While it is often considered a fait accompli that anything in a proposed Growth Management & Housing Strategy (GMHS) being put on exhibition will pretty much get the green light, Tweed Shire’s Mayor Chris Cherry made it clear that this GMHS about to go on exhibition is open to significant change as a result of community feedback.
Developed by consultants, without community representation on the project reference group, the GMHS includes areas that some councillors believe the community will say ‘you’re mad’ for suggesting for housing development.
Not endorsed by Council
‘It needs to be made very clear that the options that have been put out there are not endorsed by Council, they have are options that have been put forward by the consultant and they are for discussion,’ said Cr Cherry.
Lindy Smith, President of the Tweed District Residents Association and Ratepayers (TDRAP) told The Echo that the GMHS as it currently stands provides ‘an open door for big business and the land bankers/developers’.
During the Tweed Councillor’s debate over placing the GMHS on exhibition, as part of an amendment, Cr Cherry sought to exclude some areas that had been recommended for development by the consultants in the draft. This included removing change 39 for potential development at ‘West Tweed Coast Road Cabarita’ with the Mayor commenting that, ‘that’s a small area that’s completely covered in tree trees. And I’m just not comfortable to put it out there to the community to say “what do you think about developing this?” I think our community would say “you’re mad”.’
Cr Cherry also proposed removing change 80 that showed residential use of foreshore and estuary waterway at Hastings Point and removing the proposal of housing on sporting fields and vegetated lots in the North Kingscliff Precinct (change 70).
Councillor Dr Nolal Firth, who seconded the amendment, highlighted that the GHMS proposed the extension of many of the villages, like Pottsville, in Tweed Shire as well as increasing density in developed areas. Cr Firth questioned the need to open more greenfield sites highlighting the significant quantity of housing that has already been approved via yet to be built developments like Kings Forest.
Nonsensical proposals
Currently there are more than 10,000 sites that have been approved by Tweed Shire Council (TSC) via Kings Forest, Cobaki and other developments in the shire that have yet to be built.
Peter Newton, President of the Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association (KRPA) told The Echo that, ‘There are some early concerns in our community that a number of “residential site” options identified in the draft paper are nonsensical. To even consider including our local sports fields or legislatively protected, valuable farmlands [Cudgen Plateau State Significant Farmland (SSF)] as options for housing seems ludicrous. We will certainly provide feedback on this aspect during the consultation phase.
‘From day one of this project, KRPA and other local residents’ associations have advocated, without success, for a community association representative to be included as part of the project reference group. This lack of representation is, in our mind, a weak link in a project that is going to have such a major, long lasting impact on our communities. We were grateful to Councillor Firth for raising the matter at a Council meeting, meaning there is at least now Councillor representation through Mayor Cherry and Councillor Owen.’
From valued reserve to runway extension?
Ms Smith from TDRAP also highlighted the issue of the NSW Crown Reserve for Public Recreation/Conservation, that was dedicated to the community in 1926, is proposed to be included in the airport precinct. The Reserve is located immediately south of the airport and adjoins, on its southern side, the controversial site of the zombie development at the Tringa St industrial area.
‘The community won the battle 1999 and again 2000 when acquisition of the Reserve for runway extension was proposed. Subsequent to this there were further plans to develop the Reserve for industrial with the most recent 2020 which the community won. And here we are again in 2023 with its proposed development,’ said Ms Smith.
‘In a secret deal the former government handed over the Reserve to the airport under an 84 year Lease (18/10/13) for “any and all airport facilities”, and the airport subsequently made a submission to the then government for the Reserve to be rezoned, this remains outstanding today. The Lease was one of 19 across NSW that was subject to damning findings of an Auditor-General Report in 2016 with a recommendation to address the issue of leases which did not comply with policy which has not been remedied.’
Call for community feedback
Councillors Reece Byrnes, Rhiannon Brinsmead, and James Owen all voted against the amendment with Crs Chris Cherry (Mayor), Meredith Dennis (Deputy Mayor), and Nola Firth voting in favour. The absence of Cr Warren Polglase meant the vote tied three all and the amendment was passed on the casting vote of the Mayor, Cr Cherry.
The amended motion to put the GMHS on exhibition was then passed with Crs Brinsmead and Owen against.
‘The GHMS will guide our growth over the next 20 to 30 years,’ said Cr Cherry.
‘It’s a really important document because we have a lot of development pressure, and we need to go out to our community and say, “where do you want to see that?”
‘In the options paper, when it is put on public exhibition, people will see that there’s some really, really controversial ideas in there. We are relying on you [the community] to tell us what you think about them. To tell us if your thoughts have changed, if you do or don’t support the proposals.
‘It’s really, really important that people engage with this. And hopefully, we hear from the community about how they want to see our growth look into the future. We all know that it’s really important for us to have our places for our children to live into the future for parents to downsize into and for our key workers to live in. So it’s an incredibly important time to engage.’
You can find the Draft Options GMHS online here.
Another well-intentioned planning document. One can only hope that whichever form it takes in the end, it will not be watered down by developers greediness.
Another important point I found missing:
Every summerIt becomes more evident that the way we have built housing estates over the last decades creates urban heat islands, attritutable to very little green space in amongst all these houses, roads, car parks, concrete yards etc. Add to that dark roofs and even darker driveways, and one can fry eggs on the footpath!
If we want to keep day and particularly night time temperatures at mangeable levels, we need to incorporate rules about how much greenspace (‘green’ not including artificial grass, but grass, trees, shrubs etc.) we allow in the states. Incorporate green corridors between settlements. Allow for large flood retention basins – the next floods can only get worse!
We also need to mandate light coloured roofs, Solar panels on those, and driveways with water permeable paving.
TSC has a lot to loose if futurer development keeps going the wrong way, but even more to win if Council is smart about the future. Places with such boutless beauty should not be sacrificed for short-term profit thinking.
Totally agree with you, Mike,
I hope everyone else thinks like this.