THE WINNER IS…

The Eurobodalla Shire Council was a very worthy recipient of the Worst Council Award for their approval of five shops and residential apartments at Long beach that were neither wanted nor needed by the local community.

In his response on local ABC radio, to the Council being the recipient of this award, the Mayor blamed it on previous Councils and claimed that the development complied with local planning guidelines.

The Mayor has a short memory. He was one of the councillors who voted in favour of this development and with the use of his Chairman's casting vote successfully rejected Cr. Kowal's rescission motion to rescind the approval.

On the day of approval it was obvious to residents that some Councillors were not acquainted with the environmentally sensitive nature of the development site and other significant issues that would impact on the lives of local residents.

It also needs to be said that on that day the developer's representative threatened a challenge in the L & E Court if the DA was refused. This is a ruse frequently used and to our way of thinking is not far short of a threat. It gives developers enormous power over local councils who do not have the resources to afford such a challenge.

The Chairman of the EPAS Committee also found it necessary to justify his use of his Chairman's casting vote to approve the development by saying that, "He had no choice but to approve it, as the developer would have challenged a refusal in The Land and Environment Court"

In the wake of this contentious approval a group of residents supported by Coastwatchers sought the advice of a Phillip Street barrister who was scathing of the Council's assessment documentation and advised that there was an arguable case that the development is prohibited on the Site as a result of Clause 13 of SEPP 71 rendering inoperative Clause 76 (g) of the Urban LEP. This was the enabling clause that allowed the site to be used as though zoned for commercial purposes, albeit in a location zoned for low-density residential development and within a SEPP 71 sensitive coastal location.

The barrister advised that as a consequence consent could be liable to be declared invalid with reasonable prospects of success in The Land and Environment Court should that course of action followed.

The barrister also commented on the possibility of the position of Council's liability, in regard to permitting the developer's APZs on community land and Council agreeing to maintain them for the life of the development. This was a condition of the approval and contrary to the RFS advice and Council's own bushfire protection advice in the Eurobodalla Residential Design Code that Council will not be responsible for maintaining APZs over public urban bushland. This sets a dangerous precedent and allows bushfire prone land to be overdeveloped with no obligation on the part of developers to provide for APZs within their development boundaries.

So the real winner here is the developer with the able assistance of some Councillors who approved this inappropriate commercial development, regardless of the environmentally sensitive nature of the location and totally against the explicit wishes of the local community.

Jenny Edwards
Secretary
Coastwatchers Association Inc.