What is parking space shortfall across the Peninsula?
Greenies and "the great unwashed" will be familiar with the fake practice of "bio-diversity off-setting".
The report in edition 483 (BP station could become 7-Eleven store) raises the interesting question: How many fake practices are there in the development application assessment process?
The well-known practice identified in this case has received regular public comment, however has failed to receive a name.
I refer to the all-too-common shortfall in parking space provision.
I believe the description used by Peninsula News staff should be "infrastructure shortfall' or "infrastructure trade-offs" with the term also applying to other identified fake practices in the assessment process.
This leads into the obvious question: What is the total shortfall in car parking spaces on the Peninsula due to infrastructure trade-off?
Is the Central Coast Council CEO prepared to provide this information?
I suspect that the practice will continue, supported by council's planners well into the future.
It's a bonus for the applicant and an undeclared conflict of interest for council's planners.
Basix certification is another trade-off, identified to councillors and council staff at a Peninsula development site meeting.
The ultimate contradiction is when planners' interests come into conflict with planning instruments and are in play with every development application assessment.
Letter, 27 Nov 2019
Norm 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.