The General Manager
Eurobodalla Shire Council 11 June 2007
PO Box 99
MORUYA NSW 2537

MODIFICATION TO 24 LOT RURAL SUBDIVISION
304 Meringo Road, Meringo - DP 1029087, Lot 25
Application No M8535/88 Reference No 88.0129.S

Coastwatchers objected to the modification proposed in 2004 that was subsequently refused. This new proposal does not seem to address the reasons for the 2004 refusal
which included:

"- in relation to S96(1A) of the Act Council is not satisfied that the proposal is of minimal environmental impact nor that the development is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted,
- the proposal is contrary to the Objectives of the Rural LEP, the 1C Rural Small Holdings zone and DCP 168."

Once again we object because the proposal is not a modification and because of the siting of the small lot. We also ask that the remaining large lot be rezoned as part of the new LEP to a zone that will allow only one dwelling on the lot, will protect remnant vegetation, and will provide an adequate buffer between private development and the National Park.

We refer also to our first submission dated 16 December 2004 where many of the reasons given for our objection are equally applicable to this proposal. A copy of the text is attached.

Reasons for this objection:

• The proposal is not a modification because the additional lot is outside the footprint of the original small lot subdivision.
• The site of the new lot is very environmentally sensitive and contains valuable remnant vegetation including Forest Red Gums - an endangered ecological community - and important wildlife corridors
• Clearing for bushfire protection and sewage effluent disposal would remove most of the vegetation on the lot.
• The site is on a ridge and clearing for development would have significant scenic impacts especially given the proximity of Eurobodalla National Park and the visibility of the lot from popular tourist locations such as Mullimburra Point.
• Increasing the lot size to 1 ha (rather than 0.9ha in the 2004 proposal) does not reduce these negative environmental and scenic impacts.
• This proposal should be assessed in the light of information provided by the Coastal Capacity Planning Project and according to SEPP 71.
• The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy adopted by Council and the NSW Department of Planning calls for new settlement to be where facilities are available.

We fear that requests for unsustainable development on this land will be ongoing even if this proposal is refused, as it should be. Once again we ask that the remaining lot be rezoned so that remnant vegetation and the scenic qualities are protected and only one dwelling is allowed.

Jenny Edwards
Secretary

COPY OF THE TEXT OF COASTWATCHERS SUBMISSION
DATED 16 DECEMBER 2004

MODIFICATION TO 24 LOT RURAL SUBDIVISION
Lot 1 DP 717897, Spring Place, Meringo
Application No M7535/88 Reference No 88.0129.S

Coastwatchers objects to this proposal because it does not seem to be a modification and because of the siting of the small lot. We also ask that the remaining large lot be rezoned as part of the Rural LEP Review to a zone that will allow only one dwelling on the lot, will protect remnant vegetation, and will provide an adequate buffer between private development and the National Park.

Reasons

Questioning the "modification"
The original approval was for a 24 lot subdivision. However the plans on exhibition showed Lot 25 and Lot 26. How can this be a modification if there are now two extra lots?

This proposal should be assessed in the light of information provided by the Coastal Capacity Planning Project and according to SEPP 71.

Siting of the Lot
The proposed 0.9ha lot has valuable remnant native vegetation most of which would have to be cleared for bush fire protection. If the proposed lot is really a modification to the original approved subdivision it should be on cleared land away from the National Park and its buffer.

Changing the zoning of the remaining large lot
Eurobodalla National Park along this part of the coast is narrow and very vulnerable to impacts from adjoining private land. This section of the Park is also very isolated from other forests in the hinterland. Any remnant vegetation that could help provide connecting wildlife corridors should be protected if possible.

The original subdivision approval was on the grounds that the large remaining lot would not be subdivided in the future. This decision needs to be made more secure by appropriate zoning of the remaining lot to one that would allow only one dwelling and would protect the remnant vegetation.