Planning proposal
Download 0.87 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 87 8.0 References Andrews, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: A review. Aust. Zool. 26(3&4): Australian Koala Foundation (2002). Greater Taree City Council Draft Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management. Part 1: The CKPoM. Australian Koala Foundation, Brisbane. Australian Koala Foundation (2007). Planning Guidelines for Koala Conservation and Recovery: A Guide to Best Planning Practice. Australian Koala Foundation, Brisbane. Website: www.savethekoala.com.au Belcher, C.A. (1994). Studies on the Diet of the Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). M. Sc. Thesis, LaTrobe University, Melbourne. Belcher, C.A. (1995). Diet of the Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) in East Gippsland, Victoria. Wildlife Research, 22: 341-357. Bennet, A., Kimber, S., and Ryan, P. (2000). Revegetation and wildlife: A guide to enhancing revegetated habitats for wildlife conservation in rural environments. Bushcare – National Projects Research and Development Program. Environment Australia, Canberra. Birds Australia (2009). Swift Parrot Lathumus discolor. www.birdsaustralia.com Bischoff, T., Lutter, H. and Debus, S. (2000). Square-tailed Kites breeding on the mid north coast of NSW. Aust. Bird Watcher. 18:133-152. Bowen, M. and Goldingay, R. (2000). Distribution and status of the Eastern Pygmy Possum (Cercartetus nanus) in NSW. Aust. Mamm. 21: 153-164. Braithwaite, L.W., Turner, T. and Kelly, J. (1984). Studies on the arboreal marsupial fauna of eucalypt forests being harvested for woodpulp at Eden, NSW. III. Relationship between faunal densities, eucalypt occurrence and foliage nutrients, and soil parent materials. Aust. Wildlife Res. 11:41-48. Briggs, B. (1996). Tracks, Scats and Other Traces. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Brown, C.L., Hall, F., and Mill, J. (2003). Plant conservation: approaches and techniques from an Australian perspective. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra. Buchanan, R. A. (1989) Bush regeneration: recovering Australian Landscapes. TAFE NSW, Cann, B., Williams, J. and Shields, J.M (2000). Monitoring Large Forest Owls and Gliders After Recent Logging in Production Regrowth Forests of the Mid-North Coastal Region of NSW. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats. Reed-New Holland, Sydney. Clout, M.N. (1989). Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black Cockatoos. Aust. Wildl. Res. 16: 467-73. Cogger, H.G. (1992). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed, Sydney. Connell Wagner Pty Ltd (2000a). Koala Plan of Management – Coastal Area. Part A: The KPOM – Hastings Council. Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Neutral Bay. Connell Wagner Pty Ltd (2000b). Koala Plan of Management – Coastal Area. Part B: Resource Study – Hastings Council. Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Neutral Bay. Cooke, R., Wallis, R. and Webster, A. (2000). Urbanisation and the Ecology of Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua) in Outer Melbourne, Victoria. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Corben, C.J. (1991). Comments on frog decline in southeast Qld. In: Report of a Workshop on Declining Frog Populations in Qld. Unpublished report to QNPWS, Brisbane. Craig, S.A. (1985) Social Organization, Reproduction and Feeding Behaviour of a Population of Yellow-bellied Gliders, Petaurus Australis (Marsupialia: Petauridae). Australian Wildlife Research 12 : 1 – 18. Dadds, B. (2000). Reproductive, population and movement ecology of adult Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae) in a heterogeneous dry eucalypt forest in southeast Queensland. Honours Thesis, Science, Griffith University. Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 88 Date, E.M., Recher, H.F and Ford, H. (1992). Status of Rainforest Pigeons in northern NSW. Unpublished Report to NPWS. Davey, S.M. (1984). Habitat preferences of arboreal marsupials within a coastal forest in southern NSW. pp 509-16. In: Smith, A. and Hume, I.D. (Eds) (1984). Possums and Gliders. Australian Mammal Society. Davis, W.E. and Recher, H.F. (1993). Notes on the breeding biology of the Regent Honeyeater. Corella, 17(1): 1-4. Deacon, J.N. and MacNally, R. (1998). Local extinction and nestedness of small mammal faunas in fragmented forest of central Victoria. Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 122-131. Debus, S. (2012). Birds of Prey of Australia: A Field Guide. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood. Debus, S. (1994). Aspects of the Biology, Conservation and Management of the Threatened Forest Owls and Raptors in NSW. Thesis, Master of Science (Zool.), University of New England, Armidale. Debus, S. and Czechura, G.V. (1989). The Square Tailed Kite, Lophoictinia isura in Victoria. Aust. Bird. Watcher 13:118-123. DECCW (2009). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying Fox. NSW DECCW, Hurstville. DECC (2008). Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). NSW DECC, Hurstville. DECC (2007). Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: The Assessment of Significance. NSW DECC, Hurstville. Dept of Environment (2015a). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – Matters of National Environment Significance Search Tool. www.environment.gov.au DotE (2015b). Species Profile and Threats Database - Homepage. www.environment.gov.au DoE (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. DoE, Canberra. Australia: EPBC Act 1999 – Policy Guide 3.9. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Dickman, C. (1996). Overview of the Impacts of Feral Cats on Australian Native Fauna. Report prepared for the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Eby, P. (2000a). A Case for Listing Grey-Headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) as Threatened in NSW Under IUCN Criterion A2. In: Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox in NSW. Richards, G. (Ed.). Australasian Bat Society, Sydney. Eby, P. (2000b). Low Reproductive Periods in Grey-Headed Flying Foxes Associated With a Short Period of Food Scarcity. In: Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox in NSW. Richards, G. (Ed.). Australasian Bat Society, Sydney. Eby, P. (2002). Using NSW planning instruments to improve conservation and management of Grey-Headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) camps. In: Managing the Grey-Headed Flying Fox as a Threatened Species in NSW. Eby, P and Lunney, D. (Eds.). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. Ehmann, H. (1996). Green-Thighed Frog. In: Ehmann, H. (Ed.). Threatened Frogs of NSW: Habitats, Status and Conservation. Frog and Tadpole Study Group of NSW Inc. Elkin, C.M. and Possingham, H. (2008). The Role of Landscape-Dependent Disturbance and Dispersal in Metapopulation Persistence. The American Naturalist 172 (4). 563-575. Ford, H.A. (1993). The role of birds in ecosystems: Risks from eucalypt forest fragmentation and degradation. Pp 33- 40 in: Birds and Their Habitats: Status and Conservation in Queensland. Catterall, C.P., Dricoll, P.V., Hulsman, K. Muir, D and Taplin, A. (eds_). Qld Ornithological Society, Brisbane. Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. Environment Australia Website. Garnett, S.T., Pedler, L.P. and Crowley, G.M. (1999). The breeding biology of the Glossy Black Cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus lathamii, on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Emu, 99: 262-279. Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D. (2002). Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Griffith, S.J., Bale. C., Adam. P. & Wilson, R S. (2003). Wallum and related vegetation on the NSW North Coast: description and phytosociological analysis. Cunninghamia 8(2): 202–252. Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 89 Griffith, S.J & Wilson, R. (2007). Wallum on the Nabiac Pleistocene barriers, lower North Coast of New South Wales. Cunninghamia 10(1): 93–111. Harden, G.J. (Editor). Flora of NSW. Vols 1-4. NSW Press, Sydney. Harden, G.J, McDonald, B. and Williams, J.B. (2007).Rainforest Climbing Plants – A field guide to their identification. Gwen Harden Publishing, Nambucca Heads. Hero, J.M., Hines, H., Meyer, E., Lemckert, F. and Newell, D. (2002). AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation [web application]. http://amphibiaweb.org/. Accessed Nov 20, 2002. Hindell, M.A. and Lee, A.K. (1990). Tree preferences of the Koala. pp117-21 In: Biology of the Koala. Ed. by A.K. Lee, K.A. Handayde and G.D. Sanson. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney. Johnson, C., Cogger, H., Dickman, C. and Ford, H. (2007). Impacts of Land Clearing: The Impacts of Approved Clearing of Native Vegetation on Australian Wildlife in New South Wales. WWF -Australia Report. WWF Australia, Sydney. Keith (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney. Keith, D. and Scott, J. (2005). Native vegetation of coastal floodplains – a diagnosis of the major plant communities in New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11: 81-104. Kortner, G, Gresser, S., Mott, B., Tamayo, P, Pisanu, P., Bayne, P. and Harden, R.H. (2004). Population structure, turnover and movement of Spotted-Tailed Quolls on the New England Tablelands. Wildl. Res 31(5):475-484. Klaphake, V. (2006). Guide to the Grasses of Sydney. Van Klaphake, Byabarra. Klaphake, V. (2004). Key to the Commoner Species of Sedges and Rushes of the Sydney and Blue Mountains. Van Klaphake, Byabarra. Kuginis L, Serov P, Williams J.P., (2012), Risk assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent ecosystems, Volume 1 – The conceptual framework, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Sydney Law, B., Chidel, M. and Turner, G. (2000). The use by wildlife of paddock trees. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6: 130- 143. Law, B.S and Dickman. C.R. (1998). The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:323-333. Law, B.S. (1994a). Banksia nectar and pollen: Dietary items affecting the abundance of the Common Blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis): in southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 425-434. Law, B.S. (1994b). Climatic limitations of the southern distribution of the Common Blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis) in NSW. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 366-374. Law, B.S. (1993). Roosting and foraging ecology of the Queensland Blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis) in northeastern NSW: Flexibility in response to seasonal variation. Wildl. Res. 20: 419-431. Lee, A.K. and Martin, R.W. (1998). The Koala – A Natural History. NSW University Press, Kensington. Lemckert, F.L. and Slatyer, C. (2002) Short-term movements and habitat use by the threatened Green-thighed Frog Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae) in mid-coastal New South Wales. Australian Zoologist. Volume 32. Pg 56-61 Lindenmayer, D. and Fisher, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and Landscape Change: An ecological and conservation synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Lindenmayer, D. (2002). Gliders of Australia – A Natural History. University of NSW Press, Sydney. Luo, J., Fox, B.J. and Jeffreys, E. (1994). Diet of the Eastern Chestnut Mouse (Pseudomys gracilicaudatus) I: Composition, Diversity and Individual Variation. Wildl. Res. 21: 401-17. Luo, J., and Fox, B.J. (1995). Competitive effects of Rattus lutreolus presence on the resource use by Pseudomys gracilicaudatus. Aust. J. Ecol.. 21: 556-564. Luo, J., and Fox, B.J. (1994). Diet of the Eastern Chestnut Mouse (Pseudomys gracilicaudatus) II: Seasonal and Successional Patterns. Wildl. Res. 21: 419-31. Mackowski, C.M (1988). Characteristics of eucalypts incised by the Yellow-bellied Glider in northeastern NSW. Aust. Mamm. 11(1) pp 1-13. Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 90 Mahony, M. (1996a). Draft Final Report: Great Barred River Frogs Research Plan. Unpublished report to the ANCA, Canberra and NSW NPWS, Hurstville. Mahony, M. (1996b). Survey of the distribution and abundance of declining frogs in northern NSW. Unpublished report to Australian Nature Conservation Agency. May, S.A. and Norton, T.W. (1996). Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on the potential impact of feral predators on native fauna in Australian forest ecosystems. Aust. Wildl. Res. 23: 387-400. McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F, Speight, J.G., Walker, J. and Hopkins, M.S. (1990). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook. 2nd Edition. Goanna Printing, Canberra Menkhorst, P., Schedvin, N. ad Geering, D. (1999). Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia) Recovery Plan 1999- 2003. Dept of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Murphy, M.J. and Turbill, J. (1999) A new locality for the threatened Green-thighed Frog Litoria brevipalmata in coastal north-east New South Wales. Australian Zoologist. Volume 31. Pg 225-229 Naturecall (2014). Statutory Ecological Assessment for Large Lot Subdivision of Lot 42 DP711098, Old Coast Road, North Macksville. Naturecall Environmental, Port Macquarie. Office of Environment and Heritage (2016a). BIONET (http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/) OEH (2015b) Threatened Species. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/ OEH (2015c) Regional Corridors and Key Habitats. www.environment.nsw.gov.au OEH (2011) National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor. Birds Australia Priest, B., Straw, P. and Weston, M. (2002). Shorebird conservation in Australia. Supplement to Wingspan 12(4). Preston, B.J. and Adam, P. (2004a). Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW): Part 1 – the assemblage of species and the particular area. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 21:250-263 Preston and Adams (2004b). Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW): Part 2 – the role of supplementary descriptors and the listing process. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 21:372-390 Pyke, G.H. and White, A.W. (1996). Habitat requirements of the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea). In: Pyke, G.H. and Osborne, W.S. (eds: The Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) – Biology and Conservation. Aust Zool 30(2) 218-224 Recher, H.F., Date, E.M. and Ford, H. (1995). The Biology and Management of Rainforest Pigeons in NSW. Species Management Report Number 16. NSW NPWS, Hurstville. Robinson, L. (1994) Field Guide to the plants Native Plants of Sydney. 2nd Edition. Kangaroo Press, NSW. Robinson, M. (1996). A Field Guide To Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed, Sydney. Royal Botanical Gardens. Plantnet website (www.plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/search) Sainty, G.R. and Jacobs, S.W.L. (1994). Waterplants in Australia. CSIRO, Collingwood. Scotts, D. (2002) editor. Key Habitats and Corridors for Forest Fauna of North-East NSW: A regional landscape to focus conservation, planning, assessment and management. NSW NPWS, Hurstville. Smith A.P. and Murray M. (2003) Habitat requirements of the Squirrel Glider on the New South Wales central coast. Wild. Res. 30: 291-301. Smith, M. (2002). Management of Roost Sites of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) on the north coast of NSW: A National Parks and Wildlife Perspective. In: Managing the Grey-Headed Flying Fox as a Threatened Species in NSW. Eby, P and Lunney, D. (Eds.). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. Strahan, D. (Editor) (2000). Complete Book of Australian Mammals. Cornstalk Publishing, Sydney. Swan, G., Shea, G. and Sadlier, R. (2004). Field Guide to the reptiles of NSW, New Holland Sydney. Traill, B.J. (1995). Coexistence and competition in a community of forest vertebrates. PhD Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne. Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 91 Traill, B.J. and Coates, T.D. (1993). Field observations on the Brushtailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa). Aust. Mam. 16: pp61-65 Triggs, B. (1996). Scat, track and other traces. New Holland, Sydney. Troedson A.L. & Hashimoto T.R. (2008). Coastal Quaternary Geology – north and south coast of NSW. Geological Survey of New South Wales, Bulletin 34. Vallee, L., Hogbin, T., Monks, L., Makinson, B., Matthes, M., and Rossetto, M. (2004). Guidelines for the Translocation of Threatened Plants in Australia. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra. van der Ree, R., Clarkson, D.T., Holland, K, Gulle, N. Budden, M (2008). Review of Mitigation Measures Used to Deal With the Issues of Habitat Fragmentation by Linear Infrastructure. Report for Dept of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. van der Ree, R. (2002) The population ecology of the squirrel glider(Petaurus norfolcensis) within a network of remnant linear habitats. PhD Thesis. School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University, Victoria. Ward, S.J. (1990). Life history of the Eastern Pygmy Possum, Cercartetus nanus in Southeastern Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 38: 287-304 Watson, J., Watson, A., Paull, D. and Freudenberger, D. (2003). Woodland fragmentation is causing the decline of species and functional groups in southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 8: 261-70. White, A.W. and Burgin, S. (2004). Current status and future prospects of reptiles and frogs in Sydney’s urban-impacted bushland reserves. In: Urban Wildlife- more than meets the eye. Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (eds). NSW Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. White, A.W. and Burgin, S. (2004). Current status and future prospects of reptiles and frogs in Sydney’s urban-impacted bushland reserves. In: Urban Wildlife- more than meets the eye. Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (eds). NSW Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. Land and Environment Court Citations: CBD Prestige Holdings Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2005] NSWLEC 367 Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209 Motorplex (Australia) Pty Limited v Port Stephens Council [2007] NSWLEC 7474 Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 92 Appendix 1: Site flora species list Table 22: Site flora species list * Denotes an introduced species Community 1: Low Swamp Forest Community 2: Wallum Wet Heath Community 3: Aquatic Common Name Scientific Name Community Canopy and Understorey Maiden’s Wattle Acacia maidenii 1 Black Oak Allocasuarina littoralis 1, 2 Hill Banksia Banksia collina 1, 2 Fern-leaved Banksia Banksia oblongifolia 1, 2 Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca 1 Camphor Laurel* Cinnamomum camphora*(2 mature+seedlings) 1 Cocos Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana* (juveniles) 1 Swamp Mahogany Eucalyptus robusta 1 Moreton Bay Fig Ficus macrophylla (juvenile in E. robusta) 1 Dagger Hakea Hakea dactyloides 2 Olive Tea-tree Leptospermum liversidgei 2 Cabbage Tree Palm Livistona australis (juvenile) 1 Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia 1 Flax-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca lineariifolia 1 Prickly-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca nodosa 1, 2 Broad-leaf Paperbark Melaleuca quinquenervia 1 Sieber's Paperbark Melaleuca sieberi 1, 2 Thyme Honey-myrtle Melaleuca thymifolia 2 Boobialla Myoporum boninense 2 Large-leaved Mock Olive Notelaea venosa 1, 2 Shrubs Swamp Wattle Acacia elongata 1, 2 Long-leaf Wattle Acacia longifolia 1 Coastal Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae 1, 2 Coffee Bush Breynia oblongifolia 1, 2 Dwarf Boronia Boronia polygalifolia 2 Wallum Bottlebrush Callistemon pachyphyllus 1, 2 Bitou Bush* Chrysanthemoides monilifera* 1, 2 Brush Kurrajong Commersonia fraseri 1 Narrow-leaved Palm Lily Cordyline stricta 1 Murrogun Cryptocarya microneura (juvenile) 1 Tuckeroo Cupaniopsis anacardioides (seedlings) 1 Blunt-leaf Heath Epacris obtusifolia 2 Wallum Heath Epacris pulchella 2 Cheese Tree Glochidion ferdinandi 1 Wild Quince Guioa semiglauca (seedlings) 1 *Lantana *Lantana camara 1 Spidery Tea Tree Leptospermum arachnoides 2 Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 93 Common Name Scientific Name Community Tantoon Leptospermum polygalifolium 1, 2 Prickly Beard-heath Leucopogon juniperinus 2 Satinwood Nematolepis squamea subsp. squamea 1 Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum 1 Elderberry Panax Polyscias sambucifolia 1 Woolly Pomaderris Pomaderris lanigera 1 Notched Bush-pea Pultenaea retusa 2 Hairy Bush-pea Pultenaea villosa 1, 2 Possumwood Quintinia sieberi (juvenile) 2 Broad-leaved Bramble Rubus hillii 1, 2 Easter cassia* Senna pendula var. glabrata* 1 Scentless Rosewood Synoum glanulosum (juvenile) 1 Ground Cover Rough Maidenhair Fern Adiantum hispidulum 1 *Crofton Weed *Ageratina adenophora 1 Lesser Joyweed Alternanthera denticulata 1 Ground asparagus fern* Asparagus aethiopicus L. 'Sprengeri'* (seedlings) 1 *Whiskey Grass *Andropogon virginicus 1, 2 Tassel Cord-rush Baloskion tetraphyllum 1, 2 River Rose Bauera microphylla 1, 2 Bare Twig-rush Baumea juncea 1, 2 Christmas Bells Blandfordia grandiflora 2 *Quaker Grass *Briza media 1 *Shivery Grass *Briza minor 1, 2 Milk Maids Burchardia umbellata 2 Centella Centella asiatica 1, 2 Bonnet Orchid Cryptostylis erecta 2 Large Tongue Orchid Cryptostylis subulata 2 Blue Dampiera Dampiera stricta 1, 2 Blue Flax-lily Dianella caerulea 1, 2 Berry Saltbush Einadia hastata 1 Spreading Rope-rush Empodisma minus 1, 2 Bordered Panic Entolasia marginata 1 Wiry Panic Entolasia stricta 1, 2 Nobby headed Club Rush Ficinia nodosa 2 Tall Saw-sedge Gahnia clarkei 1, 2 Pouched Coral-fern Gleichenia dicarpa 1, 2 Creeping Raspwort Gonocarpus micranthus subsp. micranthus 1, 2 Raspwort Gonocarpus teucrioides 1, 2 Swamp Goodenia Goodenia paniculata 2 Matgrass Hemarthria uncinata 1 Day Lily* Hemerocallis fulva* 1 Beach Pennywort* Hydrocotyle bonariensis* 1, 2 Pennywort Hydrocotyle tripartita 1, 2 Harsh ground fern Hypolepis muelleri 1 Blady Grass Imperata cylindrica 1, 2 Juncus continuus 1, 2 Sea Rush Juncus krausii 1 Broad -leaf Rush Juncus planifolius 1, 2 Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 94 Common Name Scientific Name Community Common Rush Juncus usitatus 1, 2 Slender Twine Rush Leptocarpus tenax 2 Spidery Tea-Tree Leptospermum arachnoides 2 Chaffy Scale-rush Lepyrodia scariosa 1, 2 Common Scale-rush Lepyrodia muelleri Screw Fern Lindsaea linearis 1, 2 Spiny-head Mat-rush Lomandra longifolia 1, 2 Weeping Rice Grass Microlaena stipoides 1, 2 *Scotch Thistle *Onopordum acanthium 1 Basket Grass Oplismenus aemulus 1 *Vasey Grass *Paspalum urvillei 1, 2 *Lambs Tongue *Plantago lanceolata 1 White Root Pratia purpurascens 1, 2 Horned Sedge Ptilothrix deusta 1,2 Clustered Bush-pea Pultenaea dentata 2 Bracken Fern Pteridium esculentum 1, 2 Zig-Zag Bog- Rush Schoenus brevifolius 2 Swamp Selaginella Selaginella uliginosa 2 *Fireweed *Senecio madagascariensis 1, 2 Saw Groundsel Senecio minimus 1 *South African Pigeon Grass *Setaria sphacelata 1, 2 Austral Lady's Tresses Spiranthes australis 1 *Parramatta Grass *Sporobolus africanus 1 *Dandelion *Taraxacum officinale 1 *White Clover *Trifolium repens 1 Ivy-leaved Violet Viola hederacea 1 Australian Bluebell Wahlenbergia gracilis 1, 2 Coast Rosemary Westringia fruiticosa 2 Swamp Grasstree Xanthorrhoea fulva 1, 2 Woolly Xanthosia Xanthosia pilosa 2 Sandfly Zieria Zieria smithii 1, 2 Vines and Scramblers Variable Mistletoe Amyema congener ( host Allocasuarina littoralis) 1 Apple Berry Billardieria scandens 1, 2 Devils Twine Cassytha pubescens 1, 2 Twining Glycine Glycine clandestina 1 Small-leaf Glycine Glycine microphylla 2 Climbing Guinea Flower Hibbertia scandens 1 Common Milk Vine Marsdenia rostrata 1, 2 Sweet Morinda Morinda jasminoides 1 Wonga Wonga Vine Pandorea pandorana 1 Monkey Rope Parsonsia straminea 1 Snake Vine Stephania japonica 1 Aquatic Tall Sedge Carex appressa 1,3 Dirty Dora Cyperus difformis 1,3 Tall Spike Rush Eleocharis sphacelata 3 Nobby headed Club Rush Ficinia nodosa 3 Water Primrose Ludwigia peploides 1 Ecological Assessment | Rezoning – Lot 18 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach | January 2015 95 Common Name Scientific Name Community Cape Lily* Nymphaea capensis* 3 Frogsmouth Philydrum lanuginosum 1 River Club-Rush Schoenoplectus validus 1 Appendix C - Visual Impact Assessment visual impact assessment tourist / residential accommodation Lot 18 DP 576415, 363 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach Seashells Beachfront Resort Rev B our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 2 of 37 table of contents 1 executive summary ..................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Preamble ..................................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 4 Terminology ................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 4 3 existing visual environment ......................................................................... 5 Site Location, Ownership & Zoning......................................................................... 5 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 7 Description of local Visual Environment ................................................................ 7 4 the proposal .................................................................................................. 8 5 viewpoint analysis ........................................................................................ 8 6 conclusion ................................................................................................... 19 7 references ................................................................................................... 20 8 appendices ................................................................................................. 21 appendix 1 - visual quality reference table ........................................................ 21 appendix 2 - visual assessment principles ........................................................... 22 appendix 3 – viewpoint photos ............................................................................ 25 date: 26/10/2015 project no: 10877.5 location Lot 18 DP 576415, 363 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach. council: Greater Taree proposal: Tourist / residential accommodation our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 3 of 37 1. executive summary The site has an area of 5.431 hectares and is the site for the Seashells Beachfront Resort. The single storey resort consists of 37 units, administration centre, recreation facilities and a Bistro. The proposal seeks to rezone the site from RU1 Primary Production to SP3 Tourist Zone and E2 Environmental Conservation Zone under the provisions of Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010. This change will allow: o 30% of the gross floor area of the tourist facilities on the subject land to be used for residential accommodation, o The maximum height on the subject land to be 12 metres, o A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 to 1 and o A minimum lot size of 1 hectare. The rezoning of the site could allow for the development of tourist / residential development up to 12m high. The building foorprint may incorporate both the existing tourist accomodation on the cleared land to the west. The site slopes away from the top of the sand dune toward the dam (approximately 5m). This Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) has been prepared to respond to a request from NSW Department of Planning and Environment to conduct ‘an assessment of the visual impacts of the prospective building height on the beach, surrounding properties and public areas’. (NSW DPE, 2015) The scenic quality has been assessed in contrast with the current condition of the site with regard to the potential development. Views from surrounding roads and properties are generally screened as a result of the landform, existing development or by remnant bushland with the exception of the neighbouring properties and a small section of Diamond Beach Road. Views afforded from neighbouring properties are limited tourist accommodation sites and associated access roads. Generally the visual impact on adjoining property and from surrounding roads is low. The future development would sit comfortably in the landscape and blend in with the local character. It is considered that rezoning of the land would not result in development that would cause a negative impact on the existing visual quality of the area. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 4 of 37 2. Introduction Preamble Terras Landscape Architects was commissioned to prepare a Visual Impact Assessment for the potential tourist / residential accommodation, Diamond Beach, NSW. Field work was conducted in October 2015. Objectives The objectives of this report are as follows: To identify and describe the existing visual/landscape environment and to evaluate its current qualities. To graphically portray the proposal in contextual settings from selected viewpoints. To determine the likely impacts modified development will have on the visual/landscape quality of the area. To identify locations where visual access is possible. To assess whether rezoning of the land may lead to developments that would have a negative visual impact on the visual quality of the locality. Terminology The below meanings for the following terms shall apply to this report: The subject site (referred to also as the site) is defined as the land area directly affected by the proposal within defined boundaries. The study area consists of the subject site plus the immediate surrounding land potentially affected by the proposal during its construction and operation phase. The study locality is the area of land within the regional visual catchments whereby the proposal can be readily recognised. Generally this is confined to a 2 kilometre radius, however even from a 1 kilometre distance, the scale of the proposed development will make it difficult to discern. Further, visual sensitivity generally declines significantly beyond the 1km range due to the limited vantage points. For this study the locality has been limited to the visual catchments as shown in Figure 3. Methodology The method applied to this study involved systematically evaluating the visual environment pertaining to the site and using value judgements based on community responses to scenery as outlined in Appendix 1 (Visual Quality Preference Table). our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 5 of 37 The assessment was undertaken in three stages as noted below 1. A description of the existing visual environment 2. The undertaking of a viewpoint analysis to identify sites likely to be affected by development of the site. Viewpoints are chosen that represent those locations where impacts will affect significant groups within the population (e.g. major roads, neighbouring properties etc.) 3. An assessment of visual impacts. The purpose of the above methodology is to reduce the amount of subjectivity entering into the impact assessment and to provide sufficient data to allow for third party verification of results . 3. existing visual environment Site Location, Ownership & Zoning The site is located on the northern side of Seashells Resort Road located off Diamond Beach Road. The site is located between Diamond Beach Resort and Ramada Resort Diamond Beach, all 3 having beach access to the east. Surrounding land uses include tourist accommodation, residential developments, small commercial premises, rural businesses and nature reserves / state forests. (Refer to figure 1) The proposal seeks to rezone the site from RU1 Primary Production to SP3 Tourist Zone and E2 Environmental Conservation Zone under the provisions of Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010. This change will allow: 30% of the gross floor area of the tourist facilities on the subject land to be used for residential accommodation, The maximum height on the subject land to be 12 metres, A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 to 1 and A minimum lot size of 1 hectare. Potential development permissible after rezoning may include tourist / residential accommodation to a maximum height of 12m. the building footprint could include the existing Seashells Beachfront Resort and on the cleared area to the west. The highest elevation on site occurs at the interface between the resort and the sand dune at approximately R.L. 10.5 AHD falling away to the rear of the property at 1:50 grade to approximately R.L. 5.0 AHD at the interface with the existing dam. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 6 of 37 Figure 1: Site Location Plan. (Nearmap 2015 Used under licence). our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 7 of 37 Site Description Seashells Beachfront Resort currently occupies the eastern portion of the site with beach access provided through the sand dunes. The existing development is not visible from the beach which is screened by the level difference between the beach and the resort as well as the existing vegetation on the dunes, approximately 4m in height. The site slopes down east to west with the highest point being at the interface between the resort and the sand dunes. The general area surrounding the site consists of existing tourist facilities including Ramada Resort and Diamond Beach Resort, residential development, sporting facilities, bushland and small rural holdings. The area is characterised by residential development and small rural holdings with views looking onto the beach / ocean from selected locations. Description of Local Visual Environment This section of the report describes the visual environment surrounding the site as a means of gaining an appreciation of the development’s local context. As noted below, the study locality has four broad landscape units: 1. Small rural properties 2. Bushland 3. Tourist accommodation 4. Residential development Small rural properties The area is made up of pastures with scattered remnant vegetation. These properties are located to the west and south west of the subject site. Bushland Scattered areas of remnant bushland surround the area, generally located adjacent to lot boundaries. This vegetation separates and generally provides screening between properties and along road ways. Khappinghat Nature Reserve is located to the north. Tourist accommodation This is the landscape unit that the subject site falls within. There is a variety of tourist accommodation types servicing the area. These range between townhouse developments, scattered cottages, caravan parks and resorts such as Seashells Beachfront Resort and Ramada Resort. Generally the accommodation is set back from main roads and well screened. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 8 of 37 Residential Development Surrounding residential areas are made up of semi rural and suburban lots. The main urban centre close by is Taree approximately 30km north west. Other residential developments closer include Diamond Beach, Red Head and Black Head. 4. the proposal The proposal seeks to rezone the site from RU1 Primary Production to SP3 Tourist Zone and E2 Environmental Conservation Zone under the provisions of Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010. The main impact of which, in terms of visual impact, is the allowance of building height up to 12 metres above natural ground level. The rezoning of the site could allow for the development of tourist / residential development up to 12m high. The building foorprint may incorporate both the existing tourist accomodation on the cleared land to the west. The site slopes away from the top of the sand dune toward the dam (approximately 5m). Figure 2: Proposed rezoning. (Nearmap 2015 Used under licence). 5. viewpoint analysis Visual assessment considers the likely impact that the proposed development may have on the local environment. This is done by selecting particular sites, referred to as viewpoints, conducting inspections and determining what part of the development will be visible from the viewpoints. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 9 of 37 The viewpoints, as shown on Figure 3, were selected to determine where the development would be visible and if so where the most prominent views either based on degree of exposure or the number of people are likely to be affected. Refer to Figures 4 - 9 for detailed assessment of viewpoints where the site is visible. impact assessment This report uses an analytical process to provide an assessment of visual impact. It is not the intent of this assessment to state whether a development proposal is suitable or unsuitable, simply to state the potential visual impact from various viewing points and the frequency of that impact with respect to the number of viewers and any how the results relate to control documents that need to be considered. A number of photographs were taken in the surrounding area to determine a visual catchment for the site. Generally due to the landform, vegetation and existing development there are a few occurrences where the site is visible. These are located adjacent to the site in a precinct where there is existing tourist accommodation to the north and south of the site. The three main areas where views are afforded onto the site were 1. Neighbouring property to the south including Diamond beach Road due to the site being predominantly undeveloped. Refer to Figures 4 and 5 for relevant viewpoints. 2. Neighbouring residential development site to the north and associated access road. Refer to Figures 6 and 7 for relevant viewpoints. 3. Small section of Diamond Beach Road to the south west where views are afforded between existing residential developments and remnant vegetation. Refer to Figures 8 and 9 for relevant viewpoints. A detailed analysis has been undertaken of the viewpoints where the site is visible to determine the level of impact a future development may have on existing views. NSW Department of Planning highlighted views from the beach as a may be impacted by future development (NSW DPE, 2015). In order to assess its potential impact a number of photos were taken from the beach to compare existing beachside development in relation to future development on the subject site. No views of the existing Seashells Beachside Resort were afforded from the beach. This is confirmed in the section (Figure 11). our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 10 of 37 Figure 3: Viewpoint locations. (Nearmap 2015 Used under licence). NOTE: Locations from where the site is visible are limited to locations in close proximity to the site, refer to visual catchment shown in red. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 11 of 37 Figure 4: Viewpoint 9 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 12 of 37 Figure 5: Viewpoint 10 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 13 of 37 Figure 6: Viewpoint 11 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 14 of 37 Figure 7: Viewpoint 12 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 15 of 37 Figure 8: Viewpoint 15 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 16 of 37 Figure 9: Viewpoint 22 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 17 of 37 Figure 10: Viewpoint 7 Analysis. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 18 of 37 Figure 11: Beach / Seashells Beachside Resort section. (Levels obtained from survey data, McGlashan & Crisp) our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 19 of 37 6. conclusion This report has found that the impact of the proposed development is low. Having attempted to see the subject site from a number of locations in the area views from public areas are minimal and generally screened by the landform and the existing remnant vegetation. Based on the available viewpoints of the site the visual catchment of the site is limited to a small area in close proximity to the site. The views from neighbouring properties are limited and are generally afforded to areas where there is some vegetative screening. Where these views do occur the usual impact is low and not inconsistent with the character of the area. The low scale of the potential development permissible under the rezoning generally imposes a similar visual impact as the existing adjacent tourist and residential developments in the area. Currently the Seashells Beachside Resort is not visible from the beach, using the section (Figure 11), it can be proved that based on existing levels of the site this would not change therefore having no impact on the visual amenity of the beach. The potential development would sit comfortably in the landscape and blend in with the local character. Additional vegetative screening located along the boundaries would further soften the appearance. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 20 of 37 references Publications and Reports PDA Services, Planning Proposal – Lot 18 DP 576415, 363 Diamond Beach Rd, Diamond Beach, NSW, PDA Services, 2015. Greater Taree City Council – LEP 2010 Letter NSW DPE Letter to Greater Taree City Council., 28 April 2015 Maps Nearmap, Aerial photo. 2015. Survey Data, McGlashan & Crisp, 2015 our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 21 of 37 appendices appendix 1 - visual quality reference table our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 22 of 37 appendix 2 - visual assessment principles Visual Quality Visual quality of an area is essentially an assessment of how viewers may respond to designated scenery. Scenes of high visual quality are those that are valued by a community for the enjoyment and improved amenity that they can create. Conversely, scenes of low visual quality are of little scenic value to the community with a preference that they be changed and improved, often through the introduction of landscape treatments (eg screen planting). As visual quality relates to aesthetics, its assessment is largely subjective. There is evidence to suggest that certain landscapes are continually preferred over others with preferences related to the presence or absence of certain elements. The rating of visual quality of this study has been based on the following generally accepted conclusions arising from scientific research (DOP, 1988). Visual quality increases as relative relief and topographic ruggedness increases. Visual quality increases as vegetation pattern variations increase. Visual quality increases due to the presence of natural and/or agricultural landscapes. Visual quality increases owing to the presence of water forms (without becoming common) and related to water quality and associated activity. Visual quality increases with increases in land use compatibility. Appendix A contains a visual quality preference table that has a more detailed breakdown of the above elements and their impact on visual quality. Visual Sensitivity Another aspect affecting visual assessments is visual sensitivity. This is the estimate of the significance that a change will have on a landscape and to those viewing it. For example, a significant change that is not frequently seen may result in a low visual sensitivity although its impact on a landscape may be high. Its assessment is based on a number of variables such as the number of people affected, viewer access, viewer location including distance from the source, viewer position (i.e. inferior, neutral, superior), the surrounding land use and degree of change. Generally the following principles apply: our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 23 of 37 Visual sensitivity decreases and the viewer distance increases. Visual sensitivity decreases as the viewing time decreases. Visual sensitivity can also be related to viewer activity (e.g. a person viewing an affected site while engaged in recreational activities will be more strongly affected by change than someone passing a scene in a car travelling to a desired destination). The table on the following page is a guide to visual sensitivity based on the above criteria (EDAW, 2000). It generally describes general ratings, however, consideration also must be given to particular conditions that may modify the results for particular sites. VISUAL SENSITIVITY TABLE distance zones land use Foreground (0-1km) Middleground (1-6km) Background (>6km) Residential: Rural or Urban High Sensitivity High Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Tourist or Passive Recreation High Sensitivity High Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Major Travel Corridors Moderate Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Tourist Roads High Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Minor Roads Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Agricultural Areas Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Industrial Areas Low Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Visual Effect Visual effect is the interaction between a proposal and the existing visual environment. It is often expressed as the level of visual contrast of the proposal against its setting or background in which it is viewed. This is particularly important should any proposed develop extend above the skyline unless, once again, there are particular circumstances that may influence viewer perception and/or visual impact. Low visual effect occurs when a proposal blends in with its existing viewed landscape due to a high level of integration of one or several of the our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 24 of 37 following: form, shape, pattern, line, texture or colour. It can also result from the use of effective screening often using a combination of landform and landscaping. Moderate visual effect results where a proposal noticeably contrasts with its viewed landscape, however, there has been some degree of integration (e.g. good siting principles employed, retention of significant existing vegetation, provision of screen landscaping, careful colour selection and/or appropriately scaled development.) High visual effect results when a proposal presents itself with high visual contrast to its viewed landscape with little or no integration and/or screening. Visual Impact The following table illustrates how visual effect and visual sensitivity levels combine to produce varying degrees of visual impact. VISUAL IMPACTS TABLE visual effect levels visual sensitivity levels High Moderate Low High High Impact High Impact Moderate Impact Moderate High Impact Moderate Impact Low Impact Low Moderate Impact Low Impact Low Impact It should be noted that a high visual impact does not necessarily equate with a reduction in scenic quality, and the degree of visual impact has to be understood and assessed in relation to both the existing scenic quality of an area and the design merits of the proposal itself. For example, a well- designed proposal with a high visual impact may help to improve the visual environment of an area with low scenic quality. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 25 of 37 appendix 3 – viewpoint photos Viewpoint 1. View looking west from Diamond Beach Viewpoint 2. View looking west from Diamond Beach – Residential homes visible through low vegetation / over low sand dune. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 26 of 37 Viewpoint 3. View looking west from Diamond Beach – Residential homes visible through low vegetation / over low sand dune. Viewpoint 4. View looking west from Diamond Beach – Residential homes visible through low vegetation / over low sand dune. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 27 of 37 Viewpoint 5. View looking west from Diamond Beach Viewpoint 6. View looking west from Diamond Beach – Stair access to public carpark. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 28 of 37 Viewpoint 7. View looking west from Diamond Beach – Directly outside Seashells Beachfront Resort Viewpoint 8. View looking west from Diamond Beach our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 29 of 37 Viewpoint 9. View looking north from Diamond Beach Road looking over neighbouring property – 2 Storey Seashells Beachfront Resort (approx. 9m in height). Viewpoint 10. View looking north from Diamond Beach Road – Looking over neighbouring property – View onto the proposed building envelope would be limited due to the location of dam and existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 30 of 37 Viewpoint 11. View looking south from Ramada Beach Resort access road – Seashells Beachfront Resort visible over existing vegetation. View onto the proposed building envelope would be limited due to the location of dam and existing vegetation. Viewpoint 12. View looking south from adjacent subdivision – Seashells Beachfront Resort visible over existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 31 of 37 Viewpoint 13. View looking east from Ramada Beach Resort access road – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. Viewpoint 14. View looking north east from Diamond Beach Resort access road / Diamond Beach Road – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 32 of 37 Viewpoint 15. View looking north east from Diamond Beach Road / Old Soldiers Road – Seashells Beachfront Resort maintenance shed slightly visible over existing vegetation / development. Viewpoint 16. View looking east from elevated position on Old Soldiers Road – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 33 of 37 Viewpoint 17. View looking north east from elevated position on Fig Tree Drive – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. Viewpoint 18. View looking north east from elevated position on Fig Tree Drive / Panorama Drive – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 34 of 37 Viewpoint 19. View looking north east from elevated position on Panorama Drive / Vincent Close – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. Viewpoint 20. View looking north east from elevated position on Vincent Close – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 35 of 37 Viewpoint 21. View looking north east from elevated position on Diamond Beach road – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing development and vegetation. Viewpoint 22. View looking north east from elevated position on Diamond Beach road – Seashells Beachfront Resort maintenance shed slightly visible over existing vegetation / development. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 36 of 37 Viewpoint 23. View looking north from Torquay Circuit – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible due to distance. Viewpoint 24. View looking north from Glenelg Crescent – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible due to existing vegetation. our ref: 10877.5-VIA-Seashells - B Page 37 of 37 Viewpoint 25. View looking north from Glenelg Crescent / Cottesloe Circuit – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible due to distance. Viewpoint 26. View looking north east from elevated position on Diamond Beach road – Seashells Beachfront Resort not visible over existing - vegetation / development. Document Outline
Download 0.87 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|