Ban new development in Sydney’s Wildlife Corridors – stop massive tree loss.
Wildlife Corridors were created to allow Fauna to move freely between Habitats.
The proposed 106 Apartment Seniors Development at Chatswood Golf Club will have a significant impact on the local wildlife habitat in the wildlife corridors linking four native bushland reserves – Mowbray Park Reserve, Coolaroo Reserve, Ferndale Park Reserve and Lane Cove National Park.
To obtain a Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) the developer documented that 28 trees would need to be removed for construction. However the Development Application (DA) that was lodged on 22 May 2020 now proposes a catastrophic loss of 255 trees. This unacceptable proposal would remove remnant bushland and sandstone outcrops identified in the Willoughby City Council Natural Heritage Register. It also contravenes the aims and objectives of SEPP No. 19 Bushland in Urban Areas.
Many Threatened and Endangered Native species owe their survival to these Wildlife Corridors and need this habitat for feeding and protection.
Please stop any further inappropriate development in these Wildlife Corridors, particularly the one in West Chatswood & across Sydney.
Chatswood West Ward History 
Here is a communications trail between an objector to this project and Willoughby Council:
Dear CWWPA,
Just a courtesy note to let you know that following my email to you yesterday regarding the Chatswood Golf Club Seniors Development I have followed up Council again. Please find below a copy of my correspondence for your reference.
Objector
Dear Council Officer,
Yesterday you advised me that Council does not have a Natural Heritage Officer to assess this development. However I understand Council does have a “Natural Heritage and Bushland Advisory Committee” (refer to attached terms of reference). It is documented that the purpose of this Committee is to advise Council on all matters pertaining to the management and sustainability of natural heritage in the City of Willoughby, including the implementation of the Urban Bushland Plan of Management 2014. The Committee considers reports and plans from Council Officers and also make recommendations to Council. Is it possible for the development to be referred to them for comment when they meet again next month.
I also note Council has in-house ecology expertise in their Bushland Management Branch. The Bushland Manager who has been with Council for 21 years is a trained ecologist with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) B.Arch from Sydney University in Design, Ecology, Planning, Landscape and Architecture. As this is a massive project ($107 Million) which can impact Mowbray Park Reserve, OH Reid Reserve, Coolaroo Reserve, Ferndale Park Reserve and Lane Cove National Park it should clearly qualify for an Ecological Assessment by his team.
Can I also check if your Natural Assets Officer has been referred to. He is passionate about the natural environment and biodiversity conservation. He has completed a Master of Environmental Planning along with having experience working as an Ecologist. He is responsible for updating environmental Plans of Management and Reserve Action Plans, and has also conducted biodiversity surveys in Council’s reserves such as vegetation surveys and wildlife monitoring.
Hence with this level of expertise within Council, given the significant environmental issues, I cannot understand why these council specialists along with the Committee were not asked to provide a formal assessment / report on this application back in May 2020 when the DA was originally lodged.
Can you please also confirm that the Landscape Architect who will be assessing the development rom Powe Partnership Pty Ltd.
Finally can you please confirm that my requests above will be actioned, and that I receive advice regarding the Council assessment teams comments and feedback once received.
Objector
Hi Objector,
Once internal comments from departments will be received, I will review them and start writing my recommendation.
As the submission period ended some time ago, we are now at the stage to provide an assessment and you can review the recommendation report prior to the SNPP meeting. You will be informed by the SNPP on the date of the meeting and you will have the opportunity to address SNPP, if you choose to do so.
Please note that all submissions to this application are available for review by the Landscape Architect as well. Notwithstanding other matters, the tree issue and associated environmental impacts due to tree removal will be one of the key consideration of the assessment.
Council Officer
Hi Council Officer
It is frustrating a formal assessment by Council’s Landscape Architect was not done prior to your letter dated 26 October 2020 to enable the applicant to amend their design accordingly. As you requested in your letter did the applicant provide justification as to why they considered that removing the on-site trees to the extent proposed was an acceptable environmental impact on the natural environment ?
I expect Council’s landscape specialist will require significant design modifications to address the various objectives of Council’s adopted natural heritage and bushland management policies.
Once this report has been completed will it be possible for me to review it, or should I pursue Council’s open file policy (GIPA Act).
Objector
Hi Objector
The amended plans and documentation were referred to Council’s Landscape Architect.
Council does not have a Natural Heritage Officer. However, our Landscape Architect is familiar with the Council’s Natural Heritage Register and his assessment is expected to take all aspects of the matter into account.
Regards,
Council OIfficer
Dear Council Officer
Thank you for forwarding me the updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report dated November 2020. I am disappointed and saddened to see only a token effort has been made to decrease the tree loss by 17 x trees (255 tree loss back to 238 trees). Based upon the community outcry, the active petition with 1600 signatures, plus the attached commitment made to CWWPA that the loss of trees would be a significant component of the Council assessment this outcome is totally unacceptable.
The proposed development footprint needs to be scaled back significantly in order for the original SCC documentation of only 28 x trees being removed is met. The Site Compatibility Certificate was issued on the basis of a loss of 28 trees, not 238 trees.
I trust Council’s Landscape Architect and Natural Heritage Officer will now be fully consulted to provide a full and detailed report on the proposed development and ensure the proposed tree loss is reduced accordingly.
Regards Objector
Hi Objector
I attached to this email the version that I believe they refer to.
This is what was submitted with the latest amendments.
Regards, Council Officer
Hi Council Officer,
The attached updated Landscape Management & Tree Removal drawing refers to the Travers Bushfire & Ecology Report dated October 2020. However this report has not been uploaded onto your DA e-planning portal website. Hence could you please arrange to have it uploaded for review. In the interim could you please also email me a copy.
Objector