Veron Rd gets go ahead

Gosford Council has resolved to approve a development application (DA) for a luxury retirement village and other facilities on Veron Rd, Woy Woy.

One condition includes the provision of $225,000 towards an Environmental Trust Fund (ETF).

Council reported that the fund would be used for the rehabilitation and management of other "remnant parcels of Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland (UCSW) within the area".

In its report, council said it noted the "strong support" by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) for the development.

Councillors also repeatedly pointed out the difficulty for council to succeed in any court action against the application.

Council also granted consent for a two lot residential subdivision of the land to enable the smaller part to be sold so that the development could go ahead under separate title and ownership.

Cr Terri Latella was the only councillor who dissented against the resolution.

Council's environment officer Mr Gary Chestnut told the council meeting that money from the developer, to be placed in the Council's Environmental Trust, "can't go to other projects" and could "only go towards the endangered ecological community on the Woy Woy Peninsula".

"This is the first time that there has been a management plan," Cr Hale said.

Cr Peter Hale also noted that council had no funds to maintain the land or the other 13 hectares.

"If not for a development occurring, those areas would continue to deteriorate," Cr Hale said.

"In relation to the rest of the city, he (the applicant) is also providing budget to maintain that land.

Cr Hale said that a number of issues had been satisfied since the previous court case.

"This leaves council with little room to move."

Cr Bell also noted the "strong support" for the development by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the difficulty for council to succeed in court action.

Cr Latella noted a concern that the new SIS had been provided by the applicant.

"I'd like to take council back to last time it was in court," Cr Latella said.

"The SIS that was provided back then and the court appointed expert had completely different opinions of what existed there (on site).

"There is always that interest base put forward."

Cr Latella said that the applicant, the NSW Scientific Committee, Gosford Council, the Land and Environment Court all agreed that the entire site was covered by UCSW.

"If the site is in fact covered, any development of the site could pose impact to the endangered ecology.

"If we do, as a body of people, declare that the whole site is covered, we should not be at all touching it."

Cr Latella said the site had remained intact because it had not been cleared for urban development.

"Through the community we have heard from the Nature Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation and so many other people commented to council how they wish to keep this very special site, not only for the endangered ecological community but also because of what it gives the community back," Cr Latella said.

Cr Latella also agreed that the decision made by the judge in the court case came down to looking at what was left of the particular species.

"Furthermore, if your community wants it protected, I cannot see why given the court decision that was just for an extra two units we are now going back and looking at it in a planning perspective instead of and environment and community perspective.

"A fair and equitable look at this instead of looking at a judgment would show that that may not be the case.

"If you don't protect this, what can I hope for the future?

"As far as contributions goes, that trust was not developed and never intended to be for contribution from developers.

"When I asked the applicant whether he would contribute funds not withstanding the decision tonight, he said no.

"The development should not proceed."

Cr Craig Doyle said council had to make a decision based on the information provided to them.

"What isn't in challenge is that it (the site) is environmentally sensitive," Cr Doyle said.

"Last time the DEC was not in concurrence, hence the commissioner really had limited information other than confused information to make a decision from.

"Now council officers agreed, based on the application.

"An independent authority has agreed.

"Now I'm no expert with environmental issues, but I do have to rely on our independent experts.

"For them to show concurrence may be at odds with environmental groups.

"This time we are lacking both of those weapons: Refute our own experts, refute DEC experts."

"For my money, my decision has to be based on independence."

"Sometimes you end up with a better result when you have to sacrifice some of it (the site)."

Cr Doyle said it would be a "better result" for the entire community of 13 hectares.

Cr Chris Holstein said he had some major concerns about the development, but stated that the bottom line came down to the DEC with its recommendation of approval and expert advice from council.

He also noted council's inability to purchase the site and the possibility of a lack of success in court.

Cr Robert Bell said there had never been an occasion that the council had won in the Land and Environment Court where at the same time a government agency said it supported the application.

"We are in a straightjacket. We do not have our officers behind us, supporting us," Cr Bell said.

"They have assessed it on all sorts of new things that have come to light.

"We don't have support from the government agency.

"We would put our solicitors in a position where they would have to try getting QCs from somewhere, environmental experts from somewhere to try and put a case together.

"The best thing we can do as has been outlined is to try and make the conditions so there is the best chance of a success on the conservation front and remediation of the site, in terms of what this development does for the site.

"Community expectations in council are far too high and unrealistic.

"The law doesn't give us that assistance.

"If we had precedent that that had occurred, that would be something we can draw on.

"But we do not have any precedent to go on, no track record."

Cr Vicki Scott said she applauded objectors for their commitment to the land, and said she agreed that the site was a sensitive area.

"As Cr Bell said, this is impossible to deliver and I find it particular taxing," Cr Scott said.

"This has been on of the hardest decisions I have had to make, and I don't make it lightly.

"Apart from bush management funds the other way that this community is going to come out of this is having two units for social housing.

"Now I don't know how much these units are worth but it adds a great amount to the advantages we can get out of this."

Cr Trevor Drake praised council staff and the DEC for clause 82 and 83 of the special conditions for the site which "ensures that remainders of the endangered ecological community are protected in perpetuity" and that there is a net positive outcome with "future ongoing management".

"The end result is common sense has to prevail," Cr Drake said.

"I can't see more money being thrown away in court cases."

Cr Hale also stated that objectors of the site should be congratulated.

"If the objectors hadn't (brought attention to the) site, part of it may not have been protected."

Cr Hale also praised negotiations between staff and the developer.

"We now know how much UCSW we have left," Cr Hale said.

Council agenda ENV.22, ENV.23, 8 May 2007