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 removal of the playgound.

   I would like to point out that section 3.4 Severabily is not truthful in it version of the history that led to the creation of the playground. Yes it was originally put forth by the developer, but not in lieu of monetary contributions. It was originally intended to be a private park, but when the developer admitted they had no idea how this would be managed it was changed to a public playground.
   This then became a 'sales pitch' so to speak to help get the development approved.

   Also worth noting is that the 'park' is part of the sales pitch which they use to sell the dwellings with in the development.

   The only part not proposed by the developer was moving the playground to its current location, next to the fernleigh track, as opposed to the original location in the middle of the development.

   Moving the location of the park had not only a positive benefit fort he community, it was no longer in a location the could encourage territorial behaviour, and a play ground has a less negative environmental impact than dwellings in an environmental zone, but it also would have been positive for the developer in the form of cost saving.
   The dwellings that where originally where the park is now, are on the same block next to the other dwellings, ie no need to run extra services to an isolated corner of the site.
   Also the centre of the site required less grading and site works as that was already being done for the other dwellings there. The location of eat park is well below the grade of the road, so this would have taken extra earthworks.

   Whilst it is not stated, the true intent of not delivering on their promise of a park, is not because there are other parks in the greater Charlestown area, or because it is unfair o them. But it is because by keeping this land private and vacant, it is so they can add more dwellings on the land zoned for conservation in the future.

   It is for the reasons that I believe that this modification to conditions of consent should be rejected.

   Sean Brown

2. I wish to voice my objection to DA1774/2013A.

   The DA in question seeks to amend the conditions of consent by removing the public park, renaming the space as a separate lot and reducing monetary contributions.

   Firstly, these conditions of consent regarding open space and children’s playground were set by the JRPP for specific reasons NOT by Council in lieu of monetary contributions (as the developer states). The park was originally planned to be built in the middle of the development. At the time the developer refused to allocate the resources to maintain this park, expecting Council to do so. It was also planned to use some of the environmental zoned land for a footpath, water drainage, etc. thereby the conditions of the pubic park and open space was seen as a ‘compromise’ of sorts.

   IF the developer had disagreed with the conditions of consent they had an enormous timeframe (6 months) to object. They did not. The developer has waited until construction is well underway. Waiting until this stage of construction before requesting these amendments is a specific, calculated move – they cannot reverse what has been built. They can not move the park back to the original location. They can not leave the environmental zone as intended.
   In fact, if this is approved the developer will be delivering LESS than even their own plan!

   Secondly, the public park and open space has been used by the applicant to ‘soothe’ objections from the community and as an assurance that there will be some benefit of having this abysmal construction in our small town. It has essentially changed the course of action (in their favour) by calming objectors and giving community members something positive to focus on (“well it may overpopulate our area, ruin the aesthetic of the Fernleigh Track and multiply our traffic safety problems but at least they’ll add a tiny park…”).

   The applicant willingly and frequently spoke of this space as a guarantee to the community. This guarantee ultimately made for a smoother approval process (for the developer). Had this public park not been included the JRPP may have been harsher in their evaluation, rejected the current development or applied more conditions. Rescinding on these guarantees falsifies the previous approval process.

   Thirdly, the applicant claims their monetary contributions should be reduced as they have built a pathway, signage and the small public square. This is deplorable. These provide minimal public benefit, at best. Signage is already provided at the site on the Fernleigh track and the pathway only formalizes what residents were previously using as an informal path. As for the small public square, I am still unsure how this is meant to benefit the community. Currently the community use it as additional, informal car parking. This development will strain our current parking situation and REMOVE our informal parking by providing a concrete square. Are we meant to congregate on our public square, nestled between a massive development and a main road, and lament our good fortunes?

   Additionally, the request to remove the public park and rename this as Lot 27 is a clear indication that the developer wishes to build future dwellings on the site. If LMCC approves this DA there would be no obstacles to prevent this site being built on. The JRPP left this as a public park to specifically continue the bush corridor for native wildlife and provide an aesthetically appropriate link between the development and the Fernleigh Track.

   By foregoing the legal process of the appeal period, the developer has agreed to the conditions of consent.
   By waiting until construction is past the point of relocating the open space, the developer has agreed to the conditions of consent.

   A spiteful move by a spiteful developer (reminiscent of the 10foot billboard they erected mocking the community and depicting themselves bribing LMCC officers to ‘win’ when the development was first opposed). This appears to be a threat to LMCC – ‘yield to us or expect petty retribution’.
   I urge LMCC to enforce the conditions of consent and the guarantees that were made to this long-suffering community.

   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