Take Action on the Development.

[jc155776]

Yep megladon is not te chairman. Megladon is schooling coupe though.

Another thing, how about the anti groups form sending in pro formas multiple times under one name or submitting things via the anti site with name only and not even an email! Dodgy as a catholic priest. Talking about men of god...

 

[cb4]

What I did notice from the anit development letters, any person who sent in 5 or 6 letters, they were bunched and counted as 1.

I have spoken to people who are for the development and submitted 40 & 50 letters, and each of them were individual submissions.

Either way, the bickering should stop until the final judgement is made. Coupe should go back to the Tigers forum, and this thread should be heavily moded to avoid any type of confrontation. Let it just be business as usual.

 

[Quigs]

Its the offseason dammit. Let the games continue.

 

[jc155776]

Like f**k this thread should be modded. Nothing better then laughing at how desperate coupe gets.

 

[cb4]

He who laughs last, laughs loudest.

 

[Megalodon]

He who laughs last... had to have the joke explained to them.

 

[Madsharkie]

He who laughs last... had to have the joke explained to them.

I don't get it... :sarcasm:

 

[carcharias]

Hahaha

I think....

 

[newman]

HERE IS MORE PROOF THAT R2COUPE IS FULL OF SHIT.

His entire flood argument was based around this document. https://majorprojects.affinitylive....t and Heritage comments_ 22 November 2011.pdf

Which is a state govt submission response to the DA that ive only just got around to reading.

Coupes 'smoking gun' is this paragraph.

"Suitable arrangements for floodwater and overland flow need to be considered from the earliest stages of the design process, particularly when the site is identified as being on a floodplain".


You can read the whole document yourself (cant copy and paste) to find out that Coupe is using this waaaaaaaaaay out of context. This is a standard, generic government phrase that has been pasted in to this document, as it is to ALL DAs (and it further goes on to list what the developer needs to submit re flooding, aboriginal heritage, wetlands, heritage blah blah blah very, very standard stuff). NOWHERE DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY THAT THE AREA OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS ON A FLOODPLAIN. It merely says that certain steps need to be taken IF the site is identified as being on a floodplain and suggests that the developer needs to implement a 12 month study to find out if it is! It even suggests later on that underground parking can be considered "with the right mitigation plan".

 

[Eion]

I didn't need any proof Newms. Coupe has refused to answer why his messiah wants a 'resort thingy' on such a dangerous floodplain.

I'll tune into this again when he does.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Exactly newms.
I read it when he posted it on the NRL forum and it was obvious his comprehension skills were lacking. People tried to tell him but he didn't want to know.
From that point i skipped his posts.

 

[Card Shark]

Its the offseason dammit. Let the games continue.

Are we up to the 20th post yet?

 

[R2Coupe]

HERE IS MORE PROOF THAT R2COUPE IS FULL OF SHIT.

His entire flood argument was based around this document. https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/b3b61a272ebb9c78e1b6827e9c6fcefb/Office%20of%20Environment%20and%20Heritage%20comments_%2022%20November%202011.pdf

Which is a state govt submission response to the DA that ive only just got around to reading.

Coupes 'smoking gun' is this paragraph.

"Suitable arrangements for floodwater and overland flow need to be considered from the earliest stages of the design process, particularly when the site is identified as being on a floodplain".

You can read the whole document yourself (cant copy and paste) to find out that Coupe is using this waaaaaaaaaay out of context. This is a standard, generic government phrase that has been pasted in to this document, as it is to ALL DAs (and it further goes on to list what the developer needs to submit re flooding, aboriginal heritage, wetlands, heritage blah blah blah very, very standard stuff). NOWHERE DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY THAT THE AREA OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS ON A FLOODPLAIN. It merely says that certain steps need to be taken IF the site is identified as being on a floodplain and suggests that the developer needs to implement a 12 month study to find out if it is! It even suggests later on that underground parking can be considered "with the right mitigation plan".

The is the definitive advice from the foremost NSW Authority -

As detailed, in the then Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water's letter dated 25 March 2011, OEH is concerned that the proposal may be impacted by flooding and may adversely impact on flooding in adjacent properties.

Suitable arrangements for floodwater and overland flow need to be considered from the earliest stages of the design process, particularly when the site is identified as being on a floodplain. Otherwise adverse effects on flood behavior might prove difficult to rectify.

Whilst the Environmental Assessment'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 initial conceptual stage. On this basis, it is not possible for OEH to state that the presented Environmental Assessment adequately addresses the Director General's Environmental Assessment Requirements and OEH would need to repeat these concerns already raised if the proposal is on public exhibition at this time.

For Newman, Ausguy, Carcharies, JC Loser and others who ridiculed my concern about the site being a floodplain and the merits of the proposal, the site is a floodplain and it is a fact.

And Newman wasn't it you who said this earlier -

FLOODS: The area is NOT classed by local council or the department of lands as a floodplain. Thats a fact. The developer does however have a few hoops to jump trhough with regards to flood mitigation strategies and plans as the area is on a wetland waterfront and this is why there is no underground parking. This is stock standard for any dwelling in the area and the developer has got all the reports completed and filed with the application. If it gets knocked back, it wont be because of a flooding issue.

And it just keeps getting better -


Sorry I got dept of lands and office of environment and heritage mixed up. Yes, they need to provide flood mitigation plans based on this doc, and they have done that with the submission. The dept of lands no longer exists, but it's irrelevant anyway as they are both state govt departments which the developer is well aware of. The make up of the project has already been designed with the flood limitations in mind.

 

[R2Coupe]

i didn't need any proof newms. Coupe has refused to answer why his messiah wants a 'resort thingy' on such a dangerous floodplain.

I'll tune into this again when he does.

seaworld woolooware:d

 

[SadShark]

Well R2oupee, I truly hope the development goes through with no harm done to your person.

The end.................... Thank you...................thank you very much.

 

[Ausguy]

im still confused as to why YOU as a person Coupe are bothered about it being on a flood plain and exactly what YOU are losing?

Are the sharks building on your property, are they harming YOU in any way?

You sound like a miserable old pain in the ass.

 

[newman]

Please show me where it says this particular development site is on a floodplain...... Are you so simple that you don't understand that any major structure that gets built has to make concessions for flooding, moreso when it is on the waterfront?

If you copy and paste that paragraph that says "WHEN the area is a floodplain", you are shouting in clear, audible tones that you are a complete moron.

 

[Ausguy]

I felt kind of sorry for some of those who oppose it cos i figured a lot of them were old and have been blessed for about 15 years longer than most of sydney in regards to the expansion most other areas have gone through. I figured they just arent used to it and they feel threatened.

But then i thought, hang on, this change to the area is an advancment that is required to ensure the next generation can have a chance at growing up in the shire like i did... with opportunities to stay in the shire and follow the sharks, it really grounds kids when they have a focus or love for a team IMO.

Im not one to get personal when it comes to things that dont have an actual impact on the people i care about but these negative people in the area that are only concerned about their own welfare and own personal venetta's really make me mad.

Stop the greed, stop making up stories and clinging to ridiculous theories on floods and traffic and just come out and say you DONT WANT TO SHARE the area you live in.

/end rant

 

[Eion]

seaworld woolooware:d

Still waiting.

 

[roboshark]

im still confused as to why YOU as a person Coupe are bothered about it being on a flood plain and exactly what YOU are losing?

Are the sharks building on your property, are they harming YOU in any way?

You sound like a miserable old pain in the ass.

ive thought this all along as well...both in this thread and in the thread in the nrl forum

why is he so concerned.....please answer this coupe