Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessment (pdf. 5MB)

Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessments – 35 Water Street Wahroonga
5 CONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, land within the Subject Property 35 Water Street Wahroonga has a soil landscape, geology and
topography able to support BGHF – described in this Report as BGHF Habitat. The presence of 6,350 sq
metres (0.635 ha) of BGHF in the Subject Property has been confirmed by the NSW Land & Environment
Court (Proceedings 1113 of 2006) and this figure has been used in all subsequent (Cumberland Ecology 2007,
UBMC 2007, UBM 2011) and current (UBM 2012) reports.
The BGHF Habitat support a number of flora species associated with a number of shale-soil vegetation
communities in the Sydney Bioregion; however the low abundance of native flora species present in the
understorey, the very low % cover of locally indigenous flora species (~25%), the small size of the remnant
vegetation in the Subject Property overall (6,350 sq metres, 0.635 ha), its isolation within a fully developed
residential area, and its long-term land use and disturbance history means that the remnant vegetation in
the Subject Property has not functioned as a viable, interactive native ecological community for many years.
However, the stands of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) remaining in the Subject Property provide a
genetic resource for the species and they form part of the remnant BGHF ecological community in the
Locality and Region. Under the Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the
concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, an area of 173 sq metres (2.74% o f the total BGHF
Habitat area) and 11 BGHF trees will potentially be removed from the area proposed for possible
subdivision, with nine (9) BGHF trees to be removed or impacted in potential Lots 3 and 4.
The large remnant trees on the Subject Property, both native and introduced species, provide connectivity
(albeit discontinuous) to trees in neighbouring properties and local bushland reserves, and they also provide
habitat and food resources for a range of urban-tolerant native fauna; these being important ecological
services within a wholly residential landscape. UBM recommends that wherever possible, in those areas not
proposed for development all trees in good condition and which provide no hazard to public safety should
be protected, retained and incorporated in any future landscape design.
There will be a potential loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat for development in potential Subject Sites 3
and 4. This represents a loss of 2.74% of the total area of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property overall (@
6,350 sq metres). It should also be noted that the loss of only 2.74% of BGHF Habitat identified under the
potential future subdivision compares favourably with the 4.9% loss of this community which would have
occurred under the approved Hospital proposal.
Further, under the potential future subdivision proposal envisaged in the concept plan accompanying the
Planning Proposal, 6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat would be retained, rehabilitated and appropriately
managed under the adopted BGHF Habitat Vegetation Management Plan (UBMC 2007). This compares
favourably to only 6,034 sq metres of the community which would have been retained under the approved
Hospital proposal (providing a net gain of 323 sq metres)
It is however, recommended that the loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat, although small, should be
‘offset’ against a restoration and management program to rehabilitate the remaining area of BBGHF Habitat
within the larger Subject Property.
UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page 71