NO TO FERNHILL SUBDIVISION

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE MULGOA VALLEY AND OF FERNHILL PLEASE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO RESPOND TO THE DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED BY SIMON AND BRENDA TRIPP.

There are two developments being prosed

1. The first for the ‘Eastern Precinct’ around the historic Mulgoa Public School (this incorporates 50 urban lots with roads, drainage, road lighting, bridges, signage etc.)

2. And one for the ‘Western Precinct’ which will see subdivision of 11 x 25 acre lots

A BRIEF GUIDE TO WRITING YOUR SUBMISSION

• Keep it punchy. Use simple language and focus on the big ticket issues.

• It is OK to criticise elements of the DA. It can be helpful to recommend alternative action.

• Don’t be overly emotive and challenge the applicant’s claims if you disagree.

• Refer to relevant legislation, eg Penrith LEP 2010;

• A short point form submission is acceptable

SUBMISSIONS CAN BE EMAILED to council@penrithcity.nsw.gov.au

SUBMISSIONS CAN BE MAILED to The General Manager

Penrith City Council

PO BOX 60

PENRITH NSW 2750

Remember to request that all Councillors receive a copy of your Submission.

ISSUES WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT TO YOU FOR THE EASTERN PRECINCT

1. The proposed subdivision is prohibited in the current E3 zoning.

2. Use of the heritage incentive clause 5.10 (10) is highly questionable

3. The northern rural entry to Mulgoa is under threat by this urban development

4. The subdivision threatens the rural character of Mulgoa village and the vistas of Fernhill

5. The subdivision impacts on the vistas of other heritage assets eg: Mulgoa Public School, Mulgoa Road

6. The subdivision impacts on Mulgoa’s rural and historic setting and compromises its aesthetic and cultural values

7. There is a substantial impact on amenity for residents and visitors to Mulgoa Valley: loss of rural views, altered landscape, traffic, noise, congestion, pollution, lighting signage etc. The worry this has generated is having an impact on the well-being of some residents;

8. A similar subdivision was opposed by Council in 2010 for reasons of impact on amenity and the fact it was disjointed from Mulgoa village. These reasons today are just as valid;

9. The subdivision, using the heritage incentive clause, would create a precedent that potentially threatens other heritage assets in NSW including within Mulgoa Valley, ie developers will be able to apply for massive scale developments (such as this one), generating profits far in excess of that which is needed to support PART of the costs associated with maintaining the heritage item. This is NOT the intention of the Heritage Incentive Clause.

10. The subdivision robs future generations of the rural and environmental values of Mulgoa Valley;

11. It is a fabrication that Fernhill will fall into disrepair if the subdivision is not approved. The Picnic Races and bio-banking are better alternative uses to conserve Fernhill rather than subdivision;

12. The subdivision is about Angas Securities recovering bad or doubtful debts and Council should not be part of it

13. Angas is seeking to extract profits from Fernhill many multiples of what it actually costs to maintain Fernhill. Subdivision is not the best use of the heritage incentive clause to conserve Fernhill

14. In 2010 Council said it would not expand the Village footprint and, yet, are now considering going against this. Why? It is in contravention of Council’s own ‘Villages Plan’;

15. Within the Village precinct there will be an increase of population closer to 30%;

16. Fernhill sits within Mulgoa Valley, Mulgoa Valley does not sit inside Fernhill;

17. A residents’ survey overwhelmingly opposed subdivision. Council’s first obligation is to listen to the community;

18. The proposal breaches 100m setbacks from Mulgoa Road and houses will be seen;

19. Tree planting and post, sandstone entrance and post and rail fencing is not designed to enhance the rural character but hide something which is ugly and out of character with Mulgoa.

20. The proposal deletes important wildlife corridors;

21. Urban subdivision will see pollutants (herbicides, insecticides, oils, coolants, detergents) and introduced species: dogs, cats, rats, noxious weeds and exotic plants;

22. The community does not want Glenmore Park to be transported into Mulgoa.

ISSUES WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT TO YOU FOR THE WESTERN PRECINCT

1. Endangered species assessment. The legally required assessments have NOT been lodged for the clearing of vegetation in the Western Precinct. Demand that Council does not issue a conditional approval which would allow the developer to lodge the necessary assessments after a decision had been made and in secret away from public and expert scrutiny.

2. Proposed ‘offsets’. The developer proposes to trade-off the environmental impacts by protecting (‘BioBanking’) some of the bushland. Elsewhere developers have used these ‘offset’ areas to approve further clearing later on – a trick known a ‘partial retirement’ of the offset. Demand that all credits on the BioBank sites must be retired in full by any development – not left to assist further development.

3. The Western precinct will have huge impacts on wildlife in the neighbouring Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage Area. These impacts include nutrient, noise and light pollution which cannot be avoided.

4. The proposal will completely cut the Greater Southern Sydney Koala Corridor. Koala populations in the Hawkesbury and Campbelltown are linked by a corridor of fertile bushland including the Western Precinct of Fernhill. Koala habitat is not found in the adjoining National Park and the western precinct proposal would break this breeding corridor completely.

5. Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is the type of vegetation community occurring across the Western precinct (GHD Environmental Consultants 2014). It is about to be ‘uplisted’ from ‘endangered’ to ‘critically endangered’ by the NSW Scientific Committee which means, in the Committee’s own language, that ‘it is likely to become extinct’. This type of vegetation community is home to many endangered animals including Koalas and the beautiful Regent Honeyeater. Most of what remains of this forest is in patches smaller than 10 hectares but Brenda and Simon Tripp propose to destroy 44 hectares.
6. Bushfire Risk. For those that experienced the bushfires of Christmas Day 2001, you will be aware of the speed at which wildlfire moves. It is the responsibility of Penrith Council in their decision to approve development within the Western Precinct of Fernhill to ensure that the 11 families who purchase within that subdivision can safely evacuate down Fairlight Rd. REMEMBER access to this area is via a ‘one road in, one road out’ scenario and the mass evacuation of all properties west of Mulgoa Rd down Fairlight Rd only may well present fatal consequences for new families. ALSO REMEMBER the highest fire danger days are associated with hot westerly winds which leaves little or no time for families located in the far west of the Cumberland Plain to evacuate – they will be first in line.

You do not have to comment on all the issues, only the ones which are most important to you. There may be other issues which you may wish to add that are not part of the above list.