Council delays baffling
In regards to the Pambula Beach water tower and spa DA, I am one of many concerned individuals who are appalled and baffled by council’s deliberate action to procrastinate over and consider ignoring the advice of its own planning and assessment staff, and that of the Office of Environment and Heritage, to reject the DA – on the simple grounds that unauthorised development and negative impacts on the landscape and public amenity have occurred.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The total disregard for the recommendations of its own professional staff and the OEH, and for 327 objections to the DA, appears incredulous. The DA contravenes the NSW Coastal Policy, Sepp 71 and BVLEP clauses 4.3 and 5.5.
These are regulations and guidelines that have to be adhered to, no matter who we are.
No-one should expect exemptions for their DA’s breach of planning regulations.
Ironically, unlike most normal residences, Lot 46, to which this DA applies, is identified as a “sensitive coastal location”, and one that has “impacted on a scenic amenity of the coastal estuary”.
Furthermore, due to its immediate connection to a national park and a river mouth, it was stated in the staff recommendations that an assessment should also have been undertaken due to the possibility of Indigenous cultural heritage, commonly encountered in similar estuary locations in the shire.
For council to appear contemptuous towards not only its staff, but the residents’/ratepayers’ protestations would be an error of judgement indeed.
Council must be transparent by explaining why it adopted its course of actions and show accountability in making decisions.
The decisions made and the directions by the mayor to again defer judgement and consider granting consent for the DA, do not appear to be the case. They must not be seen to be a law unto themselves.
Giving consent to the DA would also set a chaotic precedent.
Rose Ferguson, Pambula Beach
Climate agreement con
The ultimate aim of the CoP 21 Paris meeting agreement was hidden by hyper-political vagueness.
Deemed a huge success, it was fully supported by our Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Environment Minister, even though Australia rejected socialism in the last century.
The CoP 21 Paris agreement is a fundamental part of the long established process pursued by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to transform the economic development model for our world.
We little people may well ask - “CoP 21 - what was it? Where will it lead? Will it impact Australia’s economy and its attempt to achieve a balanced budget and when? Do our parliamentary and community representatives know? Do the people know?”
Above all, who pays for it?
This deceitful UNFCCC process is traced from its supporting agency, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific assessment meeting of November 1995 in Madrid.
That meeting accepted a corrupt action by Dr Ben Santer, a single activist scientist who rewrote the agreed wording determined by all the other scientists who had participated in writing the key Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes) of the Second Assessment Report, into the directly opposite and alarmist terms of “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
This allowed the chapter to agree with the politically contrived “Summaries for Policymakers” - the key documents used to direct UN member nations to transform their economic policies in order to achieve world socialism.
These summaries have prepared the way for the annual Conference of Parties meetings. Our senior ministers have much to explain!
