Urban amenity will be lost
The pitiful news that the Woolooware development is seeking further massive expansion is more a "Bay of madness" than "Bay of plenty" (Leader, November 20).
And how typically base of the developer to cite the "success" of the sales of approved apartments as the motivator of an additional 200 apartments — not to mention a new hotel and conference centre.
It always defied belief the claims that the development would not be oversized — adding all these extra buildings just reinforces the impacts and stresses that will play out in terms of increased vehicle congestion and urban congestion, and loss of urban amenity.
Graham Cassidy, Cronulla
Development’s impacts
I refer to the proposed expansion of the Woolooware Bay site; there are several important implications I wish to address and I list them below.
They relate directly to the proponent for development, for local government planners and for the state government through its Planning Assessment Commission (PAC).
Ultimately they relate to community engagement in their own neighbourhood and impact on our how liveable our cities will be.
Specifically, as president of the southern Sydney branch of the National Parks Association, I note the following:
1. Implications of a planning approval being ‘‘expanded’’ after the initial approval, albeit via the PAC. I am totally uncomfortable with that process. Even if the expansion is benign I do not believe that is good planning. It reminds me too much of episodes from the recent ABC satire (Utopia) on developers.
2. In the current stories in the newspaper I see no reference to any impact of the expansion on water quality in Woolooware Bay. The developers may be using state-of-the-art technology, and all effluent, run-off, etc might be stored and reused on site, [but] I see no such information.
3. I also would like to see the access provisions to the foreshore by the public for passive recreation (walking, cycling).
4. I would like to know what impacts, if any, are expected on the marine and estuarine ecosystems. This development is on the same bay as a Ramsar wetland site. Impacts must therefore be assessed knowing that the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act is one piece of legislation that is relevant to the development.
I have contacted the company and await a response.
Brian Everingham, Engadine
Bay extension divides
Re ‘‘Bay of plenty’’ (Leader, November 20). Fantastic.
As someone who visits the shire three or four times a year to watch the Sharks, we find it extremely difficult to find accommodation. It would be sensational to stay, shop and watch the Sharks in the one location.
Jason
Such typical behaviour from developers: get something smaller approved initially then keep pushing
for more and more later to bump up their profits.
So they rake in millions of dollars from selling these properties and what do they give back to the community?
Thousands of extra people and their cars crammed the area and barely anything by way of development contributions to upgrade local infrastructure.
Think of all the extra people who will be driving on our roads, using our stations, hospitals, schools, parks etc.
How much will these developers be contributing to our facilities?
It is about time the government started making developers pay for the consequences of their developments, instead of simply reaping the rewards.
Fair Share
The report said 95 per cent of people who purchased the first stage of units released were shire locals.
So their cars are already on shire roads. Having a whole town centre together will hopefully take more cars off the road with amenities in walking distance — or at least divert the
traffic away from the centre of
Cronulla, Miranda.
Jonno
I don’t think the real issue is whether or not the development is a good or bad idea.
The problem is that we have just gone to the trouble (and a lot of trouble it was) developing an LEP that was supposed to outline land use and development for the coming five (or 10?) years.
Additional density was provided to allow for more people.
Why are developers allowed to sit back, wait until the LEP has been sent to the government and then come in and say, ‘Hey, we’d like another 200 dwellings here’?
That’s 200 dwellings we didn’t need to add to Cronulla/Miranda/Jannali, whatever.
It’s called ‘‘planning’’ and when you make a plan you are supposed to try to use it, for a while at least.
Jenni
Another shiny, bright, fabbo, all-singing, all-dancing overdevelopment.
Cronulla is almost inaccessible now.
Why do we continue to let this happen? All the bells and whistles and
no infrastructure.
Developers rule in this city and we long-suffering locals have no say in
it whatsoever.
Christine Smith, Sans Souci
