Kurmond planning proposals refused

The proposed lots as shown in the Council business paper. KEITH Michael threw his business paper down in disgust and called for his $26,000 in fees back after a proposal to subdivide his Kurmond land was refused last week by Hawkesbury Council.
Nanjing Night Net

His planning proposal was to sub-divide land owned by his late parents at 42 Bells Lane into five lots.

The decision of councillors was in conflict with the staff recommendation, which would have seen it go to the next stage of the approval process.

The 10 councillors voted 6-4 against Mr Michael’s proposal, and also rejected a similar application later in the night.

Mr Michael lodged his application with council in March, 2016, whilethe otherrefused application, for 98 Bells Lane, Kurmond, was lodged in February, 2016. Each many months prior to the council’s November 29 decision to accept no more planning proposals in that area.

Mr Michael said he was angry with Council’s decision.

“I am feeling rather disillusioned with Council,” he said.

Planning consultant Glenn Falson, who prepared both planning proposals, said Council’s actions were completely unfair.

“The two proposals that were refusedhad already been deferred twice by Council,” he said.

“Had this not have occurred then they would have been further down the processing line and wouldn’t have been caught by Council’s interpretation of its recent resolution to continue processing of applications already received.

“The community has a reasonable expectation that they can rely on Council’s adopted policies.”

Before refusal,Cr Paul Rasmussen tried to defer each application.

However, acting general manager LaurieMifsud said his interpretation of Council’s resolution to processplanning proposals in the Kurmond-Kurrajong area lodged before November 29 could not be deferred.

Mr Mifsud said councillors could either choose to accept or refuse the proposals.

Mr Falson begged to differ.

“Council can always defer matters for further information,” he said.

“This would have been the correct thing to do given that they had concerns about traffic numbers and overall impact of these and other proposals.

“I deal with lots of other councils. I have not come across this degree of chopping and changing of policies and interpretation of resolutions and policies.”

Greens councillor Danielle Wheeler said small sub-divisions in isolation would not likely impact greatly onHawkesbury’s traffic volume, but the cumulative effect of many certainly could.

“I know it is only five blocks but traffic in this area is a bit like Chinese water torture,” she said.

Mr Michael said council should actually be encouraging more development on the western side of the Hawkesbury River.

“The more people that end up on the western side of the river, the greater the voice government will have to listen to,” he said.

“At the moment, while the population is small, nothing can be done politically to encourage politicians to build bridges.”

Liberal councillor Patrick Conolly said Council policy ought to be followed.

“I think councillors need to understand, this is not the new left wing Hawkebsury Council,” he said.

“What is the difference between this proposal or the ones we did approve late last year under almost identical circumstances?”

This story Administrator ready to work first appeared on Nanjing Night Net.

Posted in 南京夜网