I wanted to give my voice to the concern about the state of the roads we are driving on.
It seems our local council cannot manage the task at hand.
I not that a couple of roads have been resurfaced which is good and makes me feel helpful about the rest of them.
It was good they resurfaced the road in front of Wingham post office, however from the pedestrian crossing to the bridge, it is terrible and hazardous. The street in which I live, McPherson at, Wingham, had attention paid to it, and was fixed nicely, however for some unknown reason the job was never completed, and that state of the road at the moon street end is terrible. I would like to add photos as it’s laughable the tiny patches of road filled recently. This is a shame on our council. I truly believe there needs to be an investigation into council practises and transparency. Our roads are dangerous and It is my belief that they are adding to death toll.
The old Airport Tavern – opposite Taree Airport is owned by the Roach group from Harrington. In the last week or so the grounds have been fenced. The Tavern closed late October 2019. I have told this morning that they are going to build cabins and an over 50 accommodation on this land. The block is actually 25 acres and goes all the way to the road leading to the Dawson River cemetery and along the Dawson River. There are Koalas on this land and somewhere on my computer there will be a photo, hopefully, of one taken about 15 years ago in the gum tree in front of the motel section. About 7 years ago one came into the bar looking for a drink, I was not present but later told about it. Surely they are not able to build there. Just short of the road leading to the cemetery there is a sign about Koalas in the area. Hopefully this cannot be allowed as we need to protect the Koalas before they become extinct. Perhaps you might be able to ascertain further information regarding the proposed development.
I saw on Win News on29 October a clip promoting the councils decision to recognize the indigenous of the area for their contribution to the council area.
There were two examples quoted
1 Indigenous art ii windows
2 Naming of the new council chambers .
Council like all organizations in Australia have policies regarding discrimination and equity and I find these action by Council are not consistent with the requirements .
I do not disagree with recognizing indigenous culture and ” their contribution to the nation” but that is where the discrimination starts.
The indigenous represent 6% of our Council area . You are presenting a case for the indigenous ,with their low %, as being instrumental in being responsible for the wonderful development and society we see and experience on the Mid North Coast.
Where is the corresponding recognition of the non indigenous contribution to the Mid North Coast over the last 200 years .
Did the indigenous contribute significantly to logging, fishing ,health services, education, roads , water and sewerage and many other facets of modern life or do they jus accept ta non indigenous did the hard yards for them to enjoy with all others.
Non indigenous represent 94% of our local population
Respond to this email with positive actions identified and now in hand to recognize the contributions and impacts on the mid north coast of the non- indigenous of the Mid Coast council area and in particular the incorporation of thee action incorporated into the new council buildings
Every month I look forward to picking up the current edition of Di’s wonderful Manning Community News, and thought I must have missed the December issue, when thoughtful Pattie brought one around this morning.
I have read every issue of this wonderful paper since day one five or six years ago, and this one is a real eye opener, with many interesting articles about happenings in this wonderful part of Australia.
I was absolutely horrified after reading the article about thoughtless, ignorant council vandals destroying a very old shade tree in Wingham, which was planted many years ago as a shade tree.
Dr. John Stockard, the saviour of Wingham brush happened to come across council workers destroying the tree, even after he tried telling them it was a special tree they made out they knew better, saying it was a weed.
I would have thought council could have learned some sort of lesson after destroying old, heritage trees in the Bight Cemetery, and after vandalising so many headstones in that cemetery.
Dr.Stockard is an expert where trees are concerned, but the drongo council tree destroyers ignored his plea to save that tree.
It really is time for those in charge at council to wake up, and take more care and responsibility.
Submission -Hawks Nest Rezoning Proposal Sanderling Avenue. (Submittal Closing is 4.30 pm Friday 5th February 21)
For Mid Coast Council (MCC) to redeem themselves for their past environmental failures this Hawks Nest Sanderling Av/Golf Club development and appraisal of DA for 220 dwellings on Lot 105 must be preconditional on the granting of offset land to the Myall Lakes National Park of similar area to what was conditional for the former North Hawks Nest development.
NHN Development Background
Office of Environment and Heritage OE&H determination of 15 June 2015 to not proceed with rezoning North Hawks Nest (NHN) for residential due to OE&H being cognisant of machinations of Great Lakes/Mid Coast Council, Councils Consultants and Landowners as exposed in Police Case.
We sincerely ask that this proposal to expand Hawks Nest Golf Club does refrains from improper process as occurred at NHN to the detriment of Koalas and environment where the widely held and aspirational NHN plan to dedicate land West side of Mungo Brush Road (MBR) as a CONTIGOUS wildlife corridor to the Myall Lakes National Park, while rezoning a small land portion East of MBR for residential was turned on its head with consequence of Council declaring extensive NHN lands as RU2 Rural Zone that now promotes intense developments or small RU2 farms that invariably lead to noxious weeds, rats and dogs and with the indignant stab of approving DA for 160 dwellings on Lot 24 and appraising DA for 220 dwellings on Lot 105.
Dated Google Map shows significant past land clearing as identified in the *Public Enquiry into Ecological Significance of NHN-2002, however hacking away at the heart of what was to be a CONTIGUOUS wildlife corridor has not abated, but evidence exists of recent feverish land clearing, contrary to the findings of the Public Enquiry and SEEP44 and with MCC evidently turning blind eye toward such land clearing.
The following provides NHN background in support of our Comments.
A) *Public Enquiry into Ecological Significance of NHN, 2002-Excerpts relating to former land clearing that has intensified, some very recent:
Page 32-There should be no actions permitted within Old growth areas except for bushfire hazard reduction—-. The main reason for this is to prevent disturbance of understory vegetation (especially through under scrubbing) within Old growth elements, as this would lead to modification of habitat, and a net loss of biodiversity in the North Hawks Nest area.
Page 43-The Commission notes that several Tallowwood trees have been recently deliberately cut and removed, vegetated areas have been cleared and under scrubbing over substantial areas of land had occurred just prior to the Commission’s site inspection. Action is being taken according to Council, NPWS and DLWC. This is a very unusual, inflammatory and unfortunate situation that does not aid consultants or organizations with the task of identifying or assessing habitat.
Page 45-During the site inspection, Dr Phillips also found evidence of recent cutting and removal of Tallowwood trees and attempts to cover the removal with mulch.
He and other consultants as well as NPWS and Council expressed outrage at the apparent deliberate removal of recently discovered Koala prime feed trees.
In this regard he noted that there was evidence of previous and continuing cutting of Tallowwood over a period of years.
Tallowwood is a much-favored feed tree attracting Koalas from distant areas
Page 51- Re-assessment of scats and ground truthing of Koala feed trees and other habitat is recommended particularly for lots 106-108. However, the site inspection revealed recent and previous clearing and deliberate removal of prime Koala feed trees in this location thereby preventing any accurate re-assessment or re-study of Koala activities or habitat.
Remaining areas including certain cleared areas are supplementary at best or of marginal or no habitat value.
B) Landowner Address to MCC Administrator and Councillors at Council Meeting of 24 August 2016.
We note that despite MCC prevalently displayed Mission Statement ‘OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU’ we are yet to receive to a response to any of the questions asked at our Council Address, is this because a truth full response would allow past impropriety to surface?
We implore you, please do not repeat the machinations with Hawks Nest Golf Club Expansion as occurred with NHN, but insist on this Golf Club development being conditional on securing the remaining pockets of unspoilt NHN lands being granted to MLNP to provide a wildlife corridor/refuge.
To refresh MCC understanding of Improper Process that occurred with NHN we include Landowner Address to MCC of 24 August 2016.
A) Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.
Question 1. Considering the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy of Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and Councils stated affirmation, we question what was Council objective in 2015/16 in offering a ‘management plan for the offset land’ when Council’s resolved decision was ‘allowing the transfer of a major part of the site (as identified and agreed to by the Department of the Environment and Climate Change’ to create an effective extension of the Myall Lakes National Park?
B) National Parks Revoke Offset Dedication Agreement
Question 2. Considering that NPWS in revoking its long-held agreement, this being the principal reason for DPE rejection of Gateway Proposal for rezoning, the Landowners request, in the interests of Transparency, all correspondence exchanged between Council and the Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) and NPWS that elicits reasons for the OEH and NPWS revocation be made public by Council?
Question 3. DPE letter form Mr Markus Ray dated 15 June 2016, states that the offset land is ‘notably high conservation environmentally significant land’.
Considering this definition, landowners assert there must have been a fatal flaw cause for the OEH and NPWS to revoke their long held offset dedication agreement at such 11th hour? Landowners request details of such cause and associated correspondence between Council and Departments made public?
Question 4. Landowners require explanation to be made public, as to reasons provided to Council by the DPE, NPWS, OE&H for the decision not to accept dedication of North Hawks Nest of ‘offset lands’ at such abrupt an inexplicably late hour?
C) DPE Mr Marcus Ray Acting on Council Advice
Question 5. Considering the instigation, guidance and support provided by Council, there is inconsistency between Councils strong promotion of NHN, and DPE Mr Marcus Ray letter dated 15 June 2016, stating ‘In making this decision I have considered the advice provided by Council’.
Please advise why Councils widely publicised promotion of NHN, while the DPE inexplicably states its rejection of NHN is based on advice provided by Council?
Question 6. Landowners request all correspondence exchanged between Council and the DPE relating to the DPE statement that it was on Council advice on which their determination was based be made public?
Question 7. Due to the fact that Mr. Marcus Ray, Delegate to the Minister (DPE) stated in his refusal of the North Hawks Nest Gateway Proposal by letter dated 15 June 2016 that ‘The approach proposed by Council is different to the original planning proposal that was resolved following a detailed Public Inquiry in 2001’,
we ask, as landowners, for Council to explain these divergences from the statutory Findings and Recommendations of the Public Inquiry under s68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), as agreed to by Council on 14 August 2001?
Question 8. In light of Councils strong promotion of NHN, (on which landowners firmly relied), why is Council now mute on the DPE decision, particularly considering the DPE statement that their Gateway Determination is based on Council advice? We request Council response be made public.
D) Questions Gleaned from Internet
Question 9. Why did Council resolve to remove statutory findings pursuant to SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection of Core Koala Habitat from Lots 106, 107 and 108 on 26 November 2002?
Question 10. Why did Council resolve to remove statutory findings pursuant to SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection of Core Koala Habitat from all North Hawks Nest landholdings on 10 August 2004, that were relied upon in the 2002 Statutory Public Inquiry Report?
Question 11. Why did Council resolve to remove statutory findings pursuant to SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection of Core Koala Habitat from all North Hawks Nest landholdings on 10 August 2004, that are relied upon in NSW Government Official Instruments, namely the NSW Scientific Committee’s Declaration of the Hawks Nest & Tea Gardens Endangered Koala Population (1999) & the Official Recovery Plan for the Endangered Hawks Nest / Tea Gardens Koala Population (2003)?
E) Resolution that Council Delays Vote on NHN Landholdings
We hereby move that Council does not make decision on NHN landholdings today, the 24 August 2016, but delays the VOTE until the above-mentioned questions are answered and the called for documents are included in ensuing Council Report.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.