RE: Council decision shocks owners Wednesday 26 February 2020
The decision by Council to refuse permission for a cafe in a residential area to open at 6am should not shock or perplex anyone. The fact that Council has responded to complaints and ensured there is a DA process is in keeping with Council policy.
There has been a steady growth of cafes in the area who choose to establish themselves in low density residential zones. While Council is right to support local business, they also have a responsibility to protect the environment of surrounding homes, and the existing local families who have invested in their dream of a home to feel safe, relax and enjoy.
Council is right to adhere to the objectives and controls that are in place. First and foremost Council is required to consider the neighbouring properties. That's the DCP. This cafe is not in the mall. The cafe, and others popping up like it, are next door to homes. They are not in keeping with existing usage rights. Prospective owners of any proposed new business should act with due diligence and be aware of the limitations of the DCP in selecting a property prior to their decision to place a busy cafe among residential homes. It is their responsibility to ensure they are within the guidelines of Council policy and that they have minimal impact on homes in a low density residential area. If not, don't expect neighbours to accommodate your dream...find a new property where your dream complies! Do not tell your patrons that it is because of the neighbours. It is not the neighbours. It's Council policy and it would be respectful for cafes to operate within the guidelines and limitations of their approval and the DCP. I strongly urge cafe owners to respect these guidelines and not appeal or act outside of the approval. Name and address supplied
Federal Member for Hughes should stop silly media forays
As an elector in the Federal seat of Hughes, I would like to remind Mr Kelly that his job is to represent the people of Hughes, a job that requires putting some personal views and silly media forays aside.
After the utter embarrassment of his ill judged attacks on an English meteorologist, Mr Kelly lately appears to have taken up an attack on the Victorian State Government and constantly rants about The People's Socialist Republic Of Victorianstan. This is a ridiculous and childish campaign against a government that is, frankly, none of Kelly's business.
In fact, Mr Kelly appears to have plenty of time to seek self gratification on Facebook and Twitter, yet has no time to answer constituents letters. I have at least seven letters of concern with Mr Kelly dating back to 2013, and am yet to receive a single answer apart from an unwanted birthday greeting for my 70th birthday.
Mr Kelly, your job is to represent the people of Hughes in Sutherland Shire in NSW, not to involve yourself in Victorian State politics. If you want to do that, please resign your position in Hughes, move to Victoria and run for pre-selection in a Victorian State seat. Stuart Barton, Bangor
Open space to go
Regarding the article in the Leader it is time we realised this corridor was established for the F6 originally in the 1950/60s by a government who could see the future expansion of Sydney. Even though these areas have been unofficially used for other purposes and land owners close to the corridor have used this information to get reduced price properties we should do as our past government planned. If Bob Carr had not taken the $1 toll from Waterfall to Wollongong we would have been able to pay for the F6 completion. Let's build the F6 from Taren Point Bridge to Waterfall as proposed above ground in the easement already established so the any pollutants are evenly spread into the atmosphere. There will be less pollution through the Shire as we would not have cars doing rat runs through our streets and bottle necks. If we need open space let's make developers include it in development proposals or councils get their planning act together. Raymond Jones, Burraneer
Hooray for councilor Forshaw
Three cheers for Councilor Forshaw and his like-minded colleagues on Sutherland Council for refusing to give the green light to an application to the Department of Planning and Environment to change the height and bulk restrictions for the development site just north of Monro Park.
The application sought to double the height and almost double the floor area allowed. As has been pointed out by many, the proposal is out of scale with Monro Park, overshadows the war memorial for significant hours in winter, and would bring more traffic to a lane that struggles to cope at present.
What a disgraceful attempt to belittle and blight our beautifully maintained war memorial and its park environs! The height and floor area limits do not need to be doubled for the Ferros group to "talk to the park" and do something special in hospitality at this location.
Mr. Sammut has made a positive contribution to revitalizing another section of the Cronulla mall with the vibrant Banc development, an good example of breathing new life into a site whilst respecting the past character and current scale of the precinct.
It's a pity that this proposal does not build on that approach. In stark contrast, Mr. Sammut's belated offer to lop off two floors indicates that this application was an ambit claim based on maximizing financial return. One is left to wonder how many more floors can be removed without destroying its financial viability.
Mr Sammut laments the money spent on his bid to change the planning rules, but he is disingenuous by pretending that there was no opposition to his proposal and, notwithstanding that opposition, he made a business decision to press on.
It is extraordinary that Mr. Sammut accuses Councilors of acting politically because they voted against his application. That is what they were elected to do! This development is in Councilor Forshaw's ward and he is on the Council to represent the interests of his ward.
This proposal is not in the interests of the Cronulla community and Councilor Forshaw did his job. It should be noted that both community representatives on the two planning panels that considered this application also voted against it. Jim Flaherty, Cronulla