Our Goal - Stop the Development at 303 Blackhead Road - AGAIN!!
The proposed development at 303 Blackhead Road is essentially the same proposal that was refused by the Mid Coast Council in November 2017. It is essentially the same concept as was refused in June 2019.
The DA was originally rejected largely as a result of Community Action. The developers have exercised their rights to appeal their DA to the Land & Environment Court.
Mid Coast Council is scheduled to defend its decisions in front of the Court in September.
The defence case needs to be lodged with the Court well before the Hearing Date.
Members of the Community are welcome to make their thoughts known about the proposed development, but they need to be with Council by April 10 to give Council adequate time to prepare their case.
If you object to the proposed development, use the resources around this site to put together your ideas and lodge them with Council.
LIST OF ISSUES
This Development Application has already been rejected (in 2017!) - for these official reasons:
1. The proposal will have a negative effect on water and sewer infrastructure including the orderly development potential in the Hallidays Point area.
2. Establishing the proposed Asset Protection Zone on land to be dedicated to Council for the benefit of a private interest is not satisfactory.
3. There is an inequitable increased financial burden on existing ratepayers resulting from the additional impact of the proposed development on local infrastructure and services.
4. There is insufficient local infrastructure.
5. There is inadequate provisions for koala movement.
6. Impacts on visual amenity
7. Impact of lack of adequate fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation of the elderly
The proposal is considered overall to not be in the public interest and due to the cumulative effect of the above matters, the application fails to satisfy requirements of Section 79C1 (b), (c) (d) and (e).
The Proposed Development is Wrong for this Community and Wrong for the Area
When this Development Application went to Council on November 2, 2017, over 200 outraged residents and ratepayers packed the pubic gallery. Council was shocked by this show of strength. Councillors listened to their professional staff, but decided 9-2 to reject the proposal as they have the right to consider more than just whether the boxes have all been ticked. The Community's views were heard.
This Development Application has already been rejected (in 2019!!) - for these official reasons:
1. The development does not comply with the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016;
2. The development does not comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection;
3. The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of clause 9 of SEPP 36;
4. The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone in that the proposal hasn’t adequately identified a need for the type of housing proposed;
5. The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of clauses 18 and 24 of Local Government (Manufactured home estates, caravan parks, camping grounds and moveable dwellings) Regulation 2005;
6. The overall cumulative impact of the development will be unacceptable having regard to the potential impacts in relation to threatened species, transport, social and economic impacts;
7. The broader public interest is not considered to be served by the proposed development given the likely detrimental impact on threatened species and their habitats and the potential for the development to enhance social isolation largely as a result of the limited transport options available in the locality;
8. That if approved the development would set an unacceptable negative precedent for use of Council owned community land as an asset protection zone;
9. That if approved the development would create rate inequity burden for other rate payers;
10. If approved the development would provide inconsistency of application of home building regulations compared with all other approved dwellings in the area.
The Infrastructure in the Hallidays Point Area is not Ready to Support this kInd of Development
This was the case in November 2017, and obviously can be no different less than a year later. Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 (if not all 7!) remain today. In fact, it could be argued that Tallwoods is even worse off in terms of infrastructure now than a year ago because of the damage to Grangewood Avenue and Council's apparent inability (or is that unwillingness) to repair it. Imagine what it would be like if the development at the Pulpit was in operation now with many more vehicles using Grangewood Avenue to enter and exit Tallwoods. Developments like this need not only infrastructure in place, but also the capability of maintaining if not upgrading that infrastructure.
MCC Policies - Developers trying to "Get In Before the Policies Change"
Do you live near an empty block of land? How big is it? What zoning does it have? Who cares? If this DA goes through, it may not just be a granny flat that is built next to you!
Precedent & Implications
If this Development Application, then the current Councillors of our region will become infamous. The history they will create in being the people who support this DA would be the precedent of allowing MHEs to be built in previously illegal locations. With the tardiness shown by MidCoast Council to harmonise their planning tools across the local government region, developers such as this have the opportunity to "get in before the loop hole is closed" and build MHEs on lad never zoned for such a development.