140 likes | 268 Vues
Significant Site and Concept Plan Proposal Catherine Hill Bay and Gwandalan No. 06.0330. Objection by Catherine Hill Bay Progress Ass’n to the Expert Panel 27/2/07. Purpose of the presentation. Overview of formal objection Strategic basis of objection Recommendations
E N D
Significant Site and Concept Plan Proposal Catherine Hill Bay and Gwandalan No. 06.0330 Objection by Catherine Hill Bay Progress Ass’n to the Expert Panel 27/2/07
Purpose of the presentation • Overview of formal objection • Strategic basis of objection • Recommendations • Heritage Considerations – Jennifer Hill
Credentials • Progress Association - the authentic voice of the community since 1901 • Community surveys since 1994 • Latest survey Jan 07 (Attach. 1) • Policy Position 24 Sept/16 Feb (Attach. 2)
Formal objection • DG’s Requirements – serious deficiencies in response to every Requirement • Particular concerns on each of the impacts referred to in IHAP’s ToR 1(a) • Negligible consideration of environmental antecedents, long-agreed future use of the site, and its strategic significance
Basis of objection • No cogent or comprehensive case made for the size and design of the proposal in this location • Existing zonings, statutory and LG policies provide adequate protection and permit some controlled development
Basis of objection • Why 600 dwellings? • The Minister has informed us that the number is based on advice from DoP that 600 was “do-able” • NO detailed study was made, he said
Basis of objection The Concept Proposal arises from: • a non-quantified estimate of what was thought to be “do-able” • a non-statutory regional strategy (LHRS) which set the scene • a non-binding MoU between developer and Minister, which filled in the details
The Deal The people of NSW are being asked to trade • strategically significant coastal land • land which is being rehabilitated at no cost to the public or government • land which provides for public open space for environmental/recreational use and scope for limited development
The Deal But the deal’s consequences involve: • an “offset” of non-coastal land of unspecified environmental worth purchased by the developer at a pro-rata price of $3.6m • $500m development of an overwhelming 600 dwellings, a number arrived at without detailed study or justification in the Concept Proposal • loss of significant coal mining heritage • privatisation of much of the site
The Deal The people of NSW would be left with: • unspecified $millions in public infrastructure costs to which the developer says it has no obligation to contribute (community left to pay) • uncertain consequences of a carte blanche approval to proceed without further planning or design controls This deal is not in the interests of the people of NSW, and is by no means justified by the Concept Proposal
Recommendations • Strategic environmental and heritage significance be the basis for planning • Proposal for 600 dwellings be set aside pending detailed environmental, visual impact, urban design and heritage studies • Heritage Office revisit the State Heritage listing of CHB and the site
Recommendations • These studies to establish a development footprint, consistent with current zonings, including eco-tourism • Any further proposal to be considered under the normal planning process
Recommendations • Community infrastructure to be resolved as part of the planning process, using Conditions of Consent • Concept Proposal be recommended for refusal pending these studies
The Progress Association supports • Heritage analysis by Jennifer Hill • Recommendations of Dr Dearing