Talking Point: Bay proposal critics need to know the facts

DOUG CHIPMAN says the debate has been hijacked for political ends.

An artist’s impression of the proposed hotel development for Kangaroo Bay. Picture: Hunter Developments

SINCE Clarence City Council approved a development application for a hotel and hospitality school at Kangaroo Bay on January 23, there have been several public meetings, a petition of approximately 1700 names submitted to Parliament and a bevy of letters to the editor expressing rage about the development.

This is in spite of the fact that there were no appeals about council’s decision to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.

Most of the rage with the decision appears to have been triggered by the height of the building along Cambridge Rd, even though it is similar in height to others in Bellerive Village. Other concerns, including the transfer of public land to a developer, have also been raised.

The council’s community communications strategy has also been targeted, even though the council complied with all statutory public advertising requirements prior to making its decision.

Indeed, 121 letters were posted out to adjoining and adjacent property owners, and advertisements were placed in the Mercury on two separate occasions — 35 representations were received and considered by the council.

It was clear from the public meeting organised and chaired by the Greens’ Rosalie Woodruff on June 4, and from letters to the editor published subsequently, that the rage continues unabated.

So why has there been such a strong, belated backlash by so many people to a legitimate council decision, with opportunities for appeal foregone?

In the first instance, there are residents of Bellerive who live in close proximity to Kangaroo Bay who quite understandably have concerns about whether or not their amenity will be adversely affected. These concerns ranged from size of the building along Cambridge Rd, through to traffic, parking, access to public open space, view lines, and so on.

There is no doubt that some of these residents did not understand that the existing zoning for the site could permit buildings higher than two stories above Cambridge Rd. That is, the two-story “acceptable solution” could in fact be varied by “performance criteria” where the scale and architectural response was assessed to be “cognisant of its location and visual importance in the bay and surrounds”.

Aldermen sitting as a Planning Authority, and despite being elected to represent their residents, must by law make planning decisions in accordance with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act and comply with the Clarence Interim Planning Scheme. If they decide to approve a application, they can ameliorate any adverse impacts by imposing conditions on the permit. For the Kangaroo Bay application, 38 conditions were imposed. Secondly, there are a number of Clarence residents living within walking distance of Kangaroo Bay who, while not having their amenity directly influenced by the development, care about Kangaroo Bay and strongly support the views of those who have been affected. Many of these residents felt aggrieved because the council did not formally write to them inviting representations.

Finally, out of the 1700 petitioners opposing the development at Kangaroo Bay, a staggering majority did not live in Bellerive. Many did not even live in Clarence and there were even a few petitioners from interstate. It is disappointing that the planning issues associated with this wonderful development opportunity have been shamelessly exploited for political purposes by a party struggling to find a cause celebre on the Eastern Shore with a state election looming.

Doug Chipman is the Mayor of Clarence City Council.