Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[KiamaSaint]

Yeah, I had the same trouble. If you actually place "Sharks" in the search engine there is a media release titled "Sharks $200 million plan accepted as major project". That is very interesting reading. The plan is to have 10,100 new dwelling and 8000 new jobs in the Sutherland Shire. This project doesn't seem so large in that context.

At the same time the Department has sent out some warning bells as many on this forum suggested - height of the development, impact on the neighbouring communities, traffic impact and impact on the environment "...including the site’s proximity to the adjacent wetlands." It is never great we they use the term "wetlands".

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Just f**king relocate already.

 

[runatme]

Just f**king relocate already.

sorry new ltd owned scumbags

we aint going anywhere

 

[SharkShocked]

KiamaSaint

Your concerns are very reasonable, however the developer has extensive experience in dealing with developments in close proximity to environmental concerns and have managed to deliver very successful projects. I urge you to look into this at your leisure if you wish to be more informed.

I believe what annoys most people that are pro development and pro sharks (no the two do not need to be connected) is the manner in which the local members have acted in releasing their statements.

It was reported that the MP's took offense to the term 'colluded' which was used in Mr Irvine's media comment on the matter. I find it difficult to accept their sentiments given all 3 of these speakers have come out mid way through a consultation process and aired their views all at the same time and in the same context.

I suppose the planets were just aligned?

 

[carcharias]

If only it was a floodplain
We could change our name to the Noah's Arks.

At least George Capsis would be happy .

 

[bad boy bubby]

There you go on the website. Read under Director Requirements.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4485

Ok so now I have gone through this link and the closest information about floods I could find was this passage that I have taken a screen shot:

Those requirements are general of any application you simple man. Any relevant flood info may be nothing at all. Which is the case here.

thats the way i see it as well.
who knows, i must have my blinkers on eh.

 

[KiamaSaint]

I'm not concerned, I am not one to worry about high rise. If I was a local traffic congestion would be a concern.

I was outlining what the Department might have issues over. To be honest my experience with planning authorities is limited.

 

[Ausguy]

Ok enough

I can't believe so many people both for and against are getting so personal.

Fact is no posts on here will make a ratsass difference

I'm confident it will be approved even with a reduced amount of dwellings based on the fact that the nsw govt has certain targets to meet and that this is a well balanced proposal with many benefits for the community. There simply is no obvious reason for it to be knocked back in its entirety.

I'm over arguing about it up to the PAC now.

 

[KiamaSaint]

It must sux being a Sharks fan, having people deathriding your team, questioning whether the club's lifeline is viable, etc. No offense was meant by me Ausguy.

 

[R2Coupe]

I'm a little confused here, this part of the debate was about the "flood plain" was it not?
I clicked on your link and selected Sharks DGRs. A download occurred but nothing at all is in it about flood plains.

Here is what came up:


Response to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader re Sharks proposal

Response provided on 15 July in response to questions about why the Director-General’s Requirements were issued the day before the State election in March this year.
The answer to your question is simple: the Department was simply trying to meet its statutory requirements under the State’s planning laws.
On 21 February 2011, the former Minister declared the Sharks proposal to be a major project and issued a media release the next day to inform the community of the decision.
Under the State’s planning laws, the Department then has a statutory 28-day period within which it is required to issue Director-General’s requirements (DGRs) to the proponent following consultation with other agencies and the relevant local council.
As such, the requirements were due to be issued on 21 March.
Sutherland Shire Council’s input to the DGRs however was not received until 23 March. The Department didn’t want to finalise the DGRs until the council’s advice was received.
Once this advice was received, and in view of the fact that the statutory timeline had already passed, the Department then incorporated Council’s feedback as soon as possible and issued the DGRs to the proponent on the 25th.
There was no direction to the Department from the then Minister or any other party for the DGRs to be issued at this time.


Maybe there was a flood at the Councils office that day?

This confirms the the requirements are specific for the site with input from Council and consultation with other agencies. A pro-supporter suggested they are generic which is clearly incorrect. Flooding is an issue to be considered as can be seen by reading the requirements.

 

[roofromoz]

it goes to an independent body for approval/rejection.

It will likely go to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), although it is yet to be registered on the website.

What it will come down to is whether the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are satisifed that the impacts of this development will have no negative impacts on the surrounding areas. It will make a recommendation to the PAC and will be up to them as to whether they agree with the recommendation.

I have now had a brief look at this development, and I am not going to say whether I would be supportive of it or not - the mindset my profession has equipped me with is that I need to have knowledge of every aspect of this development before I make a final decision. But having said that, I would in principle be supportive of any recommendation that is made, because it would have been as a result of an extensive assessment process, which also included an analysis of public submissions.

What must be pointed out is that there is no relationship whatsoever between a high level of public opposition and a greater chance of it being refused. This misconception often leads to the claim that the wrong decision was made.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the assessment and recommendation by qualified professionals, such as town planners, engineers and the like. However, it is not as though the submissions are in any way disregarded, it is just that they could be countered by a sound argument that forms the basis of the final recommendation.

If it does come down to a refusal being recommended (and then supported by the PAC), it must be robust enough to withstand any appeal that the applicant would likely take to the Land and Environment Court. As with regular DAs, the 3rd party appeal rights may also apply in the event that it is approved, and it can be proven that the assessment was not carried out in accordance with the appropriate planning legislation.

So an approval could still be subject to an appeal - but it must be done within 3 months.

 

[R2Coupe]

KiamaSaint

Your concerns are very reasonable, however the developer has extensive experience in dealing with developments in close proximity to environmental concerns and have managed to deliver very successful projects. I urge you to look into this at your leisure if you wish to be more informed.

I believe what annoys most people that are pro development and pro sharks (no the two do not need to be connected) is the manner in which the local members have acted in releasing their statements.

It was reported that the MP's took offense to the term 'colluded' which was used in Mr Irvine's media comment on the matter. I find it difficult to accept their sentiments given all 3 of these speakers have come out mid way through a consultation process and aired their views all at the same time and in the same context.

I suppose the planets were just aligned?

Are you suggesting censorship to stop MPs airing their views (and those shared by many constituents)? If so I find this astounding and amazingly defensive.

 

[Ausguy]

Fantastic post oz

Kiamasaint I'm not offended at all. The only thing that angers me is opposition based on people's opinions rather than real fact.

 

[Ausguy]

Are you suggesting censorship to stop MPs airing their views (and those shared by many constituents)? If so I find this astounding and amazingly defensive.

How you get that from his post amazes me.

He is obviously saying they clearly organized their statements before making them. Reading them it's an absolute certainty. He said nothing about them not saying it just that they clearly teamed up.

 

[bad boy bubby]

This confirms the the requirements are specific for the site with input from Council and consultation with other agencies. A pro-supporter suggested they are generic which is clearly incorrect. Flooding is an issue to be considered as can be seen by reading the requirements.

It just requires them to give an assessment.

Do you know if the assessment came back as an issue or non-issue?

I have to let you know that I have had to deal with the EPA on these grounds on a regular basis for over a year. I put in all the services for the new grandstand and lighting around the ground, which meant I had to deal with the mangroves environment constantly. I also built the Fitness First which is nearly living amongst the groves its so close.
The whole time in my dealing with them they not once said it was a flood plain, it was a tidal area.

 

[jc155776]

It is obvious R2Coupe can't read and understand public development documents.

The flood issue can be addressed simply as "N/A"

The rest of the criteria would then be addressed by the developer.

SO wrong again Coupe.

Want to try anything else?

 

[carcharias]

I got the same requirements for my pissy little reno.
Also had to pass bush fire regs.
And a whole heap of other crap.
Standard shire council rigmarole,.
Anyway coupe I hope you had fun googling the bejesus
out of the worlds cronulla , flood, floodplain & woolooware all day.
I know I had fun knowing you were.

 

[Slackboy72]

Good to see everyone getting so angry. Especially Carch.

 

[carcharias]

Sort of like yourself eh?

Good to see everyone getting so angry. Especially Carch.

twice ey?

wassup....so I didn't bite the first time so you thought you'd try it again?

I must really get to you ey?:lol:

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

It must sux being a Sharks fan, having people deathriding your team, questioning whether the club's lifeline is viable, etc. No offense was meant by me Ausguy.

certainly isnt an easy gig.