PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. I am a retired CPA, a 30 year Balgowlah Heights resident approx 3 kms west of Manly CBD within the boundaries of the former Manly LGA, and immediate past Chair of Balgowlah Heights Precinct.

   Where I live:
   1. I am that much less impacted by any negative and adverse flow-on features than those residing closer to the impact zone of the proposed development
   2. as a consequence I have a number of alternatives available to me which may not be as easily available to those closer to the impact zone and who would be in a better position to comment which I support because if I were in their position I would like to feel that I would have someone further away supporting me – the anti NIMBY approach;
   3. there is, however, one exception - where I am at one with all residents and ratepayers – from the deliberate scant publicly released information, the questionable viability and consequent negative effect on Council resources by the operation of Oval Car Park, and associated “asset recycling” sleight of hand of the Whistler Street site has an erosive effect on the efficient use of our commonly owned public assets
   4. it is a clear demonstration of financial incompetence and its negative flow-on effect on the general finances and public asset base of the Council and/or ability of Council to maintain levels of service.

   My submission is for the JRPP to disapprove DA116/2016, JRPP reference 2016SYE058 DA) on the following grounds:
   1. distorted “community consultation” process in that concerns of Precincts have been ignored, surveys have been selectively designed and based on incomplete information;
   2. inadequate and evasive responses to information requests, taken to the height of an art form particularly financial, in that requests for additional information including GIPA requests and appeals to tribunals were assessed on the basis of the “impartiality” of the author or requester;
   3. systemic aversion and lack of transparency to financial accountability in that I openly defy and challenge anyone to extract the financial viability of the MOCP from the CSP, its risks and underlying assumption which can be tested.
   4. failure to follow Local Government guidelines in that Council meetings were held in contravention of guidelines
   5. the selective compilation of the redacted report to 12/4/2016 (Black Tuesday) Manly Council meeting in that the background information provided, though brief is distorted, incomplete and biased.

   To give an example - the released KPMG financial justification is conditional on the combination of assumptions that:
   1. there will be wholesale move of all current users of Whistler Street and those displaced by road restrictions to MOCP, and
   2. 16% (ie 21,000 of 425,000 parkers pa) of those who previously parked for free will now have to pay between them a 14% increase in the average fee per stay (from $12.28 to $14.00) which translates to an additional $423K pa or 31% increase on current Whistler Street revenue (from $1.383M to $1.806M)
   3. both from day 1 of the commencement of OCP operation
   The conclusion of this vital and pivotal piece of information? - an optimistic, unrealistic, set of assumptions so critical to success.
   Based on the above assumptions, with revenue of $1,810K pa, estimated expenses of $800K pa and replacement of Whistler St clear net income (and currently being spent on services) of $1,020K pa this proposal carries considerable risk and is marginal at the very best even by ignoring standard expectations of a modicum return on capital invested.
   Being a community asset project is no excuse in not applying generally accepted project evaluation criteria – if anything, there should be even greater diligence.
   Further, the funding of its construction by way of “asset recycling” is of no comfort at all as ANY shortfall of the completed OCP (vis a vis current Whistler $1.02M clear net profit) means either asset reduction, long term loans, or reduced services – all impacting adversely on all residents/ratepayers.
   The high risk that this project will not break-even is the concern of this objection.
   Residents have formed the conclusion that there is insufficient vital information with which to make an informed decision are fighting with hands tied behind their backs – this is not by accident or ignorance – this is deliberate, conniving and it smells - it is neither a fair nor transparent contest as financial justification is are kept hidden.
   The crux of my objection is:
   how can any responsible public body conduct “community consultation” (seeking resident/ratepayer approval) for the MOCP without a comprehensive financial risk assessment and analysis being included so that residents and ratepayers can respond to the consultation in an informed, personal responsible manner – at the end of the day, will the proposed public investment coupled with the public “asset recycling” leave the community financially better or worse off before agreeing to its go ahead – it is the residents/ratepayers who are the mortgagors of this project and they should have an informed say.
   I urge the JRPP to reject this DA.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Manly 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