Submissions posted by concerned residents & ratepayers in 2018
303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430
Manufactured Home Estate
(Source: Greater Taree City Council, reference 407/2017/DA)
Comments from Planning Alerts - read below or go to the original link:
B Kennedy commented 23 days ago
So what is different to this application from the application that was strongly objected to by Hallidays Point residents and subsequently rejected by Council last year? Do these applications just keep getting submitted again and again until developers get their own way?
Malcolm Fraser commented 22 days ago
M.Fraser
This appears to be a rework of the Gateway application the only difference are view
of houses with garages instead of carports. The council should not consider this as
would be a definite downfall for all of Blackhead. Will the same people speak out in
support of this or come to their senses for the good of our area.
Anne Mayne commented 22 days ago
Yes, I would be interested to know what is different. Still the same objections, and I cannot find it on the Council website. What gives please?? Annie Mayne.
Sandra Chan commented 21 days ago
Councillors would be wise to note the significant Community objection to this rehashed DA. This development is not in the best interests of the community!
For others wanting to join the objectors please contact me on 041993940. We are prepared to fight this DA and Council in the L&E court if need be. It is not a suitable development for an infrastructure poor community.
Sandii Chan
Frances Crampton commented 21 days ago
This application has been rejected previously. Does just changing the names of the applicants make it different? Do developers just keep trying to wear people down? How can this application even been considered? Surely Council staff should review the application and advise that if it is predominantly the same as the previous one which was rejected, it is not acceptable. There was community protest before. It will been even greater this time!
Maxine Richards commented 21 days ago
Does council think our community would not see this application, here they go again trying to pass a previous application that was defeated and we will fight against this being approved, listen to the people Council, the community do not want this to happen. Council members do not vote in favour, you have been elected to listen to your members, so start doing so.
Kevin Croak commented 20 days ago
This DA surely has to be rejected by Council based not only on the previous rejection but also on the basis that the Mid Coast Council (MCC) LEP will not be completed until 2021. Council's website clearly states that it is moving towards developing a defining strategy for land use in both rural and residential precincts. The briefing paper commissioned by MCC and prepared by Perception Planning Pty Ltd whom were engaged by Council to deliver on the scope of this project (the LEP) in part lays out the issues with locating MHEs on residential lands [including recent history] that must be considered wholly by Council in finally completing the LEP. Community consultation is paramount in the decision making process on this matter and I would encourage the "hundreds" of residents in Hallidays Point and Green Point especially, that object to this inappropriate development to sign onto the Councils public consultation mailing list to be kept up date and asked for input by Council on the LEP.
Also, on the 6th March 2018 NSW Government responded to MCC's request for direction on the MHE/LEP situation and received the response" it is not considered feasible to proceed with a stand-alone amendment to Council's local environment plan as put forward in your letter". So, the ball is firmly in MCC's court.
Peter Luxford commented over 1 year ago
I do not believe that the current development proposals by Gateway are appropriate to Tallwoods Village. If Gateway wish to develop the land they have purchased and use Costal View Drive as there access point they should be following the model already created in Tallwoods Village for medium density housing. The two areas I am talking about are Hilltop Grove and Lakeside. Gateway needs to modify its plans so the properties being built are permenant structures rather than moveable dewellings. This properties should have the same amount of space around then as the current medium density developments plus swimming pools and tennis courts as Hilltop Grove and Lakeside do. I do not see the need to create another lifestyle park in the area considering Halidays point has one and two other toured ts parks in the area are in the process of being converted.
Julia Gilroy commented 19 days ago
It is unbelievable that this application has been resubmitted with little or no changes made to the one rejected previously. The Hallidays Point Community is strongly opposed to this inappropriate development and, as rate-payers, we expect our Councillors to listen to our concerns. As mentioned before, Council needs to have a clear planning policy for these MHEs before granting approval for them to inundate every small community. The lack of infrastructure alone should surely preclude such a high density development in this location!
Kaisor Sefian commented 19 days ago
Tallwoods should be left alone for people to build their own/dream home in such a nice location.
The golf course and lovely homes is what drew me in.
The design plan and estimated cost of works indicate cheaply built dwellings. Won’t be long before it falls apart.
They have found out from the local police that crime is low in the area. If the elderly do not obtain the housing provided and it is given to public housing we can expect crime to go through the roof.
I personally do not want my views to be of public housing.
Kind regards
Hanny Schott commented 19 days ago
As all the previous comments say.....what is the purpose of a
“Gateway in disguise” application??
This high density development has no place in Tallwoods Village, I strongly object to this reapplication.
Terry Young commented 18 days ago
Sadly as I understand it the State planning rules allow this type of development and despite our objections if the applicant takes any refusal to the Land & Environment Court they will win. Nevertheless we need to scream loudly so that they are aware that such a development will not be welcomed. Not least for the impact it will have on internal road traffic on Coastal View Drive. The traffic estimates provided are a joke.
We are already suffering from the "Fire" sale of land and rural block development with a consequent lowering of building standards within the village.
Lorna Cullerton commented 18 days ago
Surely not again! This application has previously been well ventilated and studied. Council's opinion, together with that of the residents was that this was not an application that would benefit the community or the environment. nothing has changed either in the application or residents' opinions. When Council originally rejected this application, they outlined at length why this application was not viable. Surely re-lodging a rejected application is a waste of resources and money.
I have confidence that Council will uphold their original opinion and stance guarding the rights of residents. it is very obvious that as there is relatively few changes to the application, Council's opinion has already been published.
This matter will be closed monitored by all residents for Council's transparency, in that they must uphold their original stance and reject the application again!
If the application is merely a guise to enable the developer to head to the Land & Environment Court, surely that the fact that Council have rejected it twice must make some impact.