Spencerville Controversy Highlights Need For Councils To Abandon Developer-Driven Planning

Tuesday, 02 July 2002 10:00

"High bushfire risk areas and areas containing threatened species such as this site should never have been zoned to allow development. Had a proper, visionary and sustainable planning process, based on comprehensive environmental studies been in place, the site would have been zoned Environment Protection," said natural areas campaigner Fran Kelly.
 
"Basing Local Environment Plans on guessed population figures and demands from developers is wrong every time," said Ms Kelly.

"The end result is the environment suffers, wildlife suffers, human life and property is put at risk by bushfire, existing residents lose out with loss of amenity such as turning a village into suburban sprawl and no one ends up being satisfied."

"Our preference in this case would be for Kempsey Council to rezone the land for protection. Failing this the size of the development should be reduced to the point that impact is negligible which might mean as few as 10 lots are permitted and strict covenants put in place such as banning cats and dogs and limiting vehicle activity," said Ms Kelly.

Ms Kelly said TEC would be writing to the Planning Minister, Dr Andrew Refshauge, requesting his intervention if Kempsey Council decides to approve the development without a Species Impact Statement and in its current form.