What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sharks fume as MP deserts project

R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
newman said:
What on earth are you talking about. The PAC (who will make the final determination) haven't even looked at the application yet, that stage starts after Dec 5, when they consider the application and the community submissions all at once.
Click to expand...

It means OEH concerns raised in its letter about flooding have not been addressed in the EA adequately by the developer.

Your comment about this being a "shoe in" is not true.

It seems particularly bad planning to build on a floodplain.
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
R2Coupe said:
It means OEH concerns raised in its letter about flooding have not been addressed in the EA adequately by the developer.

Your comment about this being a "shoe in" is not true.

It seems particularly bad planning to build on a floodplain.
Click to expand...

Yet the club got the go ahead to build an over 55 development on the car park site,wiith an underground car park.Council approved.And GP was on the council ATT.
So we did not have a flood plain then,but there is not one now.That stuffs the age of the earth theory once and for all.
Based on what has transpired in the past with council decision making,a 12 year old could decimate some of their arguments.
A unit development in Cronulla received a stack of protests and council was unhappy.The building when completed won a HIA award.I believe it was Drift.
I have lived in the Shire for decades and some of the developments that have been given the go ahead are embarrassing ,with their lack of attention to detail,lack of environmental concern,in complete contract with the Shark's development.
Yet we get a development(housing) built on a former sand dunes(denuded thanks to council) right next to a sh*t dispenser.
Yep I know where the bad planners are ,and the administrators:Sutherland Council.They do not think of the future but are reactionary.
My wife was nearly killed by a tree branch that fell on her car in Caringbah ,about 10 years ago.The person who lived opposite the accident noted."the council has known for some time this tree was riddled with termites and did nothing". I wrote to council and they didn't want to know me.
 
Last edited:
R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
taipan said:
Yet the club got the go ahead to build an over 55 development on the car park site,wiith an underground car park.Council approved.And GP was on the council ATT.
So we did not have a flood plain then,but there is not one now.That stuffs the age of the earth theory once and for all.
Based on what has transpired in the past with council decision making,a 12 year old could decimate some of their arguments.
A unit development in Cronulla received a stack of protests and council was unhappy.The building when completed won a HIA award.I believe it was Drift.
I have lived in the Shire for decades and some of the developments that have been given the go ahead are embarrassing ,with their lack of attention to detail,lack of environmental concern,in complete contract with the Shark's development.
Yet we get a development(housing) built on a former sand dunes(denuded thanks to council) right next to a sh*t dispenser.
Yep I know where the bad planners are ,and the administrators:Sutherland Council.They do not think of the future but are reactionary.
My wife was nearly killed by a tree branch that fell on her car in Caringbah ,about 10 years ago.The person who lived opposite the accident noted."the council has known for some time this tree was riddled with termites and did nothing". I wrote to council and they didn't want to know me.
Click to expand...

Taipan,

The previous approval was located on the eastern carpark adjacent to the club and was limited to 5 storeys with aged retirement and motel with no residential component.

Just because bad planning decisions happened in the past doesn't mean they have to be repeated,
 
R

rednblack

Juniors
Messages
275
newman said:
What on earth are you talking about. The PAC (who will make the final determination) haven't even looked at the application yet, that stage starts after Dec 5, when they consider the application and the community submissions all at once.
Click to expand...

True.
However, the OEH's contribution will be considered as PART of the PAC decision making process. Which means, if they submit that significant and appropriate drainage details have yet not been provided (which is the stance the OEH appear to be taking), the PAC will have little choice but to make their decision accordingly, based partly on that information.
Good to see so many sharks supporters turn out for the rally though. That show of support should be encouraging, and they should be applauded for their efforts (yep, even you carcharias!) ;-)
 
R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
Newman,

The fact the PAC will determine this application hasn't stopped you from advising this is a "shoe in".

You also advised the site is not a floodplain which is not true,

The developer EA has failed to adequately address the concerns of the foremost agency in NSW on this issue.

Residents have every right to be very concerned about flooding and the potential to impact on surrounding suburbs.
 
N

newman

First Grade
Messages
7,207
R2c, this is getting silly. We are now arguing about the internal machinations of the approval process. I don't have the energy for that. If you are fair dinkum, I can provide you with the contact details of the MD of bluestone and they will provide you with the flood mitigation plans if you want to view them for yourself. I'm sick and tired of telling you they exist, and I find it hard to believe that bluestone would be so unprofessional as to not address these issues (which are relatively routine) when I have been informed otherwise on many occasions.
 
R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
Newman

I don't believe we are arguing about mechanisms. I have provided advice from the foremost authority on flooding in NSW. This is independent advice and is not from anti-development residents.

It says

"While the EA's Draft Statement of Commitments identifies the need for a detailed flood assessment in future applications for the development, the flood assessments should be undertaken at the intitial conceptual stage. On this basis, it is not possible for the OEH to adequately review the impact of flooding on the development or the mitigation options presented".

If this agency cannot review mitigation options presented (by the developer) for the reasons stated, how can I as a resident?
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
R2Coupe said:
Taipan,

The previous approval was located on the eastern carpark adjacent to the club and was limited to 5 storeys with aged retirement and motel with no residential component.

Just because bad planning decisions happened in the past doesn't mean they have to be repeated,
Click to expand...

I repeat one more time,there was no flood plain problem then.The carpark for that development was underground.Underground is more affected by any floodplain,than above ground.It has nothing to do whether it was 1 storey or 100 storeys.An underground carpark ,and the council acceded.
A motel plus a hotel was involved.GC was part of the council ,who unanimously approved it.His current views ring hollow.

Please explain, one minute there is no problem then a few years later there is a problem.
Bad planning decisions in the past with no thought to the environment,with congestion in shopping centres.

I am saying this is A grade planning compared to past developments in the Shire , carefully planned taking into account the multitude of issues.The work has been done professionally,the ones in the past look like they were designed by a developer in his back garage.

The shire needs to cater for the next 20 years with a growing and ageing population.You cant keep building units near shopping centres,Cronulla shopping centre is almost a no go zone for parking ,as is Caringbah and Gymea.
 
Last edited:
R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
The motel proposal was on the eastern side of the club (carpark).

The tower proposal is on the western playing fields (floodplain).
 
carcharias

carcharias

Immortal
Messages
43,120
Give them a call Coupe
That is what I did when I asked if it was flood plain.
It is in a 1 in 100 year chance zone.
Which is basically the same as all buildings at the waters edge
in botany bay
ie the airport, taren pt industrial and residential , kurnell etc etc.
They said to me it was standard for any building close to the water to
pass a number of factors that are related to flooding
This does not mean the place floods.
It is just a precaution.
They also will explain to what steps they will take when considering the issues.
They know they are doing and TBH the houses close the golf course are more likely to be
damaged in a flood than the development.

Let's also remember none of us can recall it ever flooding before though.
Capsis reckons he can but he wanted under ground parking and a resort thingy.
 
N

newman

First Grade
Messages
7,207
What carch said.

R2c, are you suggesting that you think the application will be denied because of this flooding stuff?
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
R2Coupe said:
The motel proposal was on the eastern side of the club (carpark).

The tower proposal is on the western playing fields (floodplain).
Click to expand...


The underground carpark on the eastern side involved digging down and disturbing large areas of soil that may have a contamination effect,thus would have more effect on the environment.And dang me, be more subject to flooding than an above ground car park.
The residential development on the western side,involves above ground car parking ,and involves far far less ground disturbance.

I suggest you take a look at the Woolooware Shores retirement village and the effect flooding may or may not have there.Toyota built nearby.

One could use the flooding argument for many areas of the Shire.

Are you suggesting the developers have not taken any flood mitigation into account,for a once in a 100 years flood.
Sheesh Wooloware Shores and Toyota and half the business in Taren Point would be affected.
 
R

R2Coupe

Juniors
Messages
1,520
carcharias said:
Give them a call Coupe
That is what I did when I asked if it was flood plain.
It is in a 1 in 100 year chance zone.
Which is basically the same as all buildings at the waters edge
in botany bay
ie the airport, taren pt industrial and residential , kurnell etc etc.
They said to me it was standard for any building close to the water to
pass a number of factors that are related to flooding
This does not mean the place floods.
It is just a precaution.
They also will explain to what steps they will take when considering the issues.
They know they are doing and TBH the houses close the golf course are more likely to be
damaged in a flood than the development.

Let's also remember none of us can recall it ever flooding before though.
Capsis reckons he can but he wanted under ground parking and a resort thingy.
Click to expand...


newman said:
What carch said.

R2c, are you suggesting that you think the application will be denied because of this flooding stuff?
Click to expand...

taipan said:
The underground carpark on the eastern side involved digging down and disturbing large areas of soil that may have a contamination effect,thus would have more effect on the environment.And dang me, be more subject to flooding than an above ground car park.
The residential development on the western side,involves above ground car parking ,and involves far far less ground disturbance.

I suggest you take a look at the Woolooware Shores retirement village and the effect flooding may or may not have there.Toyota built nearby.

One could use the flooding argument for many areas of the Shire.

Are you suggesting the developers have not taken any flood mitigation into account,for a once in a 100 years flood.
Sheesh Wooloware Shores and Toyota and half the business in Taren Point would be affected.
Click to expand...

jc155776 said:
At least 3 metres deep in the stadium.

It is horrible.
Click to expand...


I'm a realist and believe it is not a matter of if it will be built but what will be built. This is my personal opinion based on the views expressed by the local politicians.

I identified flooding as a particular issue while some others such as game day parking are to me non events. I quite enjoy cars parked in the streets with people with excited children on the way to the footy.
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
jc155776 said:
At least 3 metres deep in the stadium.

It is horrible.
Click to expand...


We need a big sucker to get the water out.Any recommendations?
Have the bull sharks( capable of living in fresh and salt water) been sighted as yet?
How many jet skiers been sighted?
Is Carney buying a wet suit?
Will we rename the stadium:The Aquarium?
Is E.T doing his fishing show from the Souhern Stand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top