News that Georges River Council will release a comprehensive planning proposal for the Oatley Bowling Club site as soon as next month has taken residents by surprise.
The announcement was made at last night’s meeting of the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel which was considering an application by Georges River Council for the subdivision and boundary adjustment of the Oatley Bowling Club site.
Less than 24 hours later the IHAP granted approval for the subdivision and boundary adjustment of the site despite receiving 276 objections and four petitions containing a total 1275 signatures objecting to the proposal.
The residents wanted the panel to refuse the council’s application for subdivision and boundary adjustment until the council released a planning proposal for the site.
Georges River Council’s manager of property assets, Claire Stuckey told the panel the council would submit a comprehensive planning proposal for the site as soon as October or November.
The announcement drew gasps from the packed public gallery.
“This project seems to have been accelerated with undue urgency creating many errors in the report,” resident Peter Mahoney said.
He feared the approval would lead to sale of parkland which will set a precedent.
Residents lined up to condemn the IHAP report as incorrect and the council’s approval process.
Oatley resident Julie Savet Ward, who is a planner but was speaking as a concerned resident said the council’s planning process had been flawed.
“We all know a transparent and inclusive process with accurate information leads to the best result,” she said.
“If we don’t know the future plans how do we know the amalgamation is accurate.
‘’Council as applicant should follow proper planning process.
‘’But it is putting the cart before the horse.
“The new Georges River Council needs to establish a reputation of good planning and regain community trust and along the way we will get the best outcome.’’
She said by refusing the subdivision until there was a concept plan would allow procedural fairness over the issue which has not been there to date.
Anne Wagstaff, a former Hurstville councillor, criticised the errors in the planning process and IHAP report.
“The DA form itself states that the address of the land to be developed is 1R River Rd, Oatley,” she said.
“However, this is the address of Boongarra Reserve, which is nearby but not even adjacent to the subject site.
“The DA should not have been accepted in the first place.
“The initial notification letter stated that the site address of the land to be developed is 1R River Rd. The renotification letter also stated 1R River Rd.
“The second renotification letter stated that the address is 35 and 40 River Road, Oatley (also known as 34 Mimosa St, Oatley) and part River Road (formerly known as Oatley Bowling Club), as per the IHAP report.
“It is to be noted that the subject site is not known by Oatley locals as 34 Mimosa Street. This address is at the northern end of Myles Dunphy Reserve.
“It is also to be noted that the IHAP report indicates that the DA was advertised. The DA was not advertised.
“The IHAP report also indicates that the site is not contaminated. This is incorrect.”
She said the site showed “evidence of pipes, large pieces of rock and concrete, steel pieces, plastic, rubbish and fibro cement containing asbestos within embankment”.
“A brochure published by the council only yesterday even states that the site is contaminated.
“Hurstville Council refused a request of nine community groups to repair, use and maintain the building, and instead allowed it to decay and then fenced it off forbidding residents to use the site. The old demolition by neglect trick.”
Kim Wagstaff said the proposed western boundary leaves very little room for access to the remaining portion of Myles Dunphy Reserve.
“The issue of limited access for service vehicles has not been addressed in the assessment report nor has it been set in the proposed conditions.”
He said the site plan in the assessment was wrong.
“It shows the boundary of Lot 100 now intruding onto railway land and also further into the natural area of the Myles Dunphy Reserve. This has been drawn incorrectly and is misleading.”
Mr Wagstaff said the planning proposal should be published before setting the boundary of development.
“Surely council should wait to see how much land is actually required for aged care facilities before setting the boundaries of that development reclassifying and rezoning to save having to return some of the land to community land and use and probably requiring further subdivision later.
"The cart has definitely been put before the horse in respect of this DA!"
Melissa Derwent said the DA made no reference to bush fire restrictions on the site which are particularly important to aged care development.
“The site is currently zoned recreational use yet has received minimal maintenance. The grass was mowed last week for the first time in five years. The council has relied on volunteers to mow the site.”
Resident James Deli said there had been insufficient notification time (four working days) and the council opted to place this application under commonplace 'online D.A. tracking' next to routine household D.A.’s, rather than list it as a 'Major Project' on the website.
“The council has confused its constituents with its intentions for the site, citing 'aged care' in the Operational Plan, whereas subject D.A. denotes 'seniors housing'.
“Myles Dunphy was NSW's father of conservation and subdivision for the purpose of development is an unwarranted insult to his memory.
“The council's administrator is a government appointee and not an elected representative. In the interests of democracy, significant decisions such as this subdivision should be left to the mayor and councillors. “
Ms Stuckey said the application seeked to set a boundary of the site to facilitate a future use of the site.
She said the next stage was to submit a comprehensive planning proposal in October or November.
This would address any concerns raised by residents including contamination and access.
She said the plan was unlikely to include provision of a nine-storey development as raised by the the former Hurstville Council.
Any development would be landscaped to keep in character with the surrounding bush and would also include public car parking, she said.
Panel chairman Adam Seton asked why the subdivision application was being released now if the planning proposal was to be released in October/November?
Ms Stuckey said the council was going to release them in tandem but was advised to separate the proposal.
Following the announcement of the IHAP’s approval of the subdivision, Georges River Council released a statement confirming the next stage is the preparation of a comprehensive Planning Proposal: “As part of this stage there will be opportunities for the community to provide their feedback to Council via community information sessions.
“It is anticipated that a significant area of the former Oatley Bowling Club site will be retained for public recreation space, complementary to the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve and Wetland.”
