Click on link below:

             Background:

Shoalhaven City Council – Development Committee meeting on 4th May 2010

Address:  by Huskisson resident Garry Kelson

Subject:  DCP 99 Huskisson

Reproduced opposite

Copy of the address here

‘..Thank you Cr Ward & fellow Committee members for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.  My name is Garry Kelson & my wife and I are resident ratepayers -x2- of the Huskisson village. Our home property adjoins Kent Lane on our Eastern boundary. Kent Lane is one of three incorporated within the DCP99 precincts.

I believe I know Kent Lane better than most as I actually maintain it for the greater part via my push mower.  This is my attempt to ‘ease the burden’ somewhat, on Council’s works department who advise me that their budget will only allow the Lanes in our Village to be mowed twice per year.

We were active participants in the Community workshops held last year in regards to the proposed amendments to DCP99.  These workshops were of course open to Residents and Property Owner/Developers alike.

We were encouraged that the retained Professional Consultants, Ruker and Assoc. took on board the community input in recognizing that for this area, ‘one size does not fit all’  and it is the responsibility of everyone involved-Residents, Developers, elected Representatives and Professional/paid Staff-to ensure what is adopted today will preserve this Iconic location .

We do not agree with all aspects of the Ruker reports.  We think it is a shame that the Beach street height limit is recommended to increase to 13m (accepting precedence by earlier approvals but believing that those approvals were not in fact to impose a new benchmark at this height)

We feel very sad for the residents of Beach street South in particular, especially people like the Borehams, who did everything right in compliance with the existing DCP,  attempted to do their bit towards greening Australia by incorporating as much natural light as possible, including solar panels and the like,  yet now find they will have a 13m high block right on their Northern boundary.

We are most concerned about the Murdoch street precinct, given its absolute Moona Moona creek alignment and, given the ecological and environmental issues thus associated, believe the footprint imposed in this area should be absolutely minimalistic-certainly nothing like the most recent DA just lodged for a 32 unit apartment block with 64 car park s  AND a swimming pool ! -one could easily imagine the Creek itself filling that role !

Having said all that, we have come to the conclusion that the DCP99 amendments as tabled are the overall best outcome to balance the needs of future growth and development versus preservation of this unique location for generations to come.

We are not anti-development- we would not be able to live where we do without development.  However we also recognise one cannot always have everything one might like.

We would have loved to have had a small 2nd story Parents retreat which would have allowed us a view of Shark Net Bay and beyond- (and a haven when visiting Grandchildren become a little over boisterous ) -but when we checked the regulations pertaining to our property, we had to accept this was just not permissible,

Every Property Owner within the DCP99 precinct has had that same opportunity to conduct due diligence and make their own purchase decisions from a feasibility standpoint,  knowing full well what can and cannot be undertaken.

In Zone 1 ( ‘Fegen St’) precedence has again been somewhat established. Last year a successful rescission motion resulted in the applicant for a DA regarding the property known as 19 Fegen Street being directed to go back and rework their application to bring it in line with the Ruker recommendations and reports.  In March this year their resubmission along those lines was formally approved.

Returning to the beginning of this short synopsis-Kent Lane.  Kent Lane is unique within the three lanes incorporated within this DCP because it is the only one that is a thoroughfare-freely accessible from either Bowen or Nowra streets. Given that it is only 5m wide, fence line to fence line, and the proposed sealed roadway would be 4m, it is clearly insufficient for two – way traffic. In our submission we noted 3 things that we believe need to be addressed:

1- it should be designated one-way ( otherwise someone will have to give way and safety could become a real issue)

2-Speed Inhibitors of some kind should be incorporated to stop it becoming a local raceway and

3-It should be designated ‘No Parking’ so it does not become a default over- flow parking area for Fegan Street properties.

I appreciate Council staff acknowledged our input but they believe it is not necessary to specifically address these issues within the DCP amendment-they think they can always be addressed later if necessary- I disagree firmly believing it is much better to be ‘pro-active’ rather than ‘re-active’ and therefore would like to see these issues addressed now as part of this current process.

So in conclusion, I urge the Committee members to take all this into consideration during their deliberations today.

The reports recognise and address a number of areas: height, bulk and scale-FSR, set back, articulation, parking, landscaping,- they even provide an attempt to give Style guidelines-what is good form and examples as distinguishing against what is not.

It addresses why Bonus/Lot consolidation is not appropriate.  Having a monolith resembling something like the infamous McMahons Point ‘Toaster’ development staring down upon us as we sit at out breakfast table would be amongst our worst possible nightmares, let alone the residents of the Heritage listed property at 7 Fegen St.  Any future development in their area that is not both totally sympathetic and in accord, would surely decimate their property value-and lifestyle- overnight !

This is an opportunity to not only do the right thing by adopting the amendments to DCP99 as recommended by Council staff and its retained professional consultant,  but to actually be SEEN  to have done so !..’

Thank you      

Garry Kelson

Review of:

i) DCP 99

and concurrent

urban design strategy for two other Business

3(g) zoned areas:

ii) Beach Street (south)

iii) Moona Moona Ck 

- Second workshop (25th May 2009)  invitation  (file size 488 KB)

- Draft Building Heights - Huskisson - from draft LEP 2009  (File size 575 KB)    

- HWCV feedback submission

- DCP 99  (file size 343 KB)

- Invitation from SCC to

6 April 2009 workshop, includes a map  (File size 1.07 MB)

-New Council little better than old  - Letter to Editor (signed by 119 concerned citizens)  SCR,  on  3 April 2009. 

- Workshop Feedback Form (includes a map of the study areas - April 2009)

- SUMMARY DETAIL to assist in Feedback Form completion

A community workshop was held by Council in the evening on 6 April 2009. The review of DCP 99 (within zone Business 3(g)) was prompted by the submission of the DA for 19 Fegen St, but is also relevant to the review of the Shoalhaven LEP, coming up later in 2009. 

The 6th April workshop invitation from Council is linked at left, and contains a map of the three areas in question, and some zoning information from Council’s website.  Note that a nearby Business 3(g) zone area - Beach St (north) - was the subject of a discrete review during 2008, final report is with Council, but not yet publicly exhibited.

A second community workshop will be held by Council in the evening on 25 May 2009.  The invitation from Council is linked at left.

The draft LEP 2009 "Height of Buildings Map" for Huskisson is linked at left, received from Council Strategic Planning, who commented: [some font bolded by the HWCV] “The draft map reflects the heights currently allowed under the Huskisson CBD DCP (No.54).  It also applies to some of the areas that are currently zoned Business 3(g) under the LEP 1985 and that proposed to go to a B4 Mixed Use zone under the new LEP. As you would be aware consents have been issued in some of these areas that enable development greater than 11 metres.   

 The draft map has been discussed with the Department of Planning and it is now with them for consideration as part of the request to issue a Section 65 Certificate to enable the exhibition of the overall draft plan.  

 As background, Cause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the draft LEP instrument indicates that ‘the height of a building on any land is not to exceed 11 metres except where the maximum height is shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map’.  Thus a general 11 metre standard will apply across Huskisson and the City generally, except where something different is shown on the height map. The LEP clause and map will set the maximum building height in any area - Council can through its DCP set a lesser building height in an area underneath the maximum. It cannot through a DCP allow a height greater than the LEP maximum.”