Anthropology and native title: Issues of method, claim group membership and research capacity’. In Bauman, Toni (ed). Dilemmas in Applied Native Title Anthropology in Australia. White, Neville. 2003. Meaning and Metaphor in Yolngu landscapes, Arnhem Land, northern Australia. In David Trigger and Gareth Griffiths (eds). Disputed Territories: Land, Culture and Identity in Settler Societies. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong. White, I. & Cane, S. 1986 An Investigation of Aboriginal Settlements and Burial Patterns in the Vicinity of Yass. A Report to the NSW NPWS.

Page | 83

Glossary of Terms Aboriginal Archaeological Site A site is defined as any evidence (archaeological features and/or artefacts) indicating past Aboriginal activity, and occurring within a context or place relating to that activity. The criteria for formally identifying a site in Australia varies between States and Territories. Artefact A portable object that has been humanly made or modified (see also stone artefact). Assemblage (lithic) A collection of complete and fragmentary stone artefacts and manuports obtained from an archaeological site, either by collecting artefacts scattered on the ground surface, or by controlled excavation. Broken Flake A flake with two or more breakages, but retaining its area of break initiation. Chert A highly siliceous rock type that is formed biogenically from the compaction and precipitation of the silica skeletons of diatoms. Normally there is a high percentage of cryptocrystalline quartz. Like chalcedony, chert was valued by Aboriginal people as a stone material for manufacturing stone tools. The rock type often breaks by conchoidal (shell like) fracture, providing flakes that have hard, durable edges. Cobble Water worn stones that have a diameter greater than 64mm (about the size of a tennis ball) and less than 256mm (size of a basketball). Core A piece of stone, often a pebble or cobble, but also quarried stone, from which flakes have been struck for the purpose of making stone tools. Core Fragment A piece of core, without obvious evidence of being a chunky primary flake. Cortex The surface of a piece of stone that has been weathered by chemical and/or physical means.

Page | 84

Debitage The commonly used term referring to the stone refuse discarded from knapping. The manufacturing of a single implement may result in the generation of a large number of pieces of debitage in an archaeological deposit. Flake (general definition) A piece of stone detached from a nucleus such as a core. A complete or substantially complete flake of lithic material usually shows evidence of hard indenter initiation, or occasional bending initiation. The most common type of flake is the ‘conchoidal flake’. The flake’s primary fracture surface (the ventral or inside surface) exhibits features such as fracture initiation, bulb of force, and undulations and lances that indicate the direction of the fracture front. Flake fragment An artefact that does not have areas of fracture initiation, but which displays sufficient fracture surface attributes to allow identification as a stone artefact fragment. Flake portion (broken flake) The proximal portion of a flake retaining the area of flake initiation, or a distal portion of a flake that retains the flake termination point. Flake scraper A flake with retouch along at least one margin. The character of the retouch strongly suggests shaping or rejuvenation of a cutting edge. Middens Middens range in thickness from thin scatters to stratified deposits of shell and sediment up to 2m thick. In addition to shell which has accumulated as food refuse, shell middens usually contain other food remains such as bone from fish, birds and terrestrial animals and humus from the decay of plant and animal remains. They also commonly contain charcoal and artefacts made from stone, shell and bone. Nodules Regular or irregular cemented masses or nodules within the soil. Also referred to as concretions and buckshot gravel. Cementing agents may be iron and/or manganese oxides, calcium carbonate, gypsum etc. Normally formed in situ and commonly indicative of seasonal waterlogging or a fluctuating chemical environment in the soil such as; oxidation and reduction, or saturation and evaporation. Nodules can be redistributed by erosion. (See also 'concretion'). Pebble By geological definition, a waterworn stone less than 64 mm in diameter (about the size of a tennis ball). Archaeologists often refer to waterworn stones larger than this as pebbles though technically they are cobbles.

Page | 85

Quartz A mineral composed of crystalline silica. Quartz is a very stable mineral that does not alter chemically during weathering or metamorphism. Quartz is abundantly common and was used by Aboriginal people throughout Australia to make light-duty cutting tools. Despite the often unpredictable nature of fracture in quartz, the flakes often have sharp cutting edges. Quartzite A hard silica rich stone formed in a sandstone that has been recrystallised by heat (metaquartzite) or strengthened by slow infilling of silica in the voids between the sand grains (Orthoquartzite). Retouch (on stone tools) An area of flake scars on an artefact resulting from intentional shaping, resharpening, or rejuvenation after breakage or blunting of a cutting edge. In resharpening a cutting edge the retouch is invariably found only on one side (see also 'indeterminate retouched piece', retouch flake' etc). Scraper A general group of stone artefacts, usually flakes but also cores, that one or more retouched edges thought to have been used in a range of different cutting and scraping activities. A flake scraper is a flake with retouch along at least one margin, but not qualifying for attribution to a more specific implement category. Flake scrapers sometimes also exhibit use-wear on the retouched or another edge. Silcrete A hard, fine grained siliceous stone with flaking properties similar to quartzite and chert. It is formed by the cementing and/or replacement of bedrock, weathering deposits, unconsolidated sediments, soil or other material, by a low temperature physico-chemical process. Silcrete is essentially composed of quartz grains cemented by microcrystalline silica. The clasts in silcrete bare most often quartz grains but may be chert or chalcedony or some other hard mineral particle. The mechanical properties and texture of silcrete are equivalent to the range exhibited by chert at the fine-grained end of the scale and with quartzite at the coarse-grained end of the scale. Silcrete was used by Aboriginal people throughout Australia for making stone tools. Site Integrity The degree to which post-depositional disturbance of cultural material has occurred at a site. Stone Artefact A piece (or fragment) of stone showing evidence of intentional human modification.

Page | 86

Stone procurement site A place where stone materials is obtained by Aboriginal people for the purpose of manufacturing stone artefacts. In Australia, stone procurement sites range on a continuum from pebble beds in water courses (where there may be little or no evidence of human activity) to extensively quarried stone outcrops, with evidence of pits and concentrations of hammerstones and a thick layer of knapping debris. Stone tool A piece of flaked or ground stone used in an activity, or fashioned for use as a tool. A synonym of stone tool is ‘implement’. This term is often used by archaeologists to describe a flake tool fashioned by delicate flaking (retouch). Use wear Macroscopic and microscopic damage to the surfaces of stone tools, resulting from it’s use. Major use-wear forms are edge fractures, use-polish and smoothing, abrasion, and edge rounding bevelling.

Page | 87

Appendix 1

Gazetteer of Recorded Sites

Page | 88

Table 6: Summary details for Aboriginal sites identified during the field survey assessment of the 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay Study Area AH No. Grid Reference

(GDA 94)

AH13388 E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351

AH144 E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162

Page | 89

Appendix 2

Detailed Site Descriptions

Page | 90

Site Name: AH13388 Site Type: Shell Midden Grid references: (GDA 94) E526490 N5239349 E526497 N5239341 E526499 N5239347 E526494 N5239351 Description Site AH13388 is classified as a shell midden deposit, which is located at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach, in the South East Region of Tasmania. The site is positioned on the flat summit of a low relief hill, around 250m inland (west) of the coast. The coast in this area is a medium to high energy, mixed shoreline, where Blackmans Bay Beach (a sandy shoreline) interfaces with extensive intertidal rock platforms to the north and south. This mixed shoreline hosts a broad range of marine shell fish species which would have been an important component of the traditional Aboriginal diet. The site comprises a discrete, sparse scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring 8m x 7m. The midden material is comprised predominantly of mud oyster shell (Ostrea angasi), with very small numbers of Pipi (Plebidonax deltoids) also present. No stone artefacts or bone were identified in association with the shell material. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. The site is located within a very heavily disturbed context, being situated within a landscaped garden area, where the native vegetation has been entirely cleared, and the area replanted with introduced grasses, and a variety of exotic tree species. Surface visibility across the site area and surrounds was fair, ranging between 20-40%, with a series of erosion scalds and rabbit diggings providing locales of improved visibility. Given some constraints in surface visibility, it is possible that the site may be slightly larger than the currently recorded spatial extent. Soils in this area comprise quite loosely consolidated grey sand deposits, which have the potential to comprise sub-surface midden deposits. However, based on the observed surface expression of midden material, these deposits would be expected to be sparse. Any deposits that are present will have been heavily disturbed.

Page | 91

Plate 1: View east at the location of site AH13388

Plate 2: Sparse, fragmented shell midden material from site AH13388, exposed on an erosion scald

Page | 92

Plate 3: Mud oyster and pipi shell from site AH13388

Page | 93

Site Name: AH144 Site Type: Shell Midden/Isolated artefact Grid references: (GDA 94) E526632 N5239129 E526629 N5239134 E526653 N5239139 E526657 N5239133 E526686 N5239166 E526695 N5239162 Description Site AH144 is classified as a shell midden deposit, with an associated stone artefact. The site is located at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach, in the South East Region of Tasmania. The site is positioned on the lower eastern side slopes of a low relief hill, around 50m inland (west) of the coast. The coast in this area is a medium to high energy, mixed shoreline, where Blackmans Bay Beach (a sandy shoreline) interfaces with extensive intertidal rock platforms to the north and south. This mixed shoreline hosts a broad range of marine shell fish species which would have been an important component of the traditional Aboriginal diet. The site comprises a low to moderate density scatter of shell midden material that is exposed across a series of erosion scalds, within an area measuring approximately 50m x 10m, along the eastern boundary of the property. The midden material is mostly confined to a benched slope area, where the hill slope gradient decreases to around 1-2⁰ to form a level area, that is elevated around 5m-7m above the nearby coastal rock platforms. A range of shell fish species are represented in the midden deposit, with warrener, mud oyster, pipi, brown mussel and abalone all present. The shell midden material is typically highly fragmented. The shell material appears to be primarily confined to the soil surface and very upper soil horizon. No shell lenses were evident at the site. A single stone artefact was also identified in association with the midden material. The site is located within a moderately heavily disturbed context, being situated within a landscaped garden area, where the native vegetation has been largely cleared, and the area replanted with introduced grasses, and a variety of exotic tree species. There is some regrowth of native vegetation species (casuarina and coastal scrub) in the area. Surface visibility across the site area and surrounds was fair, ranging between 20-40%, with a series of erosion scalds providing locales of improved visibility. Given some constraints in surface visibility, it is possible that the site may be slightly larger than the currently recorded spatial extent. Soils in this area comprise quite loosely consolidated grey sand deposits, which have the potential to comprise sub-surface midden deposits. However, based on the observed surface expression of midden material, these deposits

Page | 94

would be expected to be low-moderate. Any deposits that are present will have been heavily disturbed. Artefact details - Grey chert flake piece 18mm x 13mm x 9mm

Plate 1: View east at the location of site AH144

Plate 2: View north east at the location of site AH144

Page | 95

Plate 3: View south east at the location of site AH144

Plate 4: Shell midden material from site AH144 exposed on an erosion scald

Page | 96

Plate 5: Shell midden material from site AH144

Plate 6: Grey chert flake piece identified at site AH144

Page | 97

Appendix 3

Community Consultation Record

Aboriginal Community Consultation Record for – BLACKMANS BAY HOME AVENUE

– via email 1/2/18 (copy below) Organisation Consulted Summary of Comments Received

TAC - Heather Sculthorpe

heather.s@tacinc.com.au

No Comment (N/C)

SETAC – Lindy

lindy@setac.org.au

WEETAPOONA – Ben

weetapoona@hotmail.com

KARADI – Rachel

rdunn@karadi.org.au

N/C N/C N/C

Dear JMG are undertaking the planning approvals for a proposed residential subdivision on a 3.6ha parcel of land at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, in South East Tasmania. The sub-division project is in the early planning phase, and the proposed Masterplan for the development footprint is yet to be finalised. CHMA Pty Ltd and myself have been engaged by JMG (on behalf of the proponent) to undertake an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the subdivision proposal. We identified two Aboriginal sites during our survey assessment of the study area at 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay, with both sites being shell middens. Although these two sites have both already been impacted by vegetation clearing and landscaping, they are still important to our community, as they represent a physical link with our ancestors, and provide tangible evidence for occupation of this area by our people in the past. I would therefore advocate that these sites are protected from impact by the proposed subdivision. I note that the Masterplan is in the preliminary stages, so I would recommend that these sites are excluded from the development footprint, and that measures are put In place to protect the sites during the development process. These measures are presented in the management recommendations section of the attached report (section 11). If you would like to discuss or have any questions, please contact me on mobile phone, or by email. Please have any comments back to me by COB next Thursday 8 February.

Regards Rocky Sainty Aboriginal Heritage Consultant 0437372000

APPENDIX I

Geotechnical Report

Geo-Environmental Solutions P/L 29 Kirksway Place. Ph 6223 1839 www.geosolutions.net.au

GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION – PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

JMG Engineers & Planners

15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay Tasmania 7052

January 2018

Geo-Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd – Geotechnical Site Investigation – 15 Home Avenue

Introduction

Client: JMG

Date of inspection: 11/1/17

Location: 15 Home Ave, Blackmans Bay

Land description: Approx. 3.6ha

Building type: Future Residential Development

Investigation: Geoprobe 540UD

Inspected by: G. McDonald

Background information

Map: MRT – Blackmans Bay Sheet 1:25 000

Rock type: Permian Sediments

Soil depth: Variable 0.40 to 1.0m

Landslide zoning: Low – small section centrally located on the southern boundary of the

property

Local meteorology: Annual rainfall approx. 550 mm

Local services: Reticulated in surrounding area

Site conditions

Slope and aspect: Undulating ranging from 5-10% in places.

Site drainage: Moderate surface & Imperfect subsoil drainage.

Vegetation: Pasture, native and weed species

Weather conditions: Fine, approx. <1mm rainfall received in preceding 7 days.

Ground surface: Dry surface conditions

Investigation Geo-Environmental Solutions Pty. Ltd. (GES) were engaged by JMG (“the Client”) to

undertake a Geotechnical Investigation at 15 Home Avenue (‘The Site”) (see Figure 1). This

report presents the findings of the Geotechnical Investigation undertaken by GES at the

investigation site in Blackmans Bay, Tasmania.

Figure 1 - Location of the site (indicated in blue). A number of bore holes were completed to identify the distribution of, and variation in soil

materials on the site. Logged bore holes across the site were used for testing and

classification according to AS2870-2011 & AS1726-2017 (see profile summary). Bore hole

locations are shown in Appendix 2.

The purpose of the investigation was to:

• Provide factual data from the test holes drilled on site

• Provide information on the geotechnical conditions encountered on site with

proposed constraint parameters.

• Provide site classification as per “AS2870-2011 Residential Slabs & Footings” for

future building/construction works.

Profile Summary The subsurface conditions encountered during field drilling were consistent with available

geology mapping (see Figure 2) of Permian-aged sediments (MRT 1:25 000 sheets) with

shallow residual material over. See Table 1below.

Figure 2 – MRT Mapped Geology (indicated by red square).

Table 1 – Typical Soil Profile

Depth (m) USCS Description

0 – 0.20 ML SANDY SILT: dark grey, dry, medium dense, few fine to coarse angular gravels

0.20 – 0.50 ML SANDY SILT: pale brown/trace orange, dry medium dense to dense

0.50 – 0.55 GW Sandy SILTY GRAVEL: pale grey, dry, very dense. Refusal

NOTE: See appendix 1 for comprehensive soil logs

Site Conditions

Excavation of natural soils to required depths at all locations is likely to be achieved with

relative ease with conventional hydraulic excavation machinery. At the time of this

investigation the bearing capacities of the soil were so great due to dry soil conditions that

DCP penetration rates were too little (very hard) to take effective readings with likely

damage.

The soil found on the property shows a close correlation with underlying geological material

and is therefore classified according to geological association (i.e. Permian sediments). The

duplex soils on Permian sediments may be shallow and stony in places due to prior erosion,

and commonly have a dispersive and acidic reaction trend. Dependent upon actual chemical

analysis it is likely that the soils on Permian sediments would be classified as sodosols.

Site Classification

According to “AS2870-2011 - Residential slabs & footings” the site has been classified as

Class S, which is a slightly reactive site and is expected to exhibit relatively low ground

surface movement due to moisture variations. Design and construction should be made in

accordance with this classification.

Potential Geotechnical Risks

A number of geotechnical risk scenarios have been considered for the residential

development; risk of land instability, risk of inundation/flooding, risk of foundation failure,

and erosion risk. The level of risk associated with any possible event is described in terms of

likelihood and consequence (see table 2 for an explanation of terminology). That is, how

likely is the event to occur (e.g. rare, unlikely, likely possible etc), and what is the

consequence of the event (e.g. loss of life, serious capital damage, limited capital damage,

localised erosion etc). Based upon an assessment of the site and the likely risks, the overall

geotechnical risk associated with the development is rated as low (see table 1 -geotechnical

risk summary). The level of risk is therefore acceptable and there is no serious geotechnical

impediment to the proposed development. The one factor identified that must be addressed

in standard AS2870 testing for construction is the possible presence of dispersive soils and

erosion that may result from excavation. It is also recommended that dispersive soil

assessment be undertaken once infrastructure plans are developed to ensure any excavations

for infrastructure do not cause unnecessary erosion.

Table 2 – Summary of geotechnical hazards, consequences and risk, with suggested

treatment options

Hazard Likelihood of

occurrence

Consequences to property

Level of risk to

property

Treatment options

Surface erosion

Likely Minor Very Low to Low

Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP)

Subsoil or tunnel erosion

Possible Medium Low-Medium

Dispersion testing of

subsoils as part of AS2870

assessment and management

plans Soil creep

Unlikely Minor Very Low None required

Shallow seated landslide (eg. Debris slide/flows)

Unlikely Minor Very Low Adequate AS2870-2011 assessment &

Deep seated landslide (eg. Boulder bed/talus instability)

Not credible Major Very Low None required

Excessive foundation movement (eg. Due to extremely reactive soils)

Unlikely Medium Low Thorough AS2870-2011

assessment and appropriate engineering

foundation design

Foundation failure (eg. Excessive settlement, fill failure)

Unlikely Medium Low Thorough AS2870-2011

assessment and appropriate engineering

foundation design

Flooding or inundation

Unlikely Minor Very Low Adequate stormwater

design as part of detailed

engineering for the development

Site contamination

Unlikely Minor Very Low Visual inspection of site/soils and review of prior

activities Concepts and terminology from AGS Sub-committee (March 2007) Landslide Risk Management Concepts and

Guidelines. Australian Geomechanics Journal.

Table 3 - Geotechnical Risk Assessment – Example of Qualitative Terminology Adapted from AGS Sub-committee (March 2000) Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines.

Australian Geomechanics Journal 35 (1) p49-92.

Qualitative Measures of Likelihood Level Descriptor Description Indicative Annual

Probability A Almost Certain The event is expected to occur > ~10-1 B Likely The event will probably occur under adverse conditions ~10-2 C Possible The event could occur under adverse conditions ~10-3 D Unlikely The event might occur under very adverse circumstances ~10-4 E Rare The event is conceivable only under exceptional circumstances ~10-5 F Not Credible The event is inconceivable or fanciful ~10-6 Note: “~” means approximate Qualitative Measures of Consequences to Property/Element at risk Level Descriptor Description 1 Catastrophic Structure completely destroyed or large scale damage requiring major

engineering works for stabilization. 2 Major Extensive damage to most of structure, or extending beyond site boundaries

requiring significant stabilization works. 3 Medium Moderate damage to some of structure, or significant part of site requiring large

remedial works. 4 Minor Limited damage to part of structure or part of sire requiring some reinstatement

or remedial works. 5 Insignificant Little damage or effect. Note: The “Description” may be edited to suit a particular case. Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix – Level of Risk to Property/Element at Risk Likelihood Consequences to Property

1: Catastrophic 2: Major 3: Medium 4: Minor 5: Insignificant A – Almost Certain VH VH H H M B – Likely VH H H M L-M C – Possible H H M L-M VL-L D – Unlikely M-H M L-M VL-L VL E – Rare M-L L-M VL-L VL VL F – Not Credible VL VL VL VL VL Risk Level Implications Risk Level Example Implications VH Very High Risk Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of

treatment options essential to reduce risk to acceptable levels; may be too expensive and not practical

H High Risk Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment option required to reduce risk to acceptable levels

M Moderate Risk Tolerable provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain or reduce risks. May be acceptable. May require investigation and planning of treatment options.

L Low Risk Usually acceptable. Treatment requirements and responsibility to be defined to maintain or reduce risks.

VL Very Low Risk Acceptable. Manage by normal site maintenance procedures. Notes: (1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk

assessment; these are only given as a general guide. (2) Judicious use of dual descriptors for likelihood, Consequence and Risk to reflect the

uncertainty of the estimate may be appropriate in some cases

Construction Recommendations

Conventional foundation designs are likely to be suitable for residential construction on this

site provided sufficient founding depth.

It is recommended that:

• All construction areas have complete AS2870 testing including dispersive soils

assessment prior to design and construction. For areas of proposed shallow

foundations all foundations must penetrate through the topsoils and into the

residual soil below approximately 0.5m depth or onto weathered gravels/rock.

• Conventional pad footings are likely to be suitable only if excavated to sufficient

depth and bearing.

• Dependent upon the final foundation design chosen and the loads supported, pile

foundations may be required, and all piles should be driven or bored into underlying

well consolidated natural soil or gravels/rock at depth– pile foundation parameters

should then be calculated once likely pile dimensions have been determined

• Levelling and compaction of footprints with either natural rock fill or imported Class

1 fill should follow AS 1289 5.1.1

• All earthworks onsite be compliant with AS3798-2007 “Guidelines for Earthworks

on commercial and residential subdivision”

• Stormwater be connected as soon as any roofing is sealed.

• Drainage of the ground surface and pavements be designed to flow away from

footing areas and towards stormwater discharge points.

Pavement and carparking design

Where practical, it is recommended that pavements be constructed in the drier months of the

year given that wet weather makes subgrade preparation and compaction very difficult.

Management of the moisture content of the subgrade is therefore critical and it may be

necessary to add water to achieve optimal compaction if it is too dry. Alternatively, if the

subgrade is too moist then hydrated lime can be added to reduce moisture contents.

Moisture content should be measured in accordance with AS1289.5.1.2 by a suitably

qualified person.

It is further recommended that:

• Pavement and floor slab sub grades should involve the stripping of all vegetation

including root material as well as the topsoil to expose the underlying natural soil

with good bearing capacities (note dispersion testing and assessment to be completed

prior).

• This surface should be rolled to a dry density ratio as stipulated in AS1289.5.1.2 with

any incompactable, loose or moist material being removed.

• Backfilling and levelling should be carried out with Class 3 20-40mm crushed Basalt

and compacted to 98% maximum dry density as stipulated in AS1289.5.1.2.

• Pavement construction should be commenced immediately after the subgrade has

been rolled.

• Consideration should be given to subgrade drainage so that the watertable is

maintained at least 400mm below the underside of pavements. Alternatively a lower

Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) should be used in the design.

• Pavements should be designed with an estimated CBR value of 5% (based upon

controlled compaction of existing layers or natural soils) although this may be

increased with further stabilisation of the subgrade using lime or cement – further

bulk sampling and testing recommenced on road alignments prior to detailed design.

Conclusions

The above geotechnical investigation has found that ground conditions over the proposed

areas of development show limited geotechnical impediments to construction. Conventional

foundation designs are likely to be suitable for residential construction founded in the

natural subsoils with adequate bearing capacity.

The following conclusions and recommendations are made:

• The site is suitable for residential development and the geotechnical risk is generally

rated as low

• The geotechnical risk related to dispersive soils is rated as low-medium and

provided adequate testing and management is implemented the risk is considered

acceptable

• Thorough AS2870 testing and assessment must be completed prior to residential

construction

• The AS2870 assessment must include dispersion testing and classification

• Further detailed testing for pavements and infrastructure will be required and is to

include appropriate CBR tests and dispersive soil tests

• If dispersive soils are confirmed on site then all design and construction must adhere

to the DPIWE Dispersive soils management publication (Hardie 2009)

• All earthworks onsite must be compliant with AS3798-2007 “Guidelines for

Earthworks on commercial and residential developments”

• Soil and water management plans and infrastructure must be in place for all

construction activities

Dr John Paul Cumming PhD CPSS Director

Appendix 1 – Bore Logs

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

APPENDIX J

Natural Values Report

Andrew North anorth@northbarker.com.au Philip Barker pbarker@northbarker.com.au

163 Campbell Street Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone 03. 6231 9788 Facsimile 03. 6231 9877

15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay Proposed subdivision

Natural Values Assessment

25 May 2018

For Johnstone, McGee and Gandy Pty Ltd (JMG018)

15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay Natural Values Assessment

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 25-05-2018 ii

Summary

Application: Subdivision

Natural Values

Threatened Flora NA

Threatened Fauna Potential foraging habitat for forty spotted Pardalote (white gums) and swift parrots (blue and black gums)

Threatened vegetation NA

Impact No direct impacts to fauna habitat trees

EPBC Act No significant impact to MNES

TSP Act NA

Weed Mngt Act 3 Declared Weed. 3 Zone B

KIPS High Priority NA

KIPS Moderate Priority Potential habitat swift parrots and forty spotted pardalote

- Blue gums, black gums and white gums

KIPS Low priority NA

Kingborough Interim Planning scheme 2015 General Residential Zone

Low Density Zones

Biodiversity Code

Waterway and Coastal Protection Code

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 25-05-2018 iii

Contributors

Field Assessment: Dave Sayers - date of survey: 29th November 2017

Report & Mapping: Dave Sayers 13/12/2017

Review: Andrew North 25/5/2018

Consultation: Matthew Clark, Johnstone, McGee and Gandy Pty Ltd

North Barker Ecosystem Services, 2018 - This work is protected under Australian Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot

be used by anyone for any purpose other than that expressed in the service contract for this report without the written permission of North

Barker Ecosystem Services.

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 25-05-2018 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

2. STUDY AREA AND METHODS ............................................................................................ 2

2.1. STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................... 3

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 3

3. BIOLOGICAL VALUES ....................................................................................................... 5

3.1. VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................... 5 Extra urban miscellaneous – FUM (and FUMEV / FUMEG) ............................................. 5

3.2. PLANT SPECIES .................................................................................................................... 9 3.3. INTRODUCED PLANTS ......................................................................................................... 12 3.4. FAUNA CONSERVATION VALUES (INCL. HABITAT TREES) ....................................................... 15

4. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION ................................................................. 20

4.1. VEGETATION ..................................................................................................................... 20 4.2. THREATENED FLORA ........................................................................................................... 20 4.3. THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT ............................................................................................. 20 4.4. WEEDS ............................................................................................................................. 20

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 21

5.1. COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 21 5.2. TASMANIAN THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 1995 .................................................. 21 5.3. TASMANIAN WEED MANAGEMENT ACT 1999 .................................................................... 21 5.4. KINGBOROUGH INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 ............................................................. 21

Biodiversity Code (E 10.0) .................................................................................................. 21 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11) ............................................................ 23

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP) ............................................................ 24

6.1 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE TREES AND POTENTIAL THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT (SWIFT PARROT

AND FORTY SPOTTED PARDALOTE) ................................................................................................... 24 6.2 WEEDS .................................................................................................................................... 24

7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 26

APPENDIX A – SPECIES CONSERVATION VALUES ............................................................................. 28 APPENDIX B – LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THREATENED SPECIES .................................................... 29 APPENDIX C: VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES ........................................................................................ 30

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 25-05-2018

1. INTRODUCTION The proponent is investigation opportunities to develop 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay (title reference 34279/1, 55854/85, 55854/84 & 199874/1; property ID 7540990). A Section 43A application is being submitted to rezone the land to facilitate increased lot yield. The property is currently within the General Residential and Low Density Residential Zones (Figure 1). It is located on Home Avenue and Blowhole Road at Blackmans Bay (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the subdivision plan. This report provides information for a development application to Kingborough Council on the sites environmental values focused on the areas subject to the proposed subdivision.

2. STUDY AREA AND METHODS

2.1. STUDY AREA The 3.63 ha property is partly overlaid byy the Biodiversity Protection Area and Waterway and Coastal Protection Area overlays. This report focuses on the Biodiversity values as the application will be subject in part to the provisions within the Biodiversity Code (E10).

The property is surrounded by urban land with Blackmans Bay to the south and Mary Knoll Reserve along the eastern edge which contains the majority of native vegetation in the surrounding area.

The terrain on site consists of a gentle south facing slope and generally flat land extending from approximately 10-20 m a.s.l. The geology within the subdivision area is comprised of Permian sediments (largely mudstone) and alluvia along the waterway.

Figure 1 - zoning under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

29 Environmental Management

12 Low density residential

10 General Residential

19 Open Space

2.2. METHODS This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys1. Fieldwork was undertaken by one observer on foot on the 29th November 2017. Vegetation was mapped at the community level according to TASVEG 3.02. At the species level vegetation was recorded in accordance with the most recent census of Tasmanian flora3 using an area search technique based on the Timed Meander Search Procedure4. Fauna habitat values were documented concurrently, with particular emphasis on species listed as threatened (Appendix A and B) at the state and/or national level under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Eucalypt species over 25cm were recorded where encountered with potential for removal.

Limitations

The survey was undertaken in summer. There may be some seasonal or discreet species overlooked. To compensate for this, field data are supplemented with observations from the Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas5.

Figure 2 - Location of the property

1 DPIPWE 2015 2 Harris and Kitchener 2013; DPIPWE 2013 3 de Salas and Baker 2017 4 Goff et al. 1982 5 DPIPWE 2017, nvr_5_11-Dec-2017

Figure 3 – Subdivision Plan of subdivision

3. BIOLOGICAL VALUES

3.1. VEGETATION The site includes one TASVEG 3.0 units with differing emergent trees (Figure 4):

Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM); with emergent blue glums (FUMEG) and with emergent white gums (FUMEV)

Mary Knoll Reserve occurs adjacent to the property in the south east corner. This area is Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (DOV) along a waterway although exotics dominate the understorey.

Extra urban miscellaneous – FUM (and FUMEV / FUMEG)

The whole property is largely cleared of native vegetation except for two areas where some canopy remains over a mowed understorey of predominately exotic species. Both of these areas maintain a park like setting with paths and seats in the surrounds. To the north of Mary Knoll Reserve are white gums and a few black gums. To the south are some large blue gums with dropping she-oaks. The balance of the site is housing with gardens of exotic plants (Plate 1).

Both the areas mapped FUMEV and FUMEG maintain an understorey dominated by exotic species and without extensive revegetation works would not return to a native species dominant understorey within 50 years. Small pockets of understorey within the FUMEG may warrant classification as DGL where native grasses occur, however they would be no more than small pockets of 10m by 10m units and given the current use of land and scale of mapping, have been assessed as FUMEG over the broader area. There are also many mainland wattles and other exotic plantings and garden escapees within these areas.

FUM is a non-natural community and is thus not protected under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) or the EPBCA.

Plate 1: gardens such as this are common across the site.

Plate 2- the south west corner retains some dropping she-oak and blue gums maintained as a

park setting (FUMEG)

Plate 3 - FUMEV along the waterway to the north of Mary Knoll Reserve

Figure 4: TASVEG units, native trees and weeds

Figure 5 – native trees over the concept plan of subdivision

(Note the correct placement of blue gums in lot 8)

3.2. PLANT SPECIES A total of 90 species of vascular plant were recorded during the survey (Appendix C), including 56 introduced species and 3 declared weeds. The majority of garden ornamentals are not included in this. No threatened species were observed.

Previous surveys within 5 km of the property have identified a variety of threatened flora listed under the TSPA and EPBCA. These species (and others predicted by habitat mapping) are listed in Table 1 together with a description of their preferred habitat and an assessment of the likelihood of their occurrence on the property should they have been overlooked or seasonally absent.

Table 1: Flora species of conservation significance known within a 5 km radius of the site6

Species Status TSPA/EPBCA

Potential to occur Observations and preferred habitat7

Known within 500 m

Lachnagrostis punicea subsp.

filifolia narrowleaf blown

Rare/ -

A species with very few records (all from coastal habitats) and not recorded in the local area since 1929. Marginal habitat present on site.

Lepidosperma tortuosum

twisting rapiersedge

Rare/ - None

No suitable coastal heath habitat present. A conspicuous species unlikely to have been overlooked..

Rytidosperma indutum

tall wallabygrass

Rare/ -

Widespread in dry grassy habitat. Species is known to favour disturbance, particularly fire. Some habitat is present however the mown understorey limited opportunities for observation..

Known within 5 km

Austrostipa bigeniculata

double jointed speargrass

Rare/ -

Very low Associated with fertile grassy habitats. Habitat on site very marginal. Only three records within 5 km.

Caladenia caudata tailed spider orchid

Vulnerable/ VULNERABLE

Occurs in heathy open forest and heathland on easterly to north-easterly aspects close to the coast. Site is very low in suitability given land use.

Caladenia filamentosa daddy longlegs

Rare/ -

Known from heathland and sedgy open eucalypt forest and woodland. Only observable during its spring flowering period but the habitat on site is very low in suitability.

Carex gunniana mountain sedge

Rare/ -

Very Low

Occurs in soaks in wet forest and coastal sites. One record dated 1984 within 5 km. Habitat limited to Mary Knoll Reserve,

Comesperma defoliatum

leafless milkwort

Rare/ -

None Occurs in buttongrass and moist coastal heathland. No suitable habitat present on site.

Goodenia geniculata bent native-primrose

Endangered/ -

None One record from 1929 in Blackmans Bay but not seen since. Known from the Rocky Cape area in the NW.

Juncus amabilis gentle rush

Rare/ -

Occurs in soaks and drainage lines, including cleared land. Not recorded onsite however mowed understorey makes identification difficult. Potential within Mary Knoll Reserve which was not surveyed..

6 Natural Values report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017 7 Lazarus et al. 2003; Jones et al. 1999

Lachnagrostis robusta

tall blowngrass

Rare/ -

Known from marshes, estuarine habitat and moist sandy flats, predominantly around the northeast and on the east coast. No suitable habitat present.

Parietaria debilis shade pellitory

Rare/ -

Found around muttonbird rookeries, on cliffs/rocks in salt spray zone and on

grazed pasture/grassland. Also recorded from sand dunes with other forbs.

Predominantly found in northern Tasmania and on the islands of Bass Strait. No

suitable habitat.

Pterostylis squamata ruddy greenhood

Rare/ - Very low

Occurs in heathy and grassy open forest on well drained sandy and loamy soils. Nearest known records are within the Boronia Hill Reserve, in dry open woodland different to that found on site. Little chance of occurring onsite given land use.

Scleranthus brockiei mountain knawel

Rare/ -

Very low Lowland populations occasional within relatively moist grassy habitats. Very limited suitable habitat on site.

Senecio squarrosus leafy fireweed

Rare/ -

Very low

Habitat is dry sclerophyll forest. This species is an annual or short-lived perennial herb and recruitment apparently occurs after fire.

Thelymitra atronitida blackhood sun-orchid

Endangered/ -

Very low No suitable habitat present. Not tolerant to the level of disturbance on site.

Thelymitra malvina mauvetuft sun-orchid

Endangered/ -

Xerochrysum bicolor eastcoast everlasting

Rare/ -

None A single regional record only, that being from 1891.

Predicted by habitat mapping only8

Dianella amoena matted flax lily

Rare/ ENDANGERED

None Occurs in grasslands, mainly on fertile soils in low rainfall areas. No suitable habitat present.

Glycine latrobeana clover glycine

Vulnerable/ VULNERABLE None

Small perennial herb up to 10 cm tall. Occurs in dry sclerophyll forest, native grassland, and grassy woodland, usually on flat sites with loose, sandy soil.

Prasophyllum apoxychilum

tapered leek orchid

Endangered/ ENDANGERED

Occurs in grassy and scrubby open forest on sandy and clay loams, often amongst rocks. Detailed ecological requirements are not well known. Only observable in October-November, particularly following bushfires. Very limited potential to occur on site.

8 EPBCA protected matters database report PMST_TOCO8D 11/12/17

Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt peppercress

Very Low

Some potential to occur under drooping she-oaks and blue gums however historic land use would make long term viability difficult. Mown understorey also would make identification difficult.

Pterostylis wapstrarum fleshy greenhood

Endangered/ CRITICALLY

ENDANGERED None Occurs in dry grasslands on fertile soils.

No suitable habitat.

Thelymitra jonesii sky blue sun-orchid

A distinctive species only known from four widely separated coastal locations. Less than 60 plants have been observed in the State. No suitable habitat present.

3.3. INTRODUCED PLANTS Three introduced plants listed as ‘declared’ weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999 were recorded on the property as follows:

boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera) – isolated to one location near the southern boundary;

blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) common around margins and fence lines; English broom (Cytisus scoparius); occasional.

A large number of environmental weeds also occur, some which are garden plantings. These include:

blue periwinkle (Vinca major); radiata pine (Pinus radiata); banana passionfruit (Passiflora tarminiana); sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum); cotoneaster (Cotoneaster glaucophyllus) winter euryops (Euryops abrotanifolius); ivy (Hedera helix) ; hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna); mainland wattles (Acacia baileyana, A. floribunda, A. howittii, and A.

pravissima) African daisy (Dimorphotheca fruticosa); Great mullein (Verbascum thapsus); Tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum); and agapanthus (Agapanthus praecox).

Plate 4 – tutsan (planted onsite but seen spreading

locally)

Plate 5 – agapanthus is common amongst the

gardens

Plate 6 – great mullein

Plate 7 – banana passionfruit

Plate 8 – English broom

Plate 9 - boneseed

Plate 10 -blackberry

Plate 11 - periwinkle (Vinca major)

3.4. FAUNA CONSERVATION VALUES (INCL. HABITAT TREES) No threatened fauna were directly or indirectly observed on site. No threatened fauna nests or dens were observed however there is potential foraging habitat within the black gums and mature blue gums for swift parrots.

In terms of habitat trees, the majority of these occur along the waterway leading to Mary Knoll Reserve. There is a line of what are assumed to be planted blue gums on the western boundary of Mary Knoll Reserve as well as a small number of mature blue gums to the south. There are also white gums along the waterway which may be potential foraging habitat for forty spotted pardalotes although the closest known colony is 2.3km to the west along Coffee Creek.

Of the threatened fauna known from within 5 km, the eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) is the only species highly likely to occur on site with swift parrots potentially foraging in years where flowering occurs at the appropriate time.

Table 2: Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded, or which may potentially occur, within 5 km of the property9

Species Status TSPA/

Likelihood of occurrence

Observations and preferred habitat10

Known within 500 m

Perameles gunnii eastern-barred

bandicoot

-/ VULNERABLE

Moderate

This species favours a mosaic of open grassy areas (for foraging) and thick cover (for shelter and nesting). There are numerous records within 5 km of the site, and periurban locations are typically the stronghold of the species in south-eastern Tasmania. Sagg and shrubs (incl. weeds) in the study area may be used as cover and nesting habitat. Unlikely to suffer a meaningful reduction in habitat availability should the property be developed.

Known within 5 km

Accipiter novaehollandiae

grey goshawk

Endangered/ -

Negligible Inhabits large tracts of wet forest and requires old trees for nesting. Three observations within 5km but values limited to hunting onsite.

Antipodia chaostola

leucophaea chaostola skipper

Host plant Gahnia radula (thatch saw sedge) was not observed present within the study area and not likely to have been overlooked. Highly localised known occurrences within 5 km.

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi

wedge-tailed eagle

Very low (foraging only)

Requires large sheltered trees for nesting and is highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. No suitable nesting habitat present but may hunt over study area. No nests known within 500 m or 1 km line of sight.

9 Natural Values report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017, DPIPWE – species with exclusively marine or sub-marine habitat requirements have been excluded 10 Bryant & Jackson 1999

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus spotted-tail quoll

Rare/ VULNERABLE

Very low Potential habitat within the surrounding landscape is very limited and only 4 known records within 5 km.

Lathamus discolor swift parrot

ENDANGERED

High (foraging) Very Low (nesting)

Requires tree hollows for nesting, and feeds on nectar of blue gum (E. globulus) and black gum (E. ovata) flowers. There are forty records of swift parrots within 5 km of the site. 5 mature blue gums occur to the south as well as along Mary Knoll Reserve. Black gums also occur to the north of this Reserve.

Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted

pardalote

Restricted to dry grassy forest and woodland along the east and southeast coast containing mature white gum (E. viminalis). Closest colony is 2.5km to the south at Howden or 2.3 km west near Coffee Creek. A small number of suitable white gums are found on site providing potential foraging habitat.

Prototroctes maraena

Australian grayling

None No suitable aquatic habitat present.

Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil

Very low Known within 5 km, however no breeding habitat on site potential for foraging typical of the surrounding bush.

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl

Endangered/ VULNERABLE

Very low

Requires a mosaic of forest and open areas for foraging, and large old-growth hollow-bearing trees for nesting. Site located within 500 m of core habitat according to the NVA. No suitable nesting habitat observed onsite. The species may hunt over study area infrequently.

Alcedo azurea ssp. diemenensis

azure kingfisher

None No suitable riparian habitat present.

Apus pacificus fork-tailed swift

-/ Migratory

Very low An aerial insectivore occasionally recorded in northern Tasmania, but that would most likely only fly over the site if present.

Ardea alba great egret

-/ Migratory

None A non-breeding wetland species, for which there is no suitable habitat present on site.

Ardea ibis cattle egret

-/ Migratory

11 Natural Values report nvr_2_16-Mar-2017, DPIPWE – protected matters database report ENIIUW – species with exclusively marine or sub-marine habitat requirements have been excluded

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian bittern

-/ ENDANGERED

None Not known from within 5 km. Typically inhabits shallow, well-vegetated, permanent wetlands. No suitable habitat for this species.

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe

-/ Migratory

Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied

sea-eagle

Vulnerable/ -

None Occurs in coastal habitats and large inland waterways. No suitable habitat present. No known nests within 500 m or 1 km line of sight.

Hirundapus caudacutus

white-throated needletail

-/ Migratory

Very low

Uncommonly recorded in Tasmania. An aerial species most likely unaffected by terrestrial habitat alteration outside of its Northern Hemisphere breeding range.

Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis

hooded plover

-/ Vulnerable

None No suitable beach and sub-dune habitat present.

Reptiles and amphibians

Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink

Vulnerable/ -

None Occurs in Poa tussock grassland and Themeda grassland without trees. No suitable habitat present.

Litoria raniformis green and golden

None Occurs in well vegetated wetlands. No suitable habitat present.

Invertebrates

Discocharopa vigens

ammonite snail

ENDANGERED None

This snail has been recorded from the following seven locations in the Hobart metropolitan area: Mount Wellington, Mount Nelson, The Domain, Hillgrove, Grasstree Hill, South Hobart and Austins Ferry. Species thought to be extinct from Mt Nelson. Habitat of the species includes dry and wet eucalypt forests below 400 m in altitude. To date the species has only been found under dolerite rocks. No habitat present.

Lissotes menalcas Mount Mangana

stag beetle

Vulnerable/ -

None Low probability of occurring

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolor). The swift parrot is listed as endangered under the TSPA and critically endangered under the EPBCA. This species feeds mainly on the nectar of blue gum Eucalyptus globulus but in some years relies on black gum E. ovata due to its flowering period overlapping with the arrival of the species in early spring from migration. Both blue gums and black gums are present within the property. The site occurs within a core area for this species and swift parrots are known to frequent the area during the breeding season if the gums are flowering. Swift parrots prefer to nest with ample bush surrounding them and prefer trees with a dbh exceeding 40 cm dbh for foraging. The property contains some suitable foraging trees but they are of low suitability for breeding12.

Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii). The eastern barred bandicoot is nationally listed as vulnerable. It is considered to "require monitoring" in Tasmania. Although locally common in areas of south-eastern and northern Tasmania, this species is now absent from most of its original range in the Midlands due to land clearance. It occurs predominantly in native grasslands, grassy woodland and on cleared grazing land where there is some cover (eg. remnant bushland, rank grass, gorse) where it feeds on worms, cockchafer larvae and other earth-dwelling larvae dug from the soil in open grasslands. The project would present limited additional risk to this species.

Forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus). The forty spotted pardalote Pardalotus quadragintus is listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth’s Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Protection Act 1999. This species is confined to a few colonies in coastal south east Tasmania, particularly in the Bruny Island – D’Entrecasteaux Channel area. Refer to Figure 6 for colony mapping. The forty spotted pardalote occurs in coastal white gum forest and woodland and it is threatened in particular by clearance of its habitat and selective felling of white gums in or in the vicinity of its colonies. All patches of forest containing white gum within the species core range is critical to the survival of this species13.

12 Brereton, R. Mallick, S. and Kennedy, S. (2004). Foraging preferences of Swift Parrots on Tasmanian Blue-gum: tree size, flowing frequency and flowering intensity. EMU 104:377-383. 13 Threatened Species Unit (1998).

Figure 6 - Known forty spotted pardalote colonies in the surrounding landscape14

14 Available at http://forty-spotted.org.au/howden.html

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 25-05-2018 20

4. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION

4.1. VEGETATION No native vegetation has been mapped across the study area.

4.2. THREATENED FLORA No threatened flora has been observed for impact.

4.3. THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT The property may be utilised by the EPBCA vulnerable eastern barred bandicoot. The species is not listed under Tasmanian legislation as it remains abundant in many periurban situations. Developments of the scale of the current proposal are not considered to represent a threat to the survival of this species and do not require any targeted mitigation.

The Eucalyptus globulus/ovata on site may be periodically utilised by the EPBCA critically endangered and TSPA endangered swift parrot. Residential developments in bushland are a threatening process to the conservation of this species through direct habitat loss (tree removal) and from increased mortality through collisions with human constructions.

Significant eucalypts have been identified. The lot design generally avoids direct impacts to the trees.

Deep lots (3-6, 22) backing on to the Mary Knoll Reserve ensure plenty of buffer between building envelopes and the trees.

The white gums will be incorporated into an effective extension to Mary Knoll Reserve, allocated as Public Open Space.

Five large blue gums in the south of the site are incorporated into Lots 8 and 9. Four are located close to lot boundaries with adequate spacing from building envelopes. One on Lot 8 is in closer proximity to building envelope. This tree may be at risk and would warrant aboricultural assessment.

A large white peppermint on lot 19 is at risk for similar reasons (proximity to building envelope).

Services such as stormwater and sewerage locations have to been assessed.

All future dwellings should be designed to minimise collision risk, as outlined in the guidelines for minimising the swift parrot collision threat and the Tasmanian Bird Collision Code15.

4.4. WEEDS Construction within a weed infested area increases the risk of spreading weeds further afield. A weed management plan should be implemented to adequately manage the weeds recorded within the application area. We also suggest contractors adhere to best practice construction hygiene16 and do not remove contaminated soil off site.

15 Pfennigwerth 2008 16 DPIPWE 2015

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

5.1. COMMONWEALT H ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND

B IODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 The EPBCA is structured for self-assessment; the proponent must indicate whether or not the project is considered a ‘controlled action’, which, if confirmed, would require approval from the Commonwealth Minister.

The probability of any EPBCA listed flora species occurring on the property is considered to be remote.

The eastern barred bandicoot may utilise the property. However, the natural values assessment has indicated that the proposal is unlikely to cause a measurable decline to the species and will not breach the significant impact criteria under the EPBCA.

Foraging trees in the form of blue gum, black gum and white gum occur onsite for swift parrots and forty spotted pardalote. Numbers impacted to this foraging resource from subdivision is not considered significant to these species and consequently, referral to the Minister is not considered to be necessary for this proposal.

5.2. TASMANIAN THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 1995 No threatened species have been recorded.

5.3. TASMANIAN WEED MANAGEMENT ACT 1999 Kingborough is a Zone B municipality for the species of declared weed observed on site. According to the provisions of the Weed Management Act 1999, Zone B municipalities are those which host widespread infestations where control and prevention of spread is the principle aim while Zone A is targeted for eradication. The containment principles of this Act should be sufficiently met with best practice construction hygiene that prevents the transport of contaminated material off site.

5.4. K INGBOROUGH INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 Biodiversity Code (E 10.0)

Under the definitions of table E10.1 of the Biodiversity Code, the threatened fauna habitats for swift parrot (blue gums and black gums) and forty spotted pardalote (white gums) qualify as moderate priority biodiversity values due to the presence of potential foraging habitat.

The following responses are based on the concept plan and are indicative only and should be finalised once the final plan of subdivision is completed.

Clause 10.8.1 Subdivision

The proposal for the clearance and conversion of native vegetation does not meet the acceptable solution A1 because the Biodiversity Protection Area covers part of the area of subdivision. Thus, the impacts to moderate priority biodiversity values are required to meet the following performance criteria (P1 - b):

P1 Clearance and conversion or disturbance must satisfy the following:

(i) Subdivision works are designed and located to minimise impacts, having regard to constraints such as topography or land hazard and the particular requirements of the development

Mary Knoll Reserve along the waterway will be extended to the north including the walkway. The majority of blue gums including the mature blue gums to the south look to be retained based on house locations. The impact to at least one tree on Lot 8 and one on Lot 19 would warrant assessment by an arborist to confirm the likely impact of residential impact. Even if the trees can be retained, their long term prognosis is compromised by the placement of dwellings in such close proximity.

White gums and black gums appear to be retained within the Reserve extension. One additional large white peppermint will be removed.

There is opportunity to include white gum, black gum or blue gum tree plantings during Landscape design.

(ii) impacts resulting from bushfire hazard management measures are minimised as far as reasonably practicable through siting and fire-resistant design of habitable buildings;

The bushfire hazard management plan has not been reviewed. However it is likely isolated trees can be retained .

(iii) Moderate priority biodiversity values outside the area impacted by subdivision works, the building area and the area likely impacted by future bushfire hazard management measures are retained and protected by appropriate mechanisms on the land title.

An area of white gums and black gums will be included in the Mary Knoll Reserve extension to the north. The mature blue gums to the south should be retained where possible with the balance included in the financial offse t to Council.

Plate 12 - Biodiversity Protection Overlay

(iv) residual adverse impacts on moderate priority biodiversity values not able to be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated are offset in accordance with the Guidelines for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in the Local Planning Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2013 and Council Policy 6.10.

Residual impacts are small but may include some eucalypts on Lots 8 and 19. Council Offset Policy includes a mechanism that is based on a financial consideration of up to $500 per tree.

Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11)

The current access off Blowhole Road will be improved however no additional impact is envisaged to the minor waterway. The area to the north is proposed to be included as an extension to the Mary Knoll Reserve thus no negative environmental impacts on this waterway is considered.

Plate 13 - This shows the waterway north of Mary Knoll Reserve. No stream occurs above

ground thus it is assumed there is stormwater piping below ground.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)

6.1 H IGH CONSERVATION VALUE TREES AND POTENTIAL THREATENED

FAUNA HABITAT (SWIFT PARROT AND FORTY SPOTTED PARDALOTE) Only trees approved for removal shall be cleared. Trees to be retained will

be clearly marked on the ground and this clearly communicated to all contractors.

No burning should be undertaken within any tree protection zone of any gums not approved for removal. Fine litter must also be left in place within the tree protection zones. This will not limit the proponent’s ability to conform with the fire hazard management requirements. Burning must only be undertaken based on Council advice.

No fertiliser or grey water should be applied directly to the waterway or coastal section.

Prepare a Vegetation Management Plan

o This plan will shows trees to be removed and retained, locations for washdown, burning, stockpiling and best practice measures.

o This VMP should include weed management activities to occur prior to civil works and a pre-start meeting to ensure site set out is accurate and no trees are impacted that are not approved for removal.

6.2 WEEDS Prepare a weed management plan to direct weed management activities

onsite..

It must be specified within the works contract that best practice hygiene measures are required to prevent new weeds being introduced and contaminated material leaving the site. This should include keeping a register of vehicle/machinery cleaning and inspections.

Weed management should be undertaken prior to construction.

No soil or weed material should be removed from the site unless removal and disposal conforms to the requirements of the Weed Management Act 1999.

The development of the area of weed infestation into a house and garden is likely to result in a reduction of problematic species currently present. Secondary and Tertiary treatments may be required to treat germinants.

7. CONCLUSION The main natural values present are in the form of potential foraging habitat (black gums, blue gums and white gums) for the nationally endangered birds, the swift parrot and forty spotted pardalote. The aim is to minimise impacts to these trees during subdivision design. Any trees that require removal will need an offset to meet the Councils Biodiversity Code within the Planning Scheme. This may be in the form of a financial offset to a value up to $500 per tree.

Future housing should consider the guidelines for minimising swift parrot collision risk in building design

It is recommended that the trees in residential lots 8 and 19 are assessed by an arborist prior to assessing any building applications and any consequent removal are offset in accordance with Council policy.

REFERENCES Bryant, S. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: what, where

and how to protect. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015). EPBC Protected Matters Database:

http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf

Report PMST – TOCO8D.

Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. No. 91, 1999.

de Salas M.F. and Baker M.L. (2017). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania & Index to the Student's Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) (2015). TASVEG 3.0, Released November 2013. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program, Resource Management and Conservation Division.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. (Eds.) Karen Stewart and Michael Askey-Doran. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania.

DPIPWE (2017). Natural Values Report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017, Natural Values Atlas, Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.

Goff, F.G, Dawson, G.A. and Rochow, J.J. (1982). Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species. Environmental Management 6 (4) pp 307-316.

Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. and Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of Tasmania. Melbourne University Press.

Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (2015) Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys - Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

Pfennigwerth, S. (2008). Minimising the swift parrot collision threat. Guidelines and recommendations for parrot-safe building design. World Wildlife Fund – Australia.

Tasmanian Fire Service (2005). Guidelines for development in bushfire prone areas of Tasmania. Living with fire in Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (1993). Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. No.70 of 1993. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No.83 of 1995. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1999). Weed Management Act 1999. No.105 of 1999. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No.63 of 2002. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2006). Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened Native Vegetation Communities) Act 2006. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

APPENDIX A – SPECIES CONSERVATION VALUES SPECIES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Listed in Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act has six categories of threat status for species:

1. Extinct - If at a particular time there is no reasonable doubt that the last member of the species has died.

2. Extinct in the wild - If it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population well outside its past range; or If it has not been recorded in its known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form.

3. Critically endangered - If at a particular time, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

4. Endangered - If it is not critically endangered; and it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

5. Vulnerable - If at a particular time it is not critically endangered or endangered; and it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

6. Conservation dependent - If, at that time, the species is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered within a period of 5 years.

SPECIES OF STATE SIGNIFICANCE

Listed in Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act)

Threatened flora and fauna species in Tasmania are listed in Schedules 3 (extinct or endangered), 4 (vulnerable) or 5 (rare). These three categories are defined in Section 15 of the Act.

1. Extinct - If no occurrence of the taxon in the wild can be confirmed during the past 50 years.

2. Endangered - If it is in danger of extinction because long-term survival is unlikely while the factors causing it to be endangered continue operating.

3. Vulnerable - If it is likely to become an endangered taxon while the factors causing it to be vulnerable continue operating.

4. Rare - If it has a small population in Tasmania that is not endangered or vulnerable but is at risk.”

Species that have been nominated and approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee for listing in the Act.

SPECIES OF REGIONAL OR GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE

The following definitions are from three publications: Flora Advisory Committee 1994, Vertebrate Advisory Committee 1994, Invertebrate Advisory Committee 1994.

Flora only - Species listed as rare but not necessarily ‘at risk’ (r3).

Fauna only – Species requiring monitoring (m).

Both – Species of unknown risk status (k) in Tasmania, or thought to be uncommon within region, or a species having a declining range or populations within the area.

Species considered being outside its normal range or of an unusual form as determined and justified in the body of the report.

Species identified in regional studies as being of conservation significance that are not listed in current legislation.

Species that have been recognised, but have not been formally described in a published journal, that are thought to be significant as determined and justified in the body of the report.

Plant species that are not known to be reserved. To be so it must be known to exist in at least one secure Reserve. Secure reserves include reserves and parks requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament for their revocation. They include: National Parks, Aboriginal Sites, Historic Sites, Nature Reserves, State Reserves, Game Reserves, Forest Reserves, Wellington Park, and insecure reserves in the World Heritage Area which is protected by international agreement under the World Heritage Convention.

APPENDIX B – LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THREATENED SPECIES Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Threatened flora and fauna species in Tasmania are listed in Schedules 3 (endangered) and 4 (vulnerable) of the Threatened Species Protection Act, 1995. Rare species that are considered to be ‘at risk’ are listed in Schedule 5 of the Act. These three categories are defined in Section 15 of the Act.

1. “An extant taxon of native flora or fauna may be listed as endangered if it is in danger of extinction because long-term survival is unlikely while the factors causing it to be endangered continue operating.

2. A taxon of native flora or fauna may be listed as vulnerable if it is likely to become an endangered taxon while the factors causing it to be vulnerable continue operating.

3. A taxon of native flora or fauna may be listed as rare if it has a small population in Tasmania that is not endangered or vulnerable but is at risk.”

4. The Act provides mechanisms for protecting these species from threatening processes the implementation of ‘recovery plans’, ‘threat abatement plans’, ‘land management plans’, public authority agreements’, and ‘interim protection orders’.

Section 51 (a) of the TSPA states that: “A person must not knowingly, without a permit - take, trade in, keep or process any listed flora or fauna”. The Act defines ‘take’ as including: “kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and collect. A land manager is therefore required to obtain a permit from the Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB) of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) to carry out management that may adversely affect any of the species listed in the Act.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act establishes a process for assessing actions that are likely to have impacts of national environmental significance. Such impacts include World Heritage Areas, RAMSAR Wetland sites of international importance, migratory species protected under international agreements, nuclear actions, the Commonwealth marine environment and nationally threatened species and communities. Threatened species are defined in several categories:

1. Extinct

If at a particular time there is no reasonable doubt that the last member of the species has died.

2. Extinct in the wild

If it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population well outside its past range; or

If it has not been recorded in its known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form.

3. Critically endangered

If at a particular time, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

4. Endangered

If it is not critically endangered; and it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

5. Vulnerable

If at a particular time it is not critically endangered or endangered; and it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

6. Conservation dependent

If, at that time, the species is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered within a period of 5 years.

An action that is likely to affect species that are listed in any of the above categories may require ministerial approval unless the Commonwealth Environment Minister has granted an exemption. The Act establishes a referral process to Environment Australia to determine whether an action requires a formal approval and thus would be required to proceed through the assessment and approval process.

A referral must provide sufficient information to allow the Minister to make a decision. The Minister is then required to make a decision within 20 business days of the referral. The Minister may decide an approval is not necessary if the action is taken in a specified manner. The action may not require approval but may require a permit if undertaken on Commonwealth land. If an approval is required then an environmental assessment must be carried out. In such instances the environmental assessment approach will be determined by the Minister and may vary from preliminary documentation to a full public inquiry depending on the scale and complexity of the impact.

APPENDIX C: VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES Status codes:

ORIGIN NATIONAL SCHEDULE STATE SCHEDULE

i - introduced EPBC Act 1999 TSP Act 1995

d - declared weed WM Act CR - critically endangered e - endangered

en - endemic to Tasmania EN - endangered v - vulnerable

t - within Australia, occurs only in Tas. VU - vulnerable r - rare

Sites:

1 gardens, grassy areas - modiefied land (FUM) - E526574, N5239222 29-11-2017 Dave Sayers

2 FUMEG - E526586, N5239121 29-11-2017 Dave Sayers

Site Name Common name Status DICOTYLEDONAE AIZOACEAE 2 Carpobrotus rossii native pigface APOCYNACEAE 2 Vinca major blue periwinkle i

ARALIACEAE 1 Hedera helix ivy i

ASTERACEAE 1 Bellis perennis english daisy i 2 Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. boneseed d monilifera 1 Cirsium vulgare spear thistle i 1 2 Dimorphotheca fruticosa trailing daisy i 1 Euryops abrotanifolius winter euryops i 1 2 Gazania linearis tufted gazania i 1 Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear i 2 Senecio glomeratus subsp. glomeratus shortfruit purple fireweed 1 2 Senecio pinnatifolius common coast groundsel 2 Senecio quadridentatus cotton fireweed 1 Sonchus asper bluegreen prickly sowthistle i 2 Sonchus asper subsp. asper green prickly sowthistle i 1 Taraxacum officinale common dandelion i

BORAGINACEAE 1 Echium candicans pride of madeira i

CARYOPHYLLACEAE 1 Cerastium vulgare common mouse-ear i 1 Spergularia marina lesser seaspurrey i

CASUARINACEAE 1 2 Allocasuarina verticillata drooping sheoak CHENOPODIACEAE 1 Chenopodium album fat hen i 2 Einadia nutans subsp. nutans climbing saltbush 1 2 Rhagodia candolleana subsp. candolleana coastal saltbush CLUSIACEAE 1 Hypericum androsaemum tutsan i

CRASSULACEAE 1 Crassula decumbens var. decumbens spreading stonecrop

EPACRIDACEAE 1 Lissanthe strigosa subsp. subulata peachberry heath EUPHORBIACEAE 1 Euphorbia lathyris caper spurge i 1 Euphorbia peplus petty spurge i

FABACEAE 1 Cytisus scoparius english broom d 1 Medicago polymorpha burr medick i 1 Trifolium dubium suckling clover i 1 Trifolium repens white clover i 1 Vicia sativa subsp. nigra narrowleaf vetch i

FUMARIACEAE 1 Fumaria sp. fumitory i

GENTIANACEAE 1 Centaurium erythraea common centaury i

GERANIACEAE 1 Geranium solanderi southern cranesbill MALVACEAE 1 Malva sylvestris tall mallow i

MIMOSACEAE 1 Acacia baileyana cootamundra wattle i 1 2 Acacia floribunda gossamer wattle i 1 Acacia howittii howitt's wattle i 1 2 Acacia melanoxylon blackwood 1 Acacia pravissima oven's wattle i

MYRTACEAE 2 Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus tasmanian blue gum 2 Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata black gum 1 Eucalyptus pulchella white peppermint en 1 Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis white gum 1 Melaleuca armillaris giant honeymyrtle OXALIDACEAE 2 Oxalis perennans grassland woodsorrel 2 Oxalis pes-caprae soursob i

PASSIFLORACEAE 1 2 Passiflora tarminiana banana passionfruit i PITTOSPORACEAE 2 Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box 2 Pittosporum undulatum sweet pittosporum i 1 Pittosporum undulatum subsp. undulatum sweet pittosporum i PLANTAGINACEAE 1 2 Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain i 1 Plantago major great plantain i

POLYGONACEAE 1 Acetosella vulgaris sheep sorrel i

ROSACEAE 1 Acaena echinata spiny sheeps burr 1 Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy 1 Cotoneaster glaucophyllus var. serotinus largeleaf cotoneaster i 1 Crataegus monogyna hawthorn i 1 Rubus fruticosus blackberry d

RUBIACEAE 1 Galium aparine cleavers i

SAPINDACEAE 1 Dodonaea viscosa subsp. spatulata broadleaf hopbush SCROPHULARIACEAE 1 Verbascum thapsus great mullein i

SOLANACEAE 1 Solanum laciniatum kangaroo apple

GYMNOSPERMAE CUPRESSACEAE 1 Cupressus macrocarpa monterey cypress i

PINACEAE 1 Pinus radiata radiata pine i

MONOCOTYLEDONAE LILIACEAE 1 2 Agapanthus praecox subsp. orientalis agapanthus i 2 Dianella revoluta var. revoluta spreading flax-lily POACEAE 1 Aira caryophyllea silvery hairgrass i 1 Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum bulbous oatgrass i 1 Bromus catharticus prairie grass i 1 2 Bromus diandrus great brome i 1 Bromus hordeaceus soft brome i 1 Cynosurus echinatus rough dogstail i 1 Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot i 1 2 Ehrharta erecta panic veldtgrass i 1 Hordeum murinum barley, wall barley grass i 1 Lagurus ovatus harestail grass i 1 2 Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass i 1 2 Poa labillardierei silver tussockgrass 2 Poa rodwayi velvet tussockgrass 2 Rytidosperma caespitosum common wallabygrass 1 Rytidosperma carphoides short wallabygrass 1 Rytidosperma pilosum velvet wallabygrass 2 Rytidosperma setaceum bristly wallabygrass 2 Rytidosperma sp. wallabygrass 1 Vulpia bromoides squirreltail fescue i 1 Vulpia myuros ratstail fescue i

XANTHORRHOEACEAE

2 Lomandra longifolia sagg

APPENDIX K

Concept Services Report

R E P O R T

15 Home Avenue Subdivision - Concept Services Report

May 2018

I:\_PH\2017\173034PH - 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay\Civil\J173034PH - 15 Home Avenue - Concept Services Report.doc

JMG Project No. J173034PH

1 25.05.2018 Issued for Review A.I.H B.B.G B.B.G

3. This document must be signed “Approved” by JMG to authorise it for use. JMG accept no liability whatsoever for unauthorised or unlicensed use.

15 Home Avenue Concept Services Report • May 2018 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4

2. Stormwater ......................................................................................... 4

2.1 Existing Stormwater Conditions ............................................................ 4 2.2 Proposed Stormwater System and Capacity Analysis .................................... 4 2.3 Overland Flow Paths ......................................................................... 5 2.4 Quality Analysis .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Planning Scheme Requirements ............................................................ 7

3. Water ................................................................................................. 9

4. Sewer ................................................................................................. 9

5. Power, Telecommunications and Lighting ................................................... 9

6. Road and Access ................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX A – C01

APPENDIX B – C02

APPENDIX C – STORMWATER CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX D – MUSIC CATCHMENT AREAS

15 Home Avenue Concept Services Report • May 2018

1. Introduction

This report identifies the service requirements for the planned 22 lot subdivision of 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay.

The existing site occupies an area of approximately 3.735Ha and contains several buildings, accessed by an internal road network, of which two are residential accommodation while the others are utilised by the Catholic Church to host school groups. The remainder of the site is made up of cleared grassland and a small amount of scattered vegetation.

The development will see the removal of all but one building and a complete upgrade of the existing road network.

The subdivision will be connected to the existing road network via upgraded accesses to Home Avenue and Blowhole Road, approximately 7.9m & 11m wide respectively, both sufficient in size to handle the planned development.

Due to the proximity of the development to the public beach area, particular attention has been made to the discharge quality of the stormwater system, where rain gardens (acting as bio retention systems) and swales have been employed throughout the site to ensure a high performing, low maintenance outcome. Similarly stormwater flows have been directed in such a way to minimise discharge volumes through the beach outlet infrastructure.

A site layout can be seen in Appendix A.

2. Stormwater

2.1 Existing Stormwater Conditions

The site is bounded by residential subdivisions to both the north and west and Blowhole Road to the south. A small section of bushland reserve runs parallel to Blowhole Road on the eastern Boundary.

A defined ridge runs approximately north to south for the length of the site, resulting in runoff shedding to both the eastern & western boundaries. The eastern catchment has the largest contribution area and travels to a well-established watercourse within the nature reserve. This watercourse is directed beneath blowhole road via a large culvert before discharging to Blackmans Bay. The western catchment appears to travel as sheet flow to Blowhole Road, with the boundary fence acting to limit overland flow to the adjacent properties.

2.2 Proposed Stormwater System and Capacity Analysis

The development will be serviced by a piped stormwater drainage system with capacity to convey rainfall events of AEP 5%, excepting the south east corner which must be sized to carry events of AEP 1%. For the remainder of the site overland flow will be used to convey events up to AEP 1%.

We understand from early discussions with Council that the quality of the stormwater discharge is of utmost importance due to the proximity of the development with Blackmans Bay Beach. From the same discussions we also acknowledge the capacity of the stormwater treatment infrastructure at the northern end of Blackmans Bay Beach is unknown and post development flows are not to exceed existing conditions. We understand that flow volumes into the north eastern outflow are however not critical due to the large culvert beneath the road, the high capacity of the overland flow path and the proximity to the bottom of the catchment.

As such the proposed stormwater network has been optimised to direct the majority of flow to the eastern discharge point.

The remaining area flowing to the south-western edge of the property was analysed to determine the detention volume required to limit post-developed flow to the pre-development rate.

The sites IFD data were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology and the rational method was used, in accordance with AR&R 1987, to calculate the sites maximum pre-developed Time of Concentration, 11.8 minutes.

The pre-developed area discharging to the south-western boundary was determined to be 14,372m2 and estimated at 17.8% impermeable, resulting in flow rate of 0.066m3/sec.

Post-development flows were determined from the subdivision plans, provided by Rogerson & Birch Surveyors, and the proposed drainage network, Appendix A – Drawing C01. Impermeable area for all lots, excepting 10, 16 & 22, were based on a house size of 230m2, the average size of a new Australian home constructed in 2016/2017. These lots were considered to have pavement of 20 m2 (for access driveway) and 10% impermeability for the remaining area.

The roof area for lots 10, 16 & 22 were considered to be 70% of the total lot area, with driveways accounting for 5% of the total area and the remaining lot area 10% impermeable. The footpath linking Road 1 to Blowhole road has a preliminary design length of 78m, width of 2m and is considered to be 100% impermeable.

These approximations result in a total catchment area of 6759 m2 with 34% impermeability and a revised 6.0min Time of Concentration. Yielding a post-developed flow rate of 0.066m3/sec.

As can be seen the re-distribution of drainage paths following development results in no change to the discharge flow rate, thus no requirement for detention.

2.3 Overland Flow Paths

The road network will provide the primary overland flow paths for the subdivision.

The natural surface dictates that any sheet flow generated from Road 2 will discharge directly to the existing watercourse through the reserve.

Road 1 sheet flow will be directed, via kerb and channel, to the cul-de-sac head. Pipework parallel to the boundary separating lots 5 & 6 has been sized to convey flow for events up to 1% AEP. This removes the need for a dedicated overland flow path across these lots.

This piped network will connect directly to the existing grated pit on the Northern side of Blowhole Road, flow from Road 2 will also enter the grated pit at this point. The combined flow will then cross beneath Blowhole Road via the existing culvert before discharging to Blackmans Bay. Flow exceeding the culverts capacity will pass overland across Blowhole Road, channeled via an existing low point directly above the culvert. At this point blowhole road acts as a non-critical, one-way scenic through road.

The south-western Catchment will typically drain toward the western fence-line, minor earthworks along the boundary will be considered during the detailed design phase to ensure that 1% AEP flow can be directed to the low point of the P.O.S 202, before discharging to Blackmans Bay Beach via Blowhole Road.

2.4 Quality Analysis

MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation) software was used to analyse the treatment efficacy of the proposed stormwater system. The model utilised input parameters defined in the ‘Draft NSW MUSIC Modelling Guidelines: August 2010’ and 6min interval rainfall data for Hobart for the period 1990 to 2010.

Appendix D details the catchment areas used for the MUSIC model.

All lot ratios are as per those typically described in 2.2, excepting 16, 21 & 22, considered super lots, using the same ratio as lot 10.

Catchment 1

Catchment 1 flows to the north-eastern most roadside raingarden.

Catchment 2

Catchment 2 flows to a vegetated swale that runs the length of the north-eastern boundary. This has been modelled at 90m long with an approximate grade of 4%.

Catchment 5

It is proposed that runoff from the road network be treated via multiple rain gardens, located within the kerb at locations as shown in Appendix A.

These rain gardens have a typical surface area of 8.7m2 and treatment depth of 0.6m. They will be planted with suitable nutrient effective removal plant which act to capture gross pollutants on the surface and allow water to percolate through to the underlying filtration media. This water will then re-enter the piped system via a sub-soil drain located at the base of the rain garden. All units will be fitted with surcharge pits to ensure capacity for 5% AEP events. By virtue of design, each rain garden offers approx. 2.5m3 of detention which will assist time and concentration during high rainfall events. Specific detail will be provided during detailed design.

Catchment 3

Runoff generated within catchment 3 will flow to a series rain gardens with similar treatment characteristics to that of the roadside rain gardens. A treatment area of 15m2 has been nominally assigned to this area. Construction standard drawings will be provided during the detailed design, but preliminary investigations suggest this level treatment is feasible.

Catchment 4

Catchment 4 enters the existing network without treatment, due to the difficulty in discharging to a treatment device.

A schematic of the MUSIC model for the site can be seen below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Stormwater treatment MUSIC Model

The results from the MUSIC modelling are tabulated below.

Sources Residual Load % Reduction

Flow (ML/yr) 8.6 8.46 1.6

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 1080 282 74

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 2.39 1.37 42.7

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 19.4 13.2 32

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 302 66.6 77.9

Table 1 – Treatment Train Effectiveness

The interim planning scheme implies that a stormwater system for a new development must meet water quality targets as detailed in the State Stormwater Strategy, 2010 and as follows (unless it is not feasible to do so):

- 80% reduction in the annual average load of total suspended solids

- 45% reduction in the annual average load of total phosphorus

- 45% reduction in the annual average load of total nitrogen

As can be seen the proposed system falls just short of best practice for all three key pollutant indicators. However, the system is considered acceptable for a number of reasons.

These figures simply measure the percentage reduction attributed to the treatment of the new site. They do not compare the quality of the pre-& post developed catchments. It is obvious that the existing site currently discharges untreated stormwater to Blackmans Bay. The site itself has a several buildings and a reasonably large internal road network with a number of carparks, key contributors to low quality runoff.

Further to this it is important to note the new sealed road network is the largest contributor to stormwater pollution of the new development, this completely discharges to the roadside rain gardens.

To further improve stormwater quality the use of proprietary device or construction of a conventional WSUD feature (at the bottom of the catchment on public property) would be required. This is considered undesirable due to not only upfront costs, but also ongoing maintenance requirements.

2.5 Planning Scheme Requirements

E7.7.1 – Stormwater Drainage and Disposal

1. Acceptable solution A1: Stormwater from new impervious surfaces must be disposed of by gravity to public stormwater infrastructure.

The bulk of the site discharges via pipework to the existing open drain running parallel to blowhole road, the remainder to the existing stormwater network located at the bottom of the developments south western corner.

2. Acceptable solution A2: A stormwater system for a new development must incorporate water sensitive urban design principals for the treatment and disposal of stormwater.

WSUD design principals have been incorporated into the stormwater system by

means of multiple rain gardens and vegetated swales. Rain gardens are located

within kerb and channel and public open space (free drains to empty), while the

vegetated swale acts as part of the public drainage network within an easement.

3. Acceptable solution A3: A minor stormwater drainage system must be designed to comply with all of the following:

a. be able to accommodate a storm with an ARI of 20 years (n.b. 5% AEP) when the land serviced by the system is fully developed;

b. Stormwater runoff will be no greater than pre-existing runoff or any increase can be accommodated within existing or upgraded public stormwater infrastructure

During the detailed design phase, the piped network will be sized such that it can handle flows generated by an AEP event of 5% or greater.

Council have indicated, due to the proximity to the bottom of the catchment, that no detention is required if runoff is discharged to the open drain running parallel to Blowhole road. The stormwater system has been designed such that the majority of flow enters this open drain, with the remaining discharge to the south western corner no more than the current discharge.

4. A major stormwater drainage system must be designed to accommodate a storm with an ARI of 100 years.

Overland flow paths and existing open drains will be examined during the detailed design phase to ensure capacity for flows up to an event of AEP 1%.

3. Water

The site is currently serviced by connections to two separate DN100 CICL water mains, the first runs the length of Home Avenue/Derwent Avenue while the second runs parallel to Blowhole Road.

It is expected that these 2 mains have sufficient capacity to supply the proposed development, a preliminary layout can be seen in Appendix B - Drawing C02.

4. Sewer

A DN150 PVC Gravity Main services Blowhole Road, before traversing the lower section of the development site. It is expected that some, if not all, of the existing buildings on site discharge to this main. This will be confirmed in the detailed design process.

The proposed sewer arrangement can be seen on Appendix A – Drawing C01, this design allows the effective low point of each lot to discharge via-gravity to the existing network.

5. Power, Telecommunications and Lighting

Power supply and lighting will be as per TasNetworks requirements. All existing structures on site are currently serviced by overhead power, those to the North via a connection from Home Avenue, and those to the south from Blowhole Road. Discussion with TasNetworks will be required to establish the connection and supply to the subdivision. Telecommunications will be as per NBN Co requirements.

6. Road and Access

Access to the proposed subdivision will be provided by the existing site entries off Home Avenue and Blowhole Road. The road from Home Avenue will match the existing 7.9m width, extending all the way through to the Cul-de-Sac head. Connecting this extension of Home Avenue to Blowhole road a standard 6.9m IPWEA road has been proposed.

APPENDIX A

Drawing – C01

10 202

16 15 14 1312

896m² 699m²

1500m²

456m²

457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²837m² 770m² 661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

BLOWHOLE RD

HOME AVE

1100BEFORE YOU DIGDIAL

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

THIS IS A COLOR A3 DRAWING ANDMUST BE REPRODUCED IN COLORAT ALL TIMES

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

DRAWN BYSCALES @ A3 PROJECT NO.

REVISIONDWG NO.

TITLEPROJECTAccepted

DO NOT SCALE. Use only figured dimensions. Locations of structure, fittings, servicesetc on this drawing are indicative only. CONTRACTOR to check Architects & other projectdrawings for co-ordination between structure, fabric, fixtures, fittings, services etc.CONTRACTOR to site check all dimensions and exact locations of all items. JMG accepts noresponsibility for dimensional information scaled or digitally derived from this document.

The recipient client is licensed to use this drawing for itscommissioned purpose subject to authorisation per note above.Unlicensed use is prohibited. Unlicensed parties may not copy,reproduce or retransmit or amend this document or any part of thisdocument without JMG's prior written permission. Amendment ofthis document is prohibited by any party other than JMG. JMGreserve the right to revoke the licence for use of this document.

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

25/05/2018

P173034PH - C01 P1.DWG49-51 Elizabeth Street, Launceston, Tas

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

PRELIMINARY PRINT

1:1000 J. BALDOCKB. GAMLIN

J173034PHSEWER & STORMWATERSITE SERVICES PLAN

BLACKMANS BAY15 HOME AVENUEPROPSOED SUBDIVISION

APPENDIX B

Drawing – C02

10 202

16 15 14 1312

896m² 699m²

1500m²

456m²

457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²837m² 770m² 661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

BLOWHOLE RD

HOME AVE

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

REVISIONDWG NO.

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

25/05/2018

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

PRELIMINARY PRINT

J173034PHROAD & WATERSITE SERVICES PLAN

APPENDIX C

Stormwater Calculations

PRE-SW Catchments

J173034PH - 15 Home AvenuePre Development Flows - SW Catchment "3"

A= 0.01 Km2 Existing Site Area 14372 m2Se= 64.00 m/Km 100% Impermeable (roof, concrete, bitumen) 2549 m2L= 0.32 Km Pervious Areas FCR/Gravel hardstand 0 m2tc= 12.35 mins Grassed/Vegetated 11823 m2

11.79 minsImpervious Hardstand 0.00%

Landscaped Area 0%Runoff Coefficient Total Area Impervious 2549.00 m2

Fraction impervious = 18% Total % Impervious 17.74%C1,10 = 0.1 Refer ARR Book VIII

C10 = 0.24

Frequency Conversion FactorsARI (years) 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 100 50Factor, Fy 0.8 0.85 0.95 1 1.05 1.2 1.17 1.19 1.2 1.15

Peak Flows For Catchment For Given ARIARI (years) Itc,Y (mm/h) Flow (m3/s)

1 22.66 0.0232 30.55 0.0315 43.60 0.044

10 52.84 0.05420 64.94 0.06650 82.82 0.084

100 97.88 0.099

TC (FOR CATCHMENT 3 - USED FOR SITE)

I:\_PH\2017\173034PH - 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay\Civil\J173034PH-Stormwater Analysis.xls 25/05/201811:43

POST DEVELOPMENT SW

J173034PH - 15 Home AvenuePost Development FLOWS

A= 0.01 Km2 Existing Site Area 6759 m2Se= 64.00 m/Km IMPERMEABLE SURFACESL= 0.32 Km Residential Lots 2111 m2tc= 13.32 mins Super Lots 0 m2

6.00 mins Public Open Space 156 m2

Runoff Coefficient Total Area Impervious 2267 m2Fraction impervious = 34% Total % Impervious 34%

C1,10 = 0.1 Refer ARR Book VIIIC10 = 0.37

Frequency Conversion FactorsARI (years) 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 100 50Factor, Fy 0.8 0.85 0.95 1 1.05 1.2 1.17 1.19 1.2 1.15

Peak Flows For Catchment For Given ARIARI (years) Itc,Y (mm/h) Flow (m3/s)

1 28.96 0.0212 39.65 0.0295 58.84 0.043

10 72.96 0.05320 91.38 0.06650 119.08 0.087

100 142.89 0.104

TC (FOR CATCHMENT 3 - USED FOR SITE)

I:\_PH\2017\173034PH - 15 Home Avenue Blackmans Bay\Civil\J173034PH-Stormwater Analysis.xls 25/05/201811:55

APPENDIX D

MUSIC Catchment Areas

10 202

16 15 14 1312

896m² 699m²

1500m²

456m²

457m²

553m²

2940m²

738m²

961m²

992m²995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²837m² 770m² 661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

BLOWHOLE RD

HOME AVE

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

REVISIONDWG NO.

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

25/05/2018

ACN 009 547 139

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

PRELIMINARY PRINT

191919

existing building to becontained clear of the4.50m front setback lines

part of existing building to becontained clear of the4.50m front setback lines

2.313.8

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

6.2 17.7

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

29.017.0

6.0 14.0

896m²1500m²

1500m²

1000m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

2043m²

561m²

463m²457m²

3254m²

1500m²700m²

1233m²

749m²

1000m²

4965m²

934m²

5445m²

Scale:

28-9-2018

Reference:JMG043

A COUNCIL LODGEMENT VERSION AB 24-5-2018 ABB MODIFY LOT 21 AB 31-7-2018 ABC EASEMENTS MODIFIED AB 1-8-2018 ABD Major Boundary Changes AB 28-9-2018 ABE

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-08

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

Plan 2 of 2 - buildings to be retained

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE -AREA C

191919

2.313.8

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

6.2 17.7

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

29.017.0

6.0 14.0

896m²1500m²

1500m²

1000m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

2043m²

561m²

463m²457m²

3254m²

1500m²700m²

1233m²

749m²

1000m²

4965m²

934m²

5445m²

Scale:

28-9-2018

Reference:JMG043

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-08

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Staging:Stage 1 - lots 1 - 17, Lots 19, 20, Road 100 & P.O.S 201Stage 2 - Lots 18, 21, Road 101 & P.O.S. 200

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

Plan 1 of 2 - lot details & staging plan

191919

existing building to becontained clear of the4.50m front setback lines

part of existing building to becontained clear of the4.50m front setback lines

2.313.8

34.6 49.7

5.217.9

20.29.5

27.08.9

6.2 17.7

5.6 6.5

3.13.15.4

1.46.26.2

21.327.1

29.017.0

6.0 14.0

896m²1500m²

1500m²

1000m²

656m²

2280m²

837m²

770m²

661m²

670m²

664m²

2043m²

561m²

463m²457m²

3254m²

1500m²700m²

1233m²

749m²

1000m²

4965m²

934m²

5445m²

Scale:

28-9-2018

Reference:JMG043

C.T.34279/1, C.T.199874/1

OWNER:

BLACKMANS BAY

10651-08

1:1000 (A3)

C.T.55854/84 & C.T.55854/85

Proposed Easement

10m x 15m rectangle

4.5m front setback

Plan 2 of 2 - buildings to be retained

10 201

1716 15 14 13

896m² 699m²

1500m²

456m²

457m²

3493m²

738m²

961m²

992m²995m²

1227m²

656m²

2280m²837m² 770m² 661m²

670m²

664m²

5245m²

552m²

2043m²

BLOWHOLE RD

HOME AVE

DESIGNED BY

PLOT DATE

PLOT DETAILS

REVISIONDWG NO.

Approved Date

Accepted

(Team Leader)

(Discipline Head)

(Group Manager)

02/10/2018

ACN 009 547 139

www.jmg.net.auinfohbt@jmg.net.auinfoltn@jmg.net.au

REMARKDATEREV

ABN 76 473 834 852

PRELIMINARY PRINT

BLACKMANS BAY15 HOME AVENUEPROPOSED SUBDIVISION

Andrew North anorth@northbarker.com.au Philip Barker pbarker@northbarker.com.au

163 Campbell Street Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone 03. 6231 9788 Facsimile 03. 6231 9877

15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay

Proposed subdivision

Natural Values Assessment

17 August 2018

For Johnstone, McGee and Gandy Pty Ltd (JMG018)

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 - 17 Aug 2018 ii

Summary

Application: Rezoning and Subdivision

Natural Values

Threatened Flora NA

Threatened Fauna Potential foraging habitat for forty spotted Pardalote (white gums) and swift parrots (blue and black gums)

Threatened vegetation NA

Impact No direct impacts to fauna habitat trees

EPBC Act No significant impact to MNES

TSP Act NA

Weed Mngt Act 3 Declared Weed. 3 Zone B

KIPS High Priority NA

KIPS Moderate Priority Potential habitat swift parrots and forty spotted pardalote

- Blue gums, black gums and white gums

KIPS Low priority NA

Kingborough Interim Planning scheme 2015 General Residential Zone

Low Density Zones

Biodiversity Code

Waterway and Coastal Protection Code

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 - 17 Aug 2018 iii

Contributors

Field Assessment: Dave Sayers - date of survey: 29th November 2017

Report & Mapping: Dave Sayers 13/12/2017

Review: Andrew North 25/5/2018, amendment in response to RFI 17/8/2018

Consultation: Matthew Clark, Johnstone, McGee and Gandy Pty Ltd

North Barker Ecosystem Services, 2018 - This work is protected under

Australian Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot

be used by anyone for any purpose other than that expressed in the

service contract for this report without the written permission of North

Barker Ecosystem Services.

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 - 17 Aug 2018 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

............................................................................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5

2. ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 5

2.1. STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................5 2.2. METHODS ......................................................................................................................6

Limitations ..........................................................................................................................6

3. BIOLOGICAL VALUES ..................................................................................................... 8

3.1. VEGETATION ..................................................................................................................8 Extra urban miscellaneous – FUM (and FUMEV / FUMEG) ................................................8

3.2. PLANT SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 12 3.3. INTRODUCED PLANTS .................................................................................................... 14 3.4. FAUNA CONSERVATION VALUES (INCL. HABITAT TREES) ...................................................... 17

4. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION ............................................................... 22

4.1. VEGETATION ............................................................................................................... 22 4.2. THREATENED FLORA ..................................................................................................... 22 4.3. THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT ........................................................................................ 22 4.1. WEEDS ....................................................................................................................... 24

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................... 26

5.1. COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 26 5.2. TASMANIAN THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 1995 ................................................ 26 5.3. TASMANIAN WEED MANAGEMENT ACT 1999 .................................................................. 26 5.4. KINGBOROUGH INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 ........................................................... 26

Biodiversity Code (E 10.0) ................................................................................................ 26 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11) ................................................................ 28

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP) .......................................................... 30

7. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX A – SPECIES CONSERVATION VALUES ............................................................................ 33 APPENDIX B – LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THREATENED SPECIES .................................................. 34 APPENDIX C – VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES ..................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX D – ARBORIST REPORT ............................................................................................... 38

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 - 17 Aug 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

The proponent is investigation opportunities to develop 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans

Bay (title reference 34279/1, 55854/85, 55854/84 & 199874/1; property ID

7540990). A Section 43A application is being submitted to rezone the land to

facilitate increased lot yield. The property is currently within the General Residential

and Low Density Residential Zones (Figure 1). It is located on Home Avenue and

Blowhole Road at Blackmans Bay (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the subdivision plan. This

report provides information for a development application to Kingborough Council on

the sites environmental values focused on the areas subject to the proposed

subdivision.

2. ASSESSMENT

2.1. STUDY AREA

The 3.63 ha property is partly overlaid by the Biodiversity Protection Area and

Waterway and Coastal Protection Area overlays. This report focuses on the

Biodiversity values as the application will be subject in part to the provisions within

the Biodiversity Code (E10).

The property is surrounded by urban land with Blackmans Bay to the south and

Mary Knoll Reserve along the eastern edge which contains the majority of native

vegetation in the surrounding area.

The terrain on site consists of a gentle south facing slope and generally flat land

extending from approximately 10-20 m a.s.l. The geology within the subdivision area

is comprised of Permian sediments (largely mudstone) and alluvia along the

waterway.

Figure 1 - zoning under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

29 Environmental

Management

12 Low density

residential

10 General

Residential

19 Open

2.2. METHODS

This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys1. Fieldwork was undertaken by one observer on foot on the 29th

November 2017. Vegetation was mapped at the community level according to

TASVEG 3.02. At the species level vegetation was recorded in accordance with the

most recent census of Tasmanian flora3 using an area search technique based on

the Timed Meander Search Procedure4. Fauna habitat values were documented

concurrently, with particular emphasis on species listed as threatened (Appendix A

and B) at the state and/or national level under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Eucalypt species over 25cm were

recorded where encountered with potential for removal.

Limitations

The survey was undertaken in summer. There may be some seasonal or discreet

species overlooked. To compensate for this, field data are supplemented with

observations from the Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas5.

Figure 2 - Location of the property

1 DPIPWE 2015 2 Harris and Kitchener 2013; DPIPWE 2013 3 de Salas and Baker 2017 4 Goff et al. 1982 5 DPIPWE 2017, nvr_5_11-Dec-2017

Figure 3 – Subdivision Plan of subdivision

3. BIOLOGICAL VALUES

3.1. VEGETATION

The site includes one TASVEG 3.0 units with differing emergent trees (Figure 4):

Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM); with emergent blue glums (FUMEG) and with

emergent white gums (FUMEV)

Mary Knoll Reserve occurs adjacent to the property in the south east corner. This

area is Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (DOV) along a waterway although

exotics dominate the understorey.

Extra urban miscellaneous – FUM (and FUMEV / FUMEG)

The whole property is largely cleared of native vegetation except for two areas where

some canopy remains over a mowed understorey of predominately exotic species.

Both of these areas maintain a park like setting with paths and seats in the

surrounds. To the north of Mary Knoll Reserve are white gums and a few black

gums. To the south are some large blue gums with dropping she-oaks. The balance

of the site is housing with gardens of exotic plants (Plate 1).

Both the areas mapped FUMEV and FUMEG maintain an understorey dominated by

exotic species and without extensive revegetation works would not return to a native

species dominant understorey within 50 years. Small pockets of understorey within

the FUMEG may warrant classification as DGL where native grasses occur, however

they would be no more than small pockets of 10m by 10m units and given the

current use of land and scale of mapping, have been assessed as FUMEG over the

broader area. There are also many mainland wattles and other exotic plantings and

garden escapees within these areas.

FUM is a non-natural community and is thus not protected under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) or the EPBCA.

Plate 1: gardens such as this are common across the site.

Plate 2- the south west corner retains some dropping she-oak and blue gums maintained as a park setting (FUMEG)

Plate 3 - FUMEV along the waterway to the north of Mary Knoll Reserve

Figure 4: TASVEG units, native trees and weeds

3.2. PLANT SPECIES

A total of 90 species of vascular plant were recorded during the survey (Appendix

C), including 56 introduced species and 3 declared weeds. The majority of garden

ornamentals are not included in this. No threatened species were observed.

Previous surveys within 5 km of the property have identified a variety of threatened

flora listed under the TSPA and EPBCA. These species (and others predicted by

habitat mapping) are listed in Table 1 together with a description of their preferred

habitat and an assessment of the likelihood of their occurrence on the property

should they have been overlooked or seasonally absent.

Table 1: Flora species of conservation significance known within a 5 km radius of the site6

Species Status

TSPA/EPBCA Potential to

occur Observations and preferred habitat7

Known within 500 m

Lachnagrostis punicea subsp.

filifolia narrowleaf blown

Rare/ -

A species with very few records (all from coastal habitats) and not recorded in the local area since 1929. Marginal habitat present on site.

Lepidosperma tortuosum

twisting rapiersedge

Rare/ - None

No suitable coastal heath habitat present. A conspicuous species unlikely to have been overlooked.

Rytidosperma indutum

tall wallabygrass

Rare/ -

Widespread in dry grassy habitat. Species is known to favour disturbance, particularly fire. Some habitat is present however the mown understorey limited opportunities for observation.

Known within 5 km

Austrostipa bigeniculata

double jointed speargrass

Rare/ -

Very low Associated with fertile grassy habitats. Habitat on site very marginal. Only three records within 5 km.

Caladenia caudata tailed spider orchid

Occurs in heathy open forest and heathland on easterly to north-easterly aspects close to the coast. Site is very low in suitability given land use.

Caladenia filamentosa daddy longlegs

Rare/ -

Known from heathland and sedgy open eucalypt forest and woodland. Only observable during its spring flowering period but the habitat on site is very low in suitability.

Carex gunniana mountain sedge

Rare/ -

Very Low

Occurs in soaks in wet forest and coastal sites. One record dated 1984 within 5 km. Habitat limited to Mary Knoll Reserve,

6 Natural Values report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017 7 Lazarus et al. 2003; Jones et al. 1999

Comesperma defoliatum

leafless milkwort

Rare/ -

None Occurs in buttongrass and moist coastal heathland. No suitable habitat present on site.

Goodenia geniculata bent native-primrose

Endangered/ -

None One record from 1929 in Blackmans Bay but not seen since. Known from the Rocky Cape area in the NW.

Juncus amabilis gentle rush

Rare/ -

Occurs in soaks and drainage lines, including cleared land. Not recorded onsite however mowed understorey makes identification difficult. Potential within Mary Knoll Reserve which was not surveyed.

Lachnagrostis robusta

tall blowngrass

Rare/ -

Known from marshes, estuarine habitat and moist sandy flats, predominantly around the northeast and on the east coast. No suitable habitat present.

Parietaria debilis shade pellitory

Rare/ -

Found around muttonbird rookeries, on cliffs/rocks in salt spray zone and on

grazed pasture/grassland. Also recorded from sand dunes with other forbs.

Predominantly found in northern Tasmania and on the islands of Bass Strait. No

suitable habitat.

Pterostylis squamata ruddy greenhood

Rare/ - Very low

Occurs in heathy and grassy open forest on well drained sandy and loamy soils. Nearest known records are within the Boronia Hill Reserve, in dry open woodland different to that found on site. Little chance of occurring onsite given land use.

Scleranthus brockiei mountain knawel

Rare/ -

Very low Lowland populations occasional within relatively moist grassy habitats. Very limited suitable habitat on site.

Senecio squarrosus leafy fireweed

Rare/ -

Very low

Habitat is dry sclerophyll forest. This species is an annual or short-lived perennial herb and recruitment apparently occurs after fire.

Thelymitra atronitida blackhood sun-orchid

Endangered/ -

Thelymitra malvina mauvetuft sun-orchid

Endangered/ -

Xerochrysum bicolor eastcoast everlasting

Rare/ -

None A single regional record only, that being from 1891.

Dianella amoena matted flax lily

Rare/ ENDANGERED

None Occurs in grasslands, mainly on fertile soils in low rainfall areas. No suitable habitat present.

8 EPBCA protected matters database report PMST_TOCO8D 11/12/17

Glycine latrobeana clover glycine

Vulnerable/ VULNERABLE None

Small perennial herb up to 10 cm tall. Occurs in dry sclerophyll forest, native grassland, and grassy woodland, usually on flat sites with loose, sandy soil.

Prasophyllum apoxychilum

tapered leek orchid

Occurs in grassy and scrubby open forest on sandy and clay loams, often amongst rocks. Detailed ecological requirements are not well known. Only observable in October-November, particularly following bushfires. Very limited potential to occur on site.

Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt peppercress

Very Low

Some potential to occur under drooping she-oaks and blue gums however historic land use would make long term viability difficult. Mown understorey also would make identification difficult.

Pterostylis wapstrarum fleshy greenhood

ENDANGERED None Occurs in dry grasslands on fertile soils.

No suitable habitat.

Thelymitra jonesii sky blue sun-orchid

A distinctive species only known from four widely separated coastal locations. Less than 60 plants have been observed in the State. No suitable habitat present.

3.3. INTRODUCED PLANTS

Three introduced plants listed as ‘declared’ weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999 were recorded on the property as follows:

boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera) – isolated to one

location near the southern boundary;

blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) common around margins and fence lines;

English broom (Cytisus scoparius); occasional.

A large number of environmental weeds also occur, some which are garden plantings.

These include:

blue periwinkle (Vinca major); radiata pine (Pinus radiata); banana passionfruit (Passiflora tarminiana); sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum);

cotoneaster (Cotoneaster glaucophyllus) winter euryops (Euryops abrotanifolius); ivy (Hedera helix) ; hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna); mainland wattles (Acacia baileyana, A. floribunda, A. howittii, and A.

pravissima) African daisy (Dimorphotheca fruticosa); Great mullein (Verbascum thapsus); Tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum); and

agapanthus (Agapanthus praecox).

Plate 4 – tutsan (planted onsite but seen spreading

locally)

Plate 5 – agapanthus is common amongst the

gardens

Plate 6 – great mullein

Plate 7 – banana passionfruit

Plate 8 – English broom

Plate 9 - boneseed

Plate 10 -blackberry

Plate 11 - periwinkle (Vinca major)

3.4. FAUNA CONSERVATION VALUES (INCL. HABITAT TREES)

No threatened fauna was directly or indirectly observed on site. No threatened fauna

nests or dens were observed however there is potential foraging habitat within the

black gums and mature blue gums for swift parrots.

In terms of habitat trees, the majority of these occur along the waterway leading to

Mary Knoll Reserve. There is a line of what are assumed to be planted blue gums

on the western boundary of Mary Knoll Reserve as well as a small number of mature

blue gums to the south. There are also white gums along the waterway which may

be potential foraging habitat for forty spotted pardalotes although the closest known

colony is 2.3km to the west along Coffee Creek.

Of the threatened fauna known from within 5 km, the eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) is the only species highly likely to occur on site with swift parrots potentially

foraging in years where flowering occurs at the appropriate time.

Table 2: Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded, or which may potentially occur, within 5 km of the property9

Known within 500 m

Perameles gunnii eastern-barred

bandicoot

-/ VULNERABLE

Moderate

This species favours a mosaic of open grassy areas (for foraging) and thick cover (for shelter and nesting). There are numerous records within 5 km of the site, and periurban locations are typically the stronghold of the species in south-eastern Tasmania. Sagg and shrubs (incl. weeds) in the study area may be used as cover and nesting habitat. Unlikely to suffer a meaningful reduction in habitat availability should the property be developed.

Known within 5 km

Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk

Endangered/ -

Negligible Inhabits large tracts of wet forest and requires old trees for nesting. Three observations within 5km but values limited to hunting onsite.

Antipodia chaostola

leucophaea chaostola skipper

Host plant Gahnia radula (thatch saw sedge) was not observed present within the study area and not likely to have been overlooked. Highly localised known occurrences within 5 km.

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi

wedge-tailed eagle

Very low (foraging only)

Requires large sheltered trees for nesting and is highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. No suitable nesting habitat present but may hunt over study area. No nests known within 500 m or 1 km line of sight.

9 Natural Values report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017, DPIPWE – species with exclusively marine or sub-marine habitat requirements have been excluded 10 Bryant & Jackson 1999

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus spotted-tail quoll

Rare/ VULNERABLE

Very low Potential habitat within the surrounding landscape is very limited and only 4 known records within 5 km.

Lathamus discolor swift parrot

ENDANGERED

High (foraging) Very Low (nesting)

Requires tree hollows for nesting, and feeds on nectar of blue gum (E. globulus) and black gum (E. ovata) flowers. There are forty records of swift parrots within 5 km of the site. 5 mature blue gums occur to the south as well as along Mary Knoll Reserve. Black gums also occur to the north of this Reserve.

Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted

pardalote

Restricted to dry grassy forest and woodland along the east and southeast coast containing mature white gum (E. viminalis). Closest colony is 2.5km to the south at Howden or 2.3 km west near Coffee Creek. A small number of suitable white gums are found on site providing potential foraging habitat.

Prototroctes maraena

Australian grayling

None No suitable aquatic habitat present.

Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil

Very low Known within 5 km, however no breeding habitat on site potential for foraging typical of the surrounding bush.

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl

Endangered/ VULNERABLE

Very low

Requires a mosaic of forest and open areas for foraging, and large old-growth hollow-bearing trees for nesting. Site located within 500 m of core habitat according to the NVA. No suitable nesting habitat observed onsite. The species may hunt over study area infrequently.

Alcedo azurea ssp. diemenensis

azure kingfisher

None No suitable riparian habitat present.

Apus pacificus fork-tailed swift

-/ Migratory

Very low An aerial insectivore occasionally recorded in northern Tasmania, but that would most likely only fly over the site if present.

Ardea alba great egret

-/ Migratory

Ardea ibis cattle egret

-/ Migratory

11 Natural Values report nvr_2_16-Mar-2017, DPIPWE – protected matters database report ENIIUW – species with exclusively marine or sub-marine habitat requirements have been excluded

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian bittern

-/ ENDANGERED

None Not known from within 5 km. Typically inhabits shallow, well-vegetated, permanent wetlands. No suitable habitat for this species.

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe

-/ Migratory

Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied

sea-eagle

Vulnerable/ -

None Occurs in coastal habitats and large inland waterways. No suitable habitat present. No known nests within 500 m or 1 km line of sight.

Hirundapus caudacutus

white-throated needletail

-/ Migratory

Very low

Uncommonly recorded in Tasmania. An aerial species most likely unaffected by terrestrial habitat alteration outside of its Northern Hemisphere breeding range.

Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis

hooded plover

-/ Vulnerable

None No suitable beach and sub-dune habitat present.

Reptiles and amphibians

Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink

Vulnerable/ -

None Occurs in Poa tussock grassland and Themeda grassland without trees. No suitable habitat present.

Litoria raniformis green and golden

None Occurs in well vegetated wetlands. No suitable habitat present.

Invertebrates

Discocharopa vigens

ammonite snail

ENDANGERED None

This snail has been recorded from the following seven locations in the Hobart metropolitan area: Mount Wellington, Mount Nelson, The Domain, Hillgrove, Grasstree Hill, South Hobart and Austins Ferry. Species thought to be extinct from Mt Nelson. Habitat of the species includes dry and wet eucalypt forests below 400 m in altitude. To date the species has only been found under dolerite rocks. No habitat present.

Lissotes menalcas Mount Mangana

stag beetle

Vulnerable/ -

None Low probability of occurring

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolor). The swift parrot is listed as endangered under the

TSPA and critically endangered under the EPBCA. This species feeds mainly on the

nectar of blue gum Eucalyptus globulus but in some years relies on black gum E. ovata due to its flowering period overlapping with the arrival of the species in early

spring from migration. Both blue gums and black gums are present within the

property. The site occurs within a core area for this species and swift parrots are

known to frequent the area during the breeding season if the gums are flowering.

Swift parrots prefer to nest with ample bush surrounding them and prefer trees with

a dbh exceeding 40 cm dbh for foraging. The property contains some suitable

foraging trees but they are of low suitability for breeding12.

Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii). The eastern barred bandicoot is

nationally listed as vulnerable. It is considered to "require monitoring" in Tasmania.

Although locally common in areas of south-eastern and northern Tasmania, this

species is now absent from most of its original range in the Midlands due to land

clearance. It occurs predominantly in native grasslands, grassy woodland and on

cleared grazing land where there is some cover (eg. remnant bushland, rank grass,

gorse) where it feeds on worms, cockchafer larvae and other earth-dwelling larvae

dug from the soil in open grasslands. The project would present limited additional

risk to this species.

Forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus). The forty spotted pardalote

Pardalotus quadragintus is listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth’s Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Protection Act 1999. This species is confined to a few colonies in

coastal south east Tasmania, particularly in the Bruny Island – D’Entrecasteaux

Channel area. Refer to Figure 5 for colony mapping. The forty spotted pardalote

occurs in coastal white gum forest and woodland and it is threatened in particular

by clearance of its habitat and selective felling of white gums in or in the vicinity of

its colonies. All patches of forest containing white gum within the species core range

is critical to the survival of this species13.

12 Brereton, R. Mallick, S. and Kennedy, S. (2004). Foraging preferences of Swift Parrots on Tasmanian Blue-gum: tree size, flowing frequency and flowering intensity. EMU 104:377-383. 13 Threatened Species Unit (1998).

Figure 5 - Known forty spotted pardalote colonies in the surrounding landscape14

14 Available at http://forty-spotted.org.au/howden.html

4. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION

4.1. VEGETATION

No native vegetation has been mapped across the study area.

4.2. THREATENED FLORA

No threatened flora is likely to be impacted.

4.3. THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT

Eastern Barred bandicoot

The property may be utilised by the EPBCA vulnerable eastern barred bandicoot. The

species is not listed under Tasmanian legislation as it remains abundant in many

periurban situations. Developments of the scale of the current proposal are not

considered to represent a threat to the survival of this species and do not require

any targeted mitigation.

Swift Parrot

The Eucalyptus globulus/ovata on site may be periodically utilised by the EPBCA critically

endangered and TSPA endangered swift parrot. Residential developments in bushland are a

threatening process to the conservation of this species through direct habitat loss (tree

removal) and from increased mortality through collisions with human constructions.

Significant eucalypts have been identified. The lot design generally avoids direct

impacts to the trees.

Lot Design

Deep lots (3-6, 22) backing on to the Mary Knoll Reserve ensure plenty of buffer

between building envelopes and the trees. Here there are a mixture of blue gums

Eucalyptus globulus and shiny gums (Eucalyptus nitens). It is likely the latter were planted and the former have seeded in from the adjoining reserve. Some of the

trees are in excess of 40cm in DBH. The stormwater drain generally takes a wide

berth from these trees avoiding any impact before diverting east into an existing pit.

A blue gum (DBH 58cm) in the vicinity ‘can tolerate excavation within 5m” according

to the arborist report (Element Tree Services Appendix D).

Five large blue gums in the south of the site are incorporated into Lots 8 and 9.

Four are located close to lot boundaries with adequate spacing from building

envelopes. One on Lot 8 is in closer proximity to building envelope. Accurate survey

of larger trees has been undertaken by the surveyor (Rogerson & Birch). This data

has been used to more precisely plot the location of trees on these lots (Figure 6).

Tree Protection Zones are identified - these extend 12x the diameter at beast height

of the trees as follows. One TPZ extends into the building envelope, but only

marginally (less than 2%). This is well below the Standard.

Blue gums in Lot 8&9.

Tree no (Fig 7) DBH cm Tree Protection Zone m

1 90 9.72

2 85 10.20

3 95 11.40

4 74.5 8.94

5 91 10.92

Figure 6 – Detail of layout of blue gums on Lots 8 &9

Stormwater

The potential impact of a stormwater drain in Lot 9 has been assesed by an arborist

(Element Tree Services – Appendix D). This report states that “all incursion into the

tree protection zones are considered tolerable”, being all less than 10%.

A large white peppermint on lot 19 has been given separate planning approval for

removal due to safety risk15 and so does not warrant further consideration under the

current application.

New constructions dwellings fences etc in vicinity of retained swift parrot foraging tees

present a collision risk to swift parrots. This can be mitigated by adopting designs outlined

in the guidelines for minimising the swift parrot collision threat and the Tasmanian Bird

Collision Code16.

Bushfire Management

The bushfire management plan identifies all land on Lots 3-6 backing on to Mary Koll

reserve as a hazard management area. This requires vegetation to be cleared to prescribed

standards This may involves a need to clear shrubs and potentially trees growing close to

the rear of the lots although they actual requirement will be determined at the building

stage. Typically individual trees can be retained in some instances. The total number of

blue gums with a DBH >40cm is not quantified but could be up to 6 trees.

Trees with overlapping canopies on Lots 8 and 9 may also need ot be removed although it

is not untypical to allow small stands of trees that have this

Forty-spotted pardalote

No white gums have been identified for removal

A stand of white gums located in the northwest corner of the property will be

incorporated into an effective extension to Mary Knoll Reserve, allocated as Public

Open Space.

4.4. WEEDS

Construction within a weed infested area increases the risk of spreading weeds

further afield. A weed management plan should be implemented to adequately

manage the weeds recorded within the application area. We also suggest contractors

adhere to best practice construction hygiene17 and do not remove contaminated soil

off site.

15 TREE-2018-56 21 June 2018 16 Pfennigwerth 2008 17 DPIPWE 2015

Figure 7 – Tree Protection Zones in vicinity of stormwater

North Barker Ecosystem Services JMG018 - 17 Aug 2018 26

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

5.1. COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999

The EPBCA is structured for self-assessment; the proponent must indicate whether or not

the project is considered a ‘controlled action’, which, if confirmed, would require approval

from the Commonwealth Minister.

The probability of any EPBCA listed flora species occurring on the property is considered to

be remote.

The eastern barred bandicoot may utilise the property. However, the natural values

assessment has indicated that the proposal is unlikely to cause a measurable decline to

the species and will not breach the significant impact criteria under the EPBCA.

Foraging trees in the form of blue gum, black gum and white gum occur onsite for swift

parrots and forty spotted pardalote. Numbers impacted to this foraging resource from

subdivision is not considered significant to these species and consequently, referral to the

Minister is not considered to be necessary for this proposal.

5.2. TASMANIAN THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 1995

No threatened species have been recorded.

5.3. TASMANIAN WEED MANAGEMENT ACT 1999

Kingborough is a Zone B municipality for the species of declared weed observed on site.

According to the provisions of the Weed Management Act 1999, Zone B municipalities are

those which host widespread infestations where control and prevention of spread is the

principle aim while Zone A is targeted for eradication. The containment principles of this

Act should be sufficiently met with best practice construction hygiene that prevents the

transport of contaminated material off site.

5.4. KINGBOROUGH INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015

Biodiversity Code (E 10.0)

Under the definitions of table E10.1 of the Biodiversity Code, the threatened fauna

habitats for swift parrot (blue gums and black gums) and forty spotted pardalote

(white gums) qualify as moderate priority biodiversity values due to the presence of

potential foraging habitat.

The following responses address the finalised subdivision plan included in the

application and included in Figure 3.

Clause 10.8.1 Subdivision

The proposal for the clearance and conversion of native vegetation does not meet

the acceptable solution A1 because the Biodiversity Protection Area covers part of

the area of subdivision. Thus, the impacts to moderate priority biodiversity values are

required to meet the following performance criteria (P1 - b):

P1 Clearance and conversion or disturbance must satisfy the following:

(i) Subdivision works are designed and located to minimise impacts, having regard to constraints such as topography or land hazard and the particular

requirements of the development

Mary Knoll Reserve along the waterway will be extended to the north including the

walkway. The blue gums on Lots 8 and 9 can be retained, any incursion into the

tree protection zones is considered ‘tolerable’. However, their long term prognosis is

compromised by the placement of dwellings in such close proximity, although some

of these trees suffer damage resulting from earlier lopping which has reduced their

expected useful life to be 10-20 years (Arborist report Appendix D).

White gums and black gums appear to be retained within the extension to Mary

Knoll Reserve.

There is opportunity to include white gum, black gum or blue gum tree plantings

during Landscape design.

(ii) impacts resulting from bushfire hazard management measures are minimised as far as reasonably practicable through siting and fire-resistant design of habitable buildings;

Plate 12 - Biodiversity Protection Overlay

The bushfire hazard management plan (JMG May 2018) requires all of the subdivision

area to be managed in a minimum fuel condition. This prescribes standard controls

for the management of trees and understorey. The bushfire hazard management area

extends across the entire property. Although the standard guidelines as outlined I

Table 2 of that plan are prescriptive the management regime allows for the retention

of clusters of trees and shrubs (lots 8 &9) and trees along the boundary of lots

adjoining unmanaged bush on lots 3-6 (Refer Figure 9 of that report). This allows for

the retention of all blue gums identified in the private lots. It is not intended to

remove any of these trees.

(iii) Moderate priority biodiversity values outside the area impacted by subdivision

works, the building area and the area likely impacted by future bushfire hazard management measures are retained and protected by appropriate mechanisms on the land title.

All habitat trees (blue gums >40cm DBH) identified in Figure 7 located within private

lots are proposed to be retained. No formal mechanism of protection deemed

necessary as their removal will require Council approval under exiting byelaws and as

a condition of approval.

The environmental management plan as a requirement of the permit provides

opportunity to identify moderate priority trees for retention.

(iv) residual adverse impacts on moderate priority biodiversity values not able to be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated are offset in accordance with

the Guidelines for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in the Local Planning Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2013 and Council Policy 6.10.

Residual impacts are not anticipated. Future landowners may need to negotiate with

Council should they require trees to be removed which may trigger the Council

Offset Policy which includes a mechanism that is based on a financial consideration

of up to $500 per tree.

Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11)

The current access off Blowhole Road will be improved however no additional impact

is envisaged to the minor waterway. The area to the north is proposed to be

included as an extension to the Mary Knoll Reserve thus no negative environmental

impacts on this waterway is considered.

Plate 13 - This shows the waterway north of Mary Knoll Reserve. No stream occurs above ground thus it is assumed there is stormwater piping below ground.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)

The EMP can be prepared following approval of the subdivision., Its should

include the following prescriptions.

Priority trees to be retained on Lots will be clearly marked on the ground

and this clearly communicated to all contractors.

No burning should be undertaken within any tree protection zone of any

gums not approved for removal. Fine litter must also be left in place within

the tree protection zones. This will not limit the proponent’s ability to

conform with the fire hazard management requirements. Burning must only be

undertaken based on Council advice.

No fertiliser or grey water should be applied directly to the waterway or

coastal section.

A plan that shows trees to be removed and retained, locations for washdown,

burning, stockpiling and best practice measures.

A pre-start meeting to ensure site set out is accurate and no trees are

impacted that are not approved for removal.

A weed management plan to direct weed management activities onsite.

o It must be specified within the works contract that best practice

hygiene measures are required to prevent new weeds being introduced

and contaminated material leaving the site. This should include

keeping a register of vehicle/machinery cleaning and inspections.

o Weed management should be undertaken prior to construction.

o No soil or weed material should be removed from the site unless

removal and disposal conforms to the requirements of the Weed Management Act 1999.

o The development of the area of weed infestation into a house and

garden is likely to result in a reduction of problematic species

currently present. Secondary and Tertiary treatments may be required

to treat germinants.

7. CONCLUSION

The main natural values present are in the form of potential foraging habitat (black

gums, blue gums and white gums) for the nationally endangered birds, the swift

parrot and forty spotted pardalote.

The subdivision effectively protects forty spotted pardalote habitat by adding the

stands of white gums to the Mary Knoll Reserve.

The lots layout allows for the retention of all priority swift parrot trees (Blue gums

DBH >40cm) and other species with DBH>70cm).

An Environmental Management Plan will provide opportunity to identify trees for

protection and direct weed management and construction hygiene to limit the risk of

spreading weeds elsewhere.

Future housing should consider the guidelines for minimising swift parrot collision risk

in building design.

REFERENCES

Bryant, S. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: what, where and how to protect. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015). EPBC Protected Matters Database:

http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf.Report

PMST – TOCO8D.

Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999. No. 91, 1999.

de Salas M.F. and Baker M.L. (2017). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania & Index to the Student's Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online.

Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) (2015).

TASVEG 3.0, Released November 2013. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and

Mapping Program, Resource Management and Conservation Division.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. (Eds.) Karen Stewart and Michael Askey-Doran.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart,

Tasmania.

DPIPWE (2017). Natural Values Report nvr_5_11-Dec-2017, Natural Values Atlas,

Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries and Water,

Hobart.

Goff, F.G, Dawson, G.A. and Rochow, J.J. (1982). Site examination for threatened and

endangered plant species. Environmental Management 6 (4) pp 307-316.

Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. and Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of Tasmania. Melbourne University Press.

Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (2015) Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys -

Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks,

Water and Environment

Pfennigwerth, S. (2008). Minimising the swift parrot collision threat. Guidelines and

recommendations for parrot-safe building design. World Wildlife Fund –

Australia.

Tasmanian Fire Service (2005). Guidelines for development in bushfire prone areas of

Tasmania. Living with fire in Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (1993). Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

No.70 of 1993. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No.83

of 1995. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1999). Weed Management Act 1999. No.105 of 1999. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No.63 of 2002. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2006). Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened

Native Vegetation Communities) Act 2006. Government Printer, Hobart,

Tasmania.

APPENDIX A – SPECIES CONSERVATION VALUES

SPECIES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE