We support and commend Council’s information request to LG Resorts dated 23 May, 2024.
In future negotiations we believe that two more specific conditions should be imparted: the scale of the plan is reduced to 80 lots; the plan provides an additional entry/exit point.
These two conditions are based on the following observations:
If Kidd Street were to be widened under the present plan of 166 lots, it would still ‘diminish the safety, efficiency or integrity’ of the ‘existing infrastructure’ and fail to minimise the ‘disruption of the community during construction.’ Even if lots were reduced to 80, a serious problem would remain in any emergency (eg, fire requiring evacuation, and serious storm activity).
.
A related problem concerns traffic congestion at the intersection of Kidd and Main Streets. LG’s application refers only to peak-hour traffic while ignoring the major peak period during Main Street’s business hours which include traffic to and from the council refuse dump.
Parking on Main Street during business hours is also a relevant issue, with limited off-street parking available for increasing usage of this precinct. Indicative of this problem is Council’s implementing two-hour limits on parts of the street.
The application makes no reference to when the Kidd Street upgrade will be undertaken. Before, during or after the project? Will the street remain in its present degraded condition for an extended construction period, possibly over ten years, during which time the project may be moving towards capacity occupation?
Thanks to Google Earth we have examined eight existing LG ‘resorts’. All have immediate and direct access to a main road or a road or street wider and shorter than Kidd Street and provide quicker and easier access to a main road or highway. In other words, the Kidd Street connection is a ‘first’ for LG and indicates a disregard of its safety and functionality implications.
We believe the points made above justify our second recommended condition that the plan provides an additional entry/exit point. This is entirely feasible as 49 Coleman Square (especially if converted to a one-way street, and 20 North Street could be available. Use of the second point would take pressure off Kidd Street/Main Street congestion and, as importantly, offer an additional emergency exit and entrance for response vehicles.
In terms of emergencies, we were surprised that the Council document did not refer to the Fire Hazard submission which appears to deliberately downplay any possible threat, miscalculate the considerable number of surrounding flooded gums with their flammable bark and leaf droppage, ignore climate change, and advance ridiculously misleading images of the forest floor.
Please note that most of the points raised above allude to, and are reinforced by, the Assessment Benchmarks and Performance Outcomes listed on page 13 of Council’s Information Request document.
