PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. Dear Ellin,

   I am assuming this application is a retrospective application for the same temporary fencing which is currently surrounding the site. In which case I refer to DA 1774/2013 and the document link dated 7/11/13 'Access Restrictions' which gives the date and reason for erection of the current temporary fence on this site. I note the reasons in this current DA are slightly different than in the former document.

   Also noteworthy in regard to the question of denial of public access across the site is a response from Council's Public Lands assessor in the documents for DA 1774/2013. Part of his response follows,
   "2.6.4 – Pedestrian and Cycle Paths
   The development does not ensure the provision of an integrated pedestrian and cycle path network.
   The Fernleigh Track is an off-road shared pathway located along the SE boundary of the site...
   This proposed development provides no public access and no cycleway linkage to this major regional facility, effectively severing the existing linkages and turning its back on the Fernleigh Track, by means including the provision of an 1800 mm high fence." Also noted in this document are references to a discussion held between Council and the developer prior to sale over the provision of public space. I am not sure of the nature of this 'agreement' but assume someone in Council will be.

   There does seem to be some question about the entitlement of the historic and public interest in the permeability of this land. Many residents offered submissions requesting this consideration in their response to the development application and a number of response from Council speak to the desirability of this. What the legal requirement is remains less clear.

   Rather than fence the area while the decision is pending, I request Council negotiate with the developer to retain the pedestrian and cycle access through the land and also allow for a reinstatement of the use of the site [as formerly given] to overflow parking at the neighbourhood shopping area. Considering that there was no former issue of vandalism or personal injury prior to the fencing, I doubt the concerns of the developer are warranted. The only vandalism since the fencing appeared seems to be adolescent style graffiti both anti and pro the proposed development.

   I note too some concern regarding inappropriate signage being placed on the fence and a plan to remove it should it be attached. With no fence, there would be no need.

   The decision regarding the development may be pending for some time and a gesture of community mindedness, in effect costing nothing, would be appreciated for the duration.

   Sincerely,
   Michelle Burdekin

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