Phone 4325 7369     Fax 4325 7362     Email us.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse Issue 164 - 30 Apr 2007Issue 164 - 30 Apr 2007
Collapse  NEWS NEWS
Veron Rd approval is recommended
Option 3 bike path recommended
Name bridge after place, says historian
People sign for Spike Bridge
No stopping in laneway?
Concerned about climate change
Footpath change for hospital
Ample grounds to protect bush, says ACF branch
Signals or roundabout planned for Railway St
Business group seeks members
Grant for hall upgrade
Crossing replaced with traffic lights
Taxi rank may move back
Water testing for treatment plant
Community fun day for playground proposal
Hale to chair Red Shield appeal
Parking plan recommended
Church fete
Dog owner spoken to
Action on 'nuisance'
Roads funds redistributed
No action on no parking
Branch holds lunch
Committee turns down request
Concerned about laneway parking
Council works
New photographic studio opens
New business has old furniture
Fitness centre donates food
Collapse  FORUM FORUM
Watching a rare pair
Scrabble loses elite player
Wrong priorities?
Disastrous delay
Wagstaffe once a paradise
Where is intention to protect heritage?
Statistics don't mean squat
Greed of banks
Collapse  EDUCATION EDUCATION
Engaging boys better in class
P&C holds fete
Positive parenting program planned
Anzac attendees
Art show at Empire Bay
Collapse  SPORT SPORT
Shane wins judo silver
Umina juniors to field 22 teams
Cricket presentations made at Umina
Collapse  ARTS ARTS
Author enjoys quiet time
Folk club presents Australian concert
Theatre hosts festival of short plays
Scholarships for students
Pay for theatre at the library
Collapse  HEALTH HEALTH
Street stall
Collapse  PROMOTIONS PROMOTIONS
Home show winners
Sauna sessions

Veron Rd approval is recommended

Gosford Council staff are continuing to recommend approval for the construction of a retirement village on rare bushland on the corner of Veron Rd and Hillview St, Woy Woy, after a six-week deferment requested by the applicant.

The DA was previously due to come before Council on February 13, but council agreed to the deferment after the developer requested extra time to provide details of the proposed staging of the development and an amended arborist's report.

However council's agenda states "the applicant has since indicated that it is not intended to stage the development at this juncture".

The amended arborist's report is not included in the business papers.

The Council report has also been modified to include a koala assessment, an offer by the developer of two of the units for rental as "social housing", and a response to a letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation's Central Coast branch.

In the report, the council's environment assessment officer stated: "Given the DEC has granted concurrence for this application, I am of the opinion that Council would be prudent to grant consent to the application subject to conditions.

"This opinion is not based solely on the DEC concurrence but with regard to the previous Land and Environment Court decision along with the judgement handed down in the Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSW LEC 133.

"In short the applicant has demonstrated in the SIS, the full extent of the proposed impact and presented a number of ameliorative measures to mitigate the extent of the impact.

"The DEC, which is the State authority for administering threatened species legislation, has considered this and granted concurrence.

"Based on the above information it would be unlikely for Council to defend further legal action in respect to a s97 challenge on refusal of this application.

"Given this, conditions are provided ... to strengthen environmental safe guards and approval of the application is recommended."

The Council report provided a four-page response to the letter from the Central Coast branch of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

This letter asked for the council report to be reviewed and rewritten on the grounds that it is "inaccurate, inadequate and unbalanced, and that it misleads councillors in their consideration of development application 30219/2006".

It outlined 23 points that the ACF branch believed required correction.

The council response stated that "Council refutes these claims, however acknowledges that additional background information" on the previous development applications, the Land and Environment Court findings, and their relationship with the current application "would be beneficial to assist in clearly understanding the issues."

The council report stated: "Ultimately the core issue in respect to this site is the impact of the proposal on Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland.

"Whilst the ACF letter is critical of Council for placing significant weight in the DEC concurrence report, it should be highlighted that the DEC is the peak State regulatory body for administering threatened species legislation in NSW.

"Council acknowledges that the proposal is likely to lead to a significant impact on UCSW and has maintained this position throughout both the current applications the previous applications and the LEC proceedings."

The council report said the application had been lodged based on the facts that:

* UCSW occurs over the majority of the subject site;
* The proposed development is likely to lead to a significant impact on UCSW;
* The subject site contains habitat for a number of threatened species;
* An SIS is required to support the proposed development application;
* The SIS was to prepared in accordance with the DGR's and s109-111 of the TSC Act 1995;

The report stated: "Council, whilst maintaining the position that the proposed development is likely to lead to a significant impact on UCSW, has formed the opinion, based on guidance from the Director General of the DEC that consent should be granted subject to conditions.

"Council holds the opinion that the proposed application has been assessed in accordance with the full statutory framework for assessment of threatened species, populations and ecological communities."

Comments


Add a comment
Comments entered here may be published in the Forum section of Peninsula News. Name, full residential address and daytime telephone number are required, but only name and suburb will be published. This is a moderated forum: Contributions will not appear here until they are approved by the editor. Contributions may appear in an edited form.


Name:
 
Address:
Suburb:
Telephone:
Comment:
 

 


Search this website


Skip Navigation Links.
   Copyright © 2007 Peninsula Community Access Newspaper Inc