PlanningAlerts

2 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I would like to lodge my objection to this DA.

   As someone who has followed this application closely through it various versions and stages, I strongly disagree with the application to delete condition 14.

   As with DA-1774/2013/B the SEE is not entirely accurate in its version of events.

   I would like to raise four points in opposition to this DA.
   
   1) It is not unlawful to have a condition which requires work out side the development site. It is common, many small developments are required to add foot paths and plant street trees, so to have a large development add squirrel glider poles is reasonable.

   2) For someone who is not a lawyer to find one court case which shows legal precedence in their is common. They are also often wrong in their interpretation. Lets call it conformation bias. As such it is also easy to find other cases giving the opposite result.

   3) The removal of this condition could potentially be in opposition with the other request, the removal of the playground and keeping that part of the site in private ownership. If (when) this was developed the trees in this location would be removed.
   This would then damage the ecological corridor. I question if the developer would include installing the spiral glider poles in that new DA when it happens?

   4)
   Yes the proposed 4 dwellings were relocated and some trees in the corner of the site no longer need to be removed. But the removal of the trees was not the only reason for the addition of squirrel glider poles and other work.
   The eastern boundary of the site is zoned E2. ie its primary purpose is to support the natural environmental, this would mean rejuvenation. But instead the vast majority of the E2 zone is taken up by the stormwater system and the roadway.
   The SEE also refers to page 15-16 saying it describes the development as increasing the width of the corridor from 1-3 trees wide to 3-4 trees wide. This is not significant increase in width, as little as 1 tree.
   Also the peer review also supports the implementation of the glider poles as "In contrast, tree plantings require a minimum period of 15-20 years to attain sufficient height to be functional for gliders. However, this time period until established, may be compromised by stochastic events such as high winds, disease and even tree maintenance for public safety." This is also on page 16 the very next paragraph.

   The reasoning behind the squirrel glider poles is not just to offset damage to the ecological corridor, but also because the developer has been allowed to make the primary purpose of the corridor stormwater and roads, not the environment.
   i.e. We have given you extra concessions on your side of the ecological corridor which has allowed you to make extra profits in the form of additional dwellings, now you offset this with some additional minor work on the other side of the corridor.

   This argument seems more than fair, even stacked in the developers favour.

   I believe there are other reasons for this not to be approved, but I hope that the few points I have raised here are enough for the assessing officer and others at council to not simply take the SEE as accurate, but to take time to properly investigate the history and reasoning behind the condition as it was prescribed.

   Sean Brown,
   Whitebridge

2. I would like to voice my objection to DA1774/2013B.
   The applicant seeks to delete all requirements of weed removal, rehabilitation and revegetation, among other things.
   As a resident of the area I would like to specifically object to the deletion of weed removal and vegetation maintenance as this will add to the abundance of lantana, privet and other easily spread noxious weeds. This will negatively affect the growth of native vegetation, the Fernleigh Track and the visual appearance of the area.
   Additionally, there is no bushfire categorization on that specific area as it has historically been grassed. This area has now been replanted with natives which will need to be maintained as an Asset Protection Zone. If this developer evades their maintenance responsibilities it will present a bushfire risk to the surrounding properties. A further impact of this will be the increased bushfire rating for the area which would severely impact any residents wishing to extend or build on their property.
   The inclusion of additional conditions, specifically those mentioned in this sought amendment, is not an uncommon condition of large developments. The value of this development is largely due to its location within a significant ecological area, as part of the Fernleigh Track and Glenrock Reserve. This development, by its very nature, will increase the impact on these environmental areas with the introduction of more domestic pets, more cars, as well as more users of the Track. It is not unreasonable to expect a development of this extensive scale to ‘give something back’ to the area in which it will so negatively affect.
   LMCC need to uphold the conditions of consent and ensure the negative environmental impact on this area is minimized by this development.
   Regards,
   Becky Beveridge

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Lake Macquarie City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment