Issues keep circulating on planner merry-go-round

Responding to Sue Ellis (Peninsula News, June 1, page 22), I did send a submission on the Council's draft Strategic Planning Statement, without needing to read one word of the plan.

All the issues and more, highlighted by Ms Ellis, have been circulating on the developer-planner merry-go-round for decades without change, especially issues of character.

Development is seen to be the lifeblood and life support system for the Peninsula.

Jargon has replaced technical terms, as design is now as appealing as empty supermarket shelves .

If anyone believes the plan has credibility, let them explain how a variation of about 25 per cent in projected Peninsula development is supported by the Council.

Is the Council reliable?

Does the Peninsula News print an extra 25 per cent more copies to compensate for margins of error or does the financial controller systematically and thoroughly research the market to accurately determine demand?

I have repeatedly reported in the past, Regional Plan growth figures we're not available from either the Department of Planning or the Council.

Nothing has changed since 2016. Why the need to read the plan? Council's planning documents are now akin to a shareholder AGM distribution literature with no requirement to convince supporters that 25 per cent margin of error is good business practice.

Are residents aware that the unique environmental character of the area contains a stormwater detention, after recognition in 1992 that the Peninsula has a serious stormwater issue.

Letter, 4 June 2020

Norman Harris, Umina