Click on link below:

             Background:

- SCR article 9 Feb ‘09

- Letter to all Councillors on 10 Feb ‘09

- DCP 99  (file size 343 KB)

- Council breaks it’s own code to approve unit development:  SCR article 13 Feb 2009

- Planning policy vacuum a risk to Husky’s future:  SCR Editorial  13 February 2009

- About Face - community concerns prompt planning reversal  - SCR on 27 Feb 2009

- Reversal a win for good governance  - SCR Editorial on 27 Feb 2009

- Stand by for lots of blocks of flats  - SCR Letters on 3 March 2009

A proposed 3-storey development which exceeds the site coverage or FSR, bulk, height and setback limits of the applicable DCP 99, within Business 3(g) zone, for that part of Huskisson (Fegen-Duncan-Nowra-Bowen Streets).   Proposed 3-storey complex of three residential units and two holiday units, after demolishing the existing fibro cottage.  On a small block 644 m².  Concern that DCP 99 will be bypassed without the community being consulted, and prior to it’s normal 5 year review, and also prior to it’s review within the new Shoalhaven LEP.   A copy of DCP 99 is linked at left.

Update 27 February 2009:  DA for 19 Fegen St placed on hold while Council updates DCP 99  - see SCR article and Editorial linked at left.

Comments from Vincentia RRA on 20 February 2009 :

 “We do not wish to argue the merits of the developers case, but if there are perceived deficiencies in DCP99, in our opinion these should be dealt with as per the Staff recommendation to Development Committee 3^rd February 2009 as under:

RECOMMENDED that in respect to Development Application (DA08/2051) for a Mixed Residential and Tourist Development at 19 Fegen Street, Huskisson, Council support Option 4 of the above report, that is the subject application be deferred pending a review of DCP 99 in light of the 3(g) guidelines prepared by Ruker and Associates. 

We would expect that the results of this review to be open for public comment before finalisation..

..We note the Department of Local Government’s  recent review, Promoting Better Practise, and their critical comments of the previous Council under “Councillors’ strategic role” (Pages 16 to 19) and we fully support the Department in saying that:

“Councillors should limit their role within the organisation to strategic policy setting, rather than becoming involved in the day-to-day management of Council and rely on and respect Council systems and policies. (Recommendation 1)” (Page19); and

 “Council should show greater commitment to its adopted plans and planning policies and keep them under review so they continue to be relevant.” (Recommendation 14)”  (Page 47)”

Quote pers comm. from John Hatton on 10 February 2009:

“I am dismayed that after a meeting, held late in 2008, of several hundred people from the Huskisson and Vincentia area that the Development Committee of council has “put aside” the provisions of DCP99 in favour of a development that the vast majority of residents in this area find completely in appropriate.

I am prepared to again become involved and call a mass meeting to give those Councillors who support the Development Committee decision, to “put aside” DCP99, an opportunity to explain this totally unacceptable course of action.” 

(referring to the recommendation of the Development Committee of Council to arbitrarily “put aside” DCP99 and abrogate its responsibilities to what is a contract with the community.)