top of page


Ralston Ave Belrose

This Planning Proposal seeks to amend Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 (WLEP 2011) to enable the subdivision and redevelopment of 136.62 hectares of land owned by MLALC at Ralston Avenue, Belrose, to: R2 Low Density Residential - 17.27 hectares (12.6% of the site) with a yield of 156 lots (see Figure 3), based upon a minimum lot size of 600 square metres and a maximum building height of 8.5 metres (referred to as the Development Site) RE1 Public Recreation - 0.3 hectares (0.2% of the site) for a public park (referred to as the Public Park) E3 Environmental Management - 119.05 hectares (87.2% of the site) to be retained as natural bushland with Asset Protection Zones and recreation trails adjacent to the future residential land (referred to as the E3 Environmental Management Area)

The following was the voted result.


That Council:

A. Reject the Planning Proposal lodged for Lot 1 in DP 1139826, Ralston Avenue Belrose, and recommend the Department of Planning and Environment do not make a Local Environment Plan to enable the development for the following reasons:

a. It has no strategic merit due to inconsistencies with directions, aims and priorities to protect the environment and increase resilience to natural hazards in A Plan for Growing Sydney and the Greater Sydney Commission’s Revised draft North District Plan and Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan (October 2017).

b. It has no site-specific merit due to impacts on biodiversity and threatened species, the adjoining National Park, bushfire risk, the proximity of the Sydney East Substation and financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

c. It is inconsistent with the specific aims of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) No 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas and Council is not satisfied that the proposal will result in significant environmental, economic or social benefits that outweigh the value of the bushland. d. It is inconsistent with SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 as it has not addressed likely impacts on an electricity transmission network and associated concerns of an electricity supply authority (i.e. TransGrid) for development immediately adjacent to an electricity substation.

e. It is inconsistent with s117 Ministerial Direction: 2.1 Environmental Protection Zones, as it would change current planning standards which protect the environment by restricting residential development to 1 dwelling per 20 hectares.

f. It is inconsistent with s117 Ministerial Direction: 6.3 Site Specific Provisions, as site specific provisions may be required to prohibit certain uses from the proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone and E3 Environmental Management Zones.

g. It is inconsistent with s117 Ministerial Direction: 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney, by undermining the achievement of its planning principles; directions; and priorities. Especially those that encourage a risk-based approach to strategic planning through halting development in high risk areas.

h. The Rural Fire Service do not support the proposal and find it inconsistent with S117 Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection, as it would place inappropriate development in a hazardous area and would not achieve the primary objectives to protect life, property and the environment and encourage the sound management of bush fire prone areas.

i. The proposal fails to address issues associated with access to the site and evacuation from the site in the event of a bushfire, including the risk associated with arcing to ground from the 330kva power lines and disruption of planned evacuation routes.

k. The site has not been identified as having future development potential in either Stage 1 or 2 of the Oxford Falls Belrose North Strategic Review (Strategic Review).

l. The Office of Environmental Heritage and National Parks and Wildlife Service do not support the proposal due to impacts on biodiversity and threatened species and the adjoining National Park.

m. It is unlikely to comply with Ausgrid’s conditions of consent relating to bushfire evacuation.

n. It would result in unacceptable risks to life, property and the environment which would outweigh any potential benefits of the proposed development.

o. The majority of public submissions do not support the proposal.

B. Reject the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that accompanies the above Planning Proposal, for the following reasons:

a. The draft VPA does not deliver a demonstrable public benefit.

b. The Biodiversity Certification agreement cannot be included as a public benefit.

c. The community facility contribution is insufficient to support the additional increase in population.

d. There is insufficient detail on the proposed Aboriginal services and MLALC land management proposals that could be funded outside a VPA process. e. Most of the proposed public benefits would benefit the future occupants rather than the wider community and could alternatively be required as conditions of future consent. f. The proposed park is in an unsuitable location and would place an unreasonable maintenance burden to Council due to bushfire management requirements.

g. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) does not support the proposed increased access to Garigal National Park as consultation has not occurred and the associated impacts have not been addressed.

h. Council has received many submissions from the community who do not consider the proposed public benefits adequately compensate for the loss of bushland.

VOTING FOR: Unanimous


Related Posts

See All
Transparency for the Community

We are a group of locals who care about our community and proudly serve their wishes. As genuine independents, we’re not answerable to any major party - just the people of the Northern Beaches. 

Please share your thoughts about how we can implement the solutions that are most important to you.

bottom of page