Adaptation replaces caution in planning theory
In response to an article in Peninsula News edition 450, regarding DA54685/2018; the Peninsula News' fortnightly brain teaser has beaten me again.
I am confident it has also defeated Council's planners: What to do when a development application lacks information?
Pass it without hesitation?
Is anyone capable of answering all the questions that are unanswered in the statement: "the multi-unit housing would be located within walking distance of outdoor and indoor recreational facilities which allows for occupants to regularly participate in outdoor and social pursuits"?
Minor details missing are: names of occupants, physical and mental health, mobility, hobbies, interests, existing membership of social/recreational/sporting clubs, memberships of licensed clubs, specialist medical needs, available outdoor and indoor recreational facilities that are of interest to occupants within walking distance.
What impact is inevitable?
A comprehensive report similar to a traffic and parking study should be standard procedure, that addresses the possibility of significant development at Farnell Rd and Sporties Woy Woy.
Impact is multiple not singular.
Include these and other developments in the hypothesis and the process becomes 100 per cent theory.
With the surge of development on the Peninsula, trusting in non-compliance and planning theory will create major problems, with adaptation being the best advice from the problem creators.
We are adapting to climate change, and adapting to planning theory.
Adaptation has replaced the precautionary principle and sustainability.
Letter, 31 Jul 2018
Norman Harris, Umina
Add a comment
Comments entered here may be published in the Forum section of Peninsula News.
Name, full residential address and daytime telephone number are required, but
only name and suburb will be published. This is a moderated forum: Contributions
will not appear here until they are approved by the editor. Contributions may appear in an edited form.