Boomerang Drive Blueys Beach NSW 2428

Subdivision - 79 lots

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 17 days ago. It was received by them 17 days earlier.

(Source: Mid-Coast Council, reference DA2022/1099)

7 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Alan Carstens commented

    Following the public exhibition by the developers in March they are seeking to increase the number of Lots from 69 to 79 despite huge concern from the local community regarding the proposed over development of this sensitive site that 69 lots would have had.
    I trust the council will adequately address the beach erosion and flooding issues the proposed additional stormwater will have on Blueys Beach .
    Numerous Koala sightings on this site have recently been made by local residents .I trust that now our Koala population at Blueys have been identified as an Endangered Species by the government that all existing trees watercourses and dams will remain.

  2. ROSS BOWEN commented

    How can this occur in the 21st century ? How can a 10 year old rezoning be permitted to proceed when it is clear that it will create harm to an existing village lifestyle, it's environment and wildlife.

  3. Christina Tremain commented

    It is incomprehensible that such a large and significant subdivision, located on the iconic Blueys Beach Hillside, could be placed on the MCC website with absolutely NO plans, attachments or communication to the community regarding its lodgement!

    The impact and significant risk such a large sub-division will place on Blueys Beach and the greater Pacific Palms area - environmental, traffic, drainage and infrastructure is massive!

    An additional 79 lots on Lot 23 Boomerang Drive Blueys Beach is about 50 lots too many. Yes, the new owners/developers have a right to build on their new property, but do they have to ruin such a beautiful part of the Mid North Coast to do it?
    In addition, the unprecedented severe and ongoing weather patterns the entire east coast of Australia has been enduring for the past few years and will continue to endure for the foreseeable future, makes 79 lots untenable based on the typography of the land and proximity to existing properties.

    This block of land was re-zoned over a decade ago, by a Council and Government who knew nothing about Global Warming, increased rain events, flooding….. it fathoms belief, that anybody could consider the size and scale of this subdivision as being close to reasonable under the circumstances.

    The initial rezoning of this property denoted the very serious water issues pertaining to Lot 23 Boomerang Drive. This land must not be allowed to be sub divided into such a massive number of lots without transparent and honest dialogue with the Community.

    I object to this subdivision, it’s size and scale, the negative impact it brings to the area and the threat it will pose to the community with environment, drainage and traffic. The infrastructure and original design of Pacific Palms was never built to accommodate such large developments.

  4. Geoff McErvale commented

    Has Corruption occurred over this development I would like to know who is the owner of this property , the developers name the directors of all companies involved in this development and their association with current and past councillors

  5. Alan Carstens commented

    Following the public exhibition by the developers in March they are seeking to increase the number of Lots from 69 to 79 despite huge concern from the local community regarding the proposed over development of this sensitive site that 69 lots would have had.
    I trust the council will adequately address the beach erosion and flooding issues the proposed additional stormwater will have on Blueys Beach .
    Numerous Koala sightings on this site have recently been made by local residents .I trust that now our Koala population at Blueys have been identified as an Endangered Species by the government that all existing trees watercourses and dams will remain.

  6. Peter Deane commented

    I have not seen the detail yet, but for the Developer to listen carefully to the community's concerns re over development & then increase the number of lots/houses proposed, beggars belief.
    it is very important to note that the subdivision ie number of lots proposed was a agreed in principal 10 years ago by Council, before anybody knew about the"Climate Emergency". Also we now have accurate records showing run off during storms, & the consequences when main drains become blocked with beach sand etc.
    It is essential therefore that the number of lots proposed, be reduced & effective overflow drainage be implemented & maintained.

  7. Elizabeth DR commented

    As a genuine question, what is the total tally of lots being proposed by council, in what appears to be a push for over development? It appears we have about 100 at Ingenia (Blueys), 79 (DA 2022/1099), 77 (CC2022/0290), 9 (Hillside, Elizabeth Beach), 10 (Headland, Boomerang Beach), and I can't recall the number that I believe was proposed near Croll St.
    The damage to the wildlife, the environment (if Council do not subscribe to climate change, perhaps it's time they did), existing infrastructure (which is sub par e.g. roads, lack of hospital etc) and existing properties (drainage issues galore), seems to render councils endorsement/approval of such requests over develop the area is a very short term grab for money (which is not invested back into the community).
    Furthermore, whilst I know many developers will try and get it through with an Over 55s - the area simply doesn't need anymore. There are already so many, and no hospital to support the elderly, and it flies in the face of building and growing the area to become more suitable for younger families. The issue this LGA will face in the future is a predominately aged population, with no one to work at the businesses that can survive.
    Lastly, these excess developments do not create "affordable housing" - if council wants to support affordable housing, then they should build something themselves to provide crisis housing for the large population who can no longer afford to live in the area. Housing, from Seal Rocks right up to Forster, is not "affordable" by local standards. It brings in investors but does nothing to solve the local crisis.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts