Tomerong Community Forum
submission to Shoalhaven City Council
regarding Parnell subdivision proposal
From: Dennis Argall <dennisargall@bigpond.com>
Date: 10 February 2005 6:12:14 PM
To: Kerry Rourke <rourke@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>, Council's Generic Mailbox <council@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Your reference SF 9632
The Tomerong Community Forum [TCF] discussed the proposed subdivision at length at a meeting on 31 January, where we were pleased to have the
Parnell family present to contribute to the discussion.
This submission is the product of that discussion, a draft having been circulated widely for comment on 1 February.
There were many comments expressed positively about the quality of the proposal and the extent to which it appeared to reflect notions about community and the future of the village developed in the TCF over the past year.
There are some particular matters on which we wish to comment.
1. Small cemetery.
The meeting resolved that a working group (Marg Blair, Pauline Olive, Richard Bates, Natalie Parnell and Leslie Broomfield) draft a submission to council with regard to this matter. That submission has been forwarded separately
2. Proposed public open space.
The meeting expressed unanimous support for the provision in the plan of extensive public open space. The proposed space includes a water course and is currently much drier than in earlier times. Apart from our interest in amenity and the provision of pedestrian pathways, our concern is that this area needs sensitive and consistent environmental management, not achievable by carving this up into backyards. We are writing separately to Council regarding 'development and landcare'.
Please link your consideration of this matter under this process with issues raised in that separate correspondence.
3. Management of stormwater/runoff (during and after development of subdivision).
It was agreed that the application was not clear in this area. While some present felt that the Councils standard requirements sufficed, the consensus of the meeting was that it would be appropriate to seek specific undertakings.
As regards work during development, you will recall that because of operator errors in earthmoving and construction work on the Bryce subdivision, we asked in our submission on the Watt subdivision that care be taken to make proper provision for construction work to be adequately supervised and subject to significant penalty if not carried out properly. For that to be the case, Council's expectations and requirements and penalties need to be made explicitly clear and evident in advance, case by case.
As regards the long term, we note that SF 9585 has made extensive provision for handling of run-off from properties, and that any such provision is unclear in this application. With development of private residential dwellings, we can expect not only wet weather runoff from roofs but also of back fence toss, of oils and greases, of domestic animal excreta, etc. Some provision for first collection and holding and treatment of such before discharge into stream is important. Again there are land care issues too; see separate correspondence of 'development and landcare'.
4. Residents Briefing Meeting and private submissions.
The meeting resolved that because of the opportunity to view the application, plan and document at this meeting and the extensive discussion that followed, the TCF would not be requesting a formal Briefing Meeting with council. The meeting also made clear that no decisions or views expressed by the TCF in any way prevented private individuals from making submissions to council. It was also made clear that Council considers the need for any briefing meeting on the basis of responses received.
Dennis Argall
Council Liaison Person
for
Tomerong Community Forum
__________________