Report comment

In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

Peter Gooley commented

This application for a caravan Park had been rejected twice already.
The complete lack of support services and transport options within Glossodia in general, makes this proposal completely unworkable.
The need for residents to have their own vehicle just to access Windsor, North Richmond or Richmond means that any proposal will need to provide adequate parking onsite. Wattle Crescent could not support Street parking due to its width and steep edges.
Current households in Glossodia typically have more than one vehicle.
I doubt that the Caravan Park will address that need adequately, and will indicate that public transport is available.

Public transport is less than adequate to provide for a concentrated population in such a small village.

Access to services such as human services in Windsor, job interviews, employment agencies, would be quite restricted if attempting to utilise public transport, as one example of the challenges that would be faced by residents.

Further, I would suggest that, one the plans have actually been made available for viewing, I don't that the Caravan Park applicant will have put forward a detailed plan for dealing with sewerage waste from the site. The Sydney water installed pressured system had enough extra capability for 6 houses. The system was not built to cater for such a development. The Jacaranda Ponds development proposal had to agree to build their own treatment plant before consent was even configured. As this property backs on to a creek that feeds the Hawkesbury River that flows to the oyster leases downstream, potential pollution from this site would impact dramatically on a creek system that supports creatures such as platypus.

I disagree with this proposal and request that it be rejected for reasons I have indicated above.

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

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