Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse Issue 516:<br />6 Apr 2021<br />_____________Issue 516:
6 Apr 2021
Collapse  NEWS NEWS
Two-year delay in dredging decision announcement
Ettalong channel decision long overdue, says Tesch
Comment sought on Esplanade shared zone design
Tesch welcomes State dredging of Ettalong channel
Residents 'should reclaim standing' in planning process
Minimal feedback sought on intersection plans
Help wanted to restore folding bikes
Three townhouse gun-barrel development proposed
Group calls for submissions on design and place policy
Save Our Woy Woy submits objection on Farnell Rd
Environment group decides 'priority actions'
Subdivision recommended for Mrs Wilson's shop site
Comment on nothing?
Submissions raise 14 issues with intersection plans
Council to proceed with paid foreshore parking
Tesch welcomes easing of restrictions
Bookings open for Seniors Festival activities
Emergency planning workshop for seniors
Expired flares collected at Lions Park
Headsets provided for music therapy
Food drive for Coast Shelter
Tesch suggests groups apply for women's sport grants
Church newsletter suggests supporting Mingaletta
Morning tea for Rotary women
Lack of debate on petition draws criticism from Tesch
Marine Rescue offers radio licence course
Titanic Dinner is 'well on track'
Raffle tickets and auction bids available despite sell-out
New signboard for St John's church?
Helping with flood clean-up
Fundraising event for Rotary project in Uganda
Accommodation booked out for Easter
Different activity each day in imagination zone
Third wettest month in 16 years
Stop the sham of 'public exhibition'
Concern at secret parking meters proposal
Pretend consultation while secret decisions are made
Hospital walls decorated with colouring-in
Collapse  ARTS ARTS
Another sold-out concert at the Troubadour folk club
Children's leaf artwork workshop at Woy Woy library
Ephemeral art entries close on Monday
Writers' Festival announces six featured authors
Guitar concert planned for Pearl Beach
Blues music brought to Ettalong
Art works on display in Ettalong
Historic first student win in annual volleyball tournament
New mural at Woy Woy South
Parents told of need for Working with Children checks
School disco raises $1740
Parents' group elects new committee
Teachers take part in Connecting to Country course
School leaders attend young leaders' conference
Touch football win
Reading on 25 nights
Libraries resume Storytime sessions
School publishes strategic plan
Charli calls for nominations to Minister's Student Council
Targeted well-being programs support 45 students
School motto resonates with mural artist
Steps to access support from external providers
Unicycle hockey team starts at community centre
Novice bridge championship results
Cricket players win association awards
Junior cricketers receive association awards
Footy Bowls Day attracts 80 bowlers
John Goddard awarded life membership
Free skateboard building workshop at Woy Woy oval
Boat crews win their sections in regional series
Umina bowls results
Touch players make NSW Catholic championships
Delay in championship bowls schedule
Netball results
Inflatable obstacle course for school holidays
Ourimbah to play Lions in first rugby union round
Sets of bowls go missing
Netball teams make it to Hunter League finals
Umina wins two out of three pennant games
Bridge club to hold four red point events this month
Touch association to hold annual meeting
Ettalong bowlers represent zone


Pretend consultation while secret decisions are made

For a while now, it's been quite obvious that state and local governments are hell bent on "expediting" their own agenda by limiting community involvement.

The so-called Low Rise Housing Diversity Code is a clear example of this.

At a local government level, we can see the effects of this in various ways.

One is the pathetic pretence at "public exhibition" of major development applications.

DA060666 is a current example.

This is a "second bite at the cherry" application for a site comprising five formerly separate properties located at the intersection of Blackwall and Farnell Rds.

The previous application for this block was DA 54551 which was approved after a cursory discussion by councillors more interested in getting back to their incessant political grandstanding than seriously studying the proposal.

Perhaps the reader might think that it is unfair to councillors to make this unsubstantiated accusation.

But the closer you look at DA 060666, the worse it gets.

Even though DA 60666 is a completely different building design from DA 54551, documents from the first application have been reused unchanged.

Presumably, they thought this was an acceptable cost saving measure but it makes a mockery of the development application process.

The arboricultural report is invalid because it refers to trees being retained or removed due to the requirements of the previous application's building footprint, a completely different footprint from the one actually proposed this time round.

The traffic and parking study is even worse as it describes in great detail the basement parking which is not in this application with no mention of the highly dubious 95 metre "dead end" laneway which is.

Ironically, this very traffic study was the subject of a previous letter to Peninsula News (Issue 510).

It concerned Mr Norm Harris's question to the Council administrator as to whether they were granting credence to "fake traffic studies", this one was given as a prime example.

Mr Harris's question was basically flicked aside on that occasion because it referred to DA 54551 and was therefore a historical issue which Mr Persson could not assist with.

However, now that this same Traffic Study has "resurfaced" in a current development application, perhaps Mr Persson will reconsider if asked the same question again.

In any case, the traffic study is totally irrelevant due to major planned changes to the intersections of Farnell and Allfield Rds with Blackwall Rd.

According to Transport for NSW, the design for these changes was finalised in March 2020 after "appropriate consultation with the community".

This "consultation" didn't seem to involve actually telling many people about what they were planning - no media statements for instance, another example of deliberately limiting community involvement.

The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying DA 060666 shows signs of being a "cut and paste job" from DA 54551.

The most obvious of these being references to "basement parking" which have confused many people including some making submissions on DA 060666.

There's several things in the Statement which may or may not be direct copies from DA 54551, so there's not much that can be fully trusted.

There is much information which is not available on line.

There is no first floor or ground floor plan supplied on line. These are secret.

However, the landscape plan shows a plan of the ground floor which is just as well, as there's not much to show much in the way of landscaping.

When DA 060666 first appeared on line, there was a sense of relief that it was so much smaller than the previous application with only 18 "low rise" units compared to DA 54551's total of 34 units made up of six one-bedroom appartments, 17 two-bedroom appartments, 11 three-bedroom appartments and seven three-bedroom townhouses.

Everyone assumed, looking at the crowded site, that the new applications would be a similar mix to the first one in terms of number of bedrooms per unit. However it was not possible to tell from the drawings supplied.

Another thing missing from the online documents was a copy of the minutes of the "Pre-DA meeting" dated March 7, 2018.

According to the Statement, this document must be read in conjunction with the application.

One of the agenda items discussed at the Pre DA meeting was "setbacks".

As the current application is non-compliant in a number of setbacks, it would be interesting to know what "advice" had been given to the developer.

It is doubtful that the application would have been submitted in such a non-compliant state if the developer had not had some sort of assurances from council staff that it would be ok to do so.

On enquiry at the council offices, I was told that I was not allowed to see the Pre-DA minutes as it was confidential between the council and the developer. More secret stuff.

When I politely pointed out that the Statement had stated that it was mandatory to read this document "in conjunction" with the application, the extremely helpful and patient counter person made several enquiries and I was eventually told that I would have to submit a GIPA (formal request to access government information).

I did this and am still waiting for a reply, not very hopefully.

My enquiries about the number of bedrooms was more successful as the helpful counter person was able to look at the "secret" plans and count the number of bedrooms for me.

It turns out that this application contains a mix of three-bedroom and four-bedroom units.

Initially, I thought that there was to be three four-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom units, making a total of 57 bedrooms.

But after trawling through the minutiae of the Basix Report, I now believe there are four four-bedroom units, making a total of 58 bedrooms.

The average person simply does not have enough spare time to investigate these things.

It's not just Central Coast Council that are allowing developers to limit the amount and quality of information available about planned developments other Councils do it as well.

It will gradually get worse as developers realise they can get away with it.

It can only be stopped by the community telling Council loudly and clearly to either stop the sham of "public exhibition" completely or to make sure it's done properly.

Skip Navigation Links.

Skip Navigation Links.
     Phone 4342 5333     Email us. Copyright © 2021 The Peninsula's Own News Service Inc ABN 76 179 701 372    PO Box 585 Woy Woy NSW 2256