COMMUNITY
ACTION
GROUP
PO Box 325
Bungendore 2621
Newsletter May 02
What the Council said in response to the Open letter
On 15 April 2002 a group of around 180 Bungendore residents met at the Bungendore Memorial Hall to discuss their concerns about a proposed development to the north of the village. The following set of questions was drafted at the meeting and forwarded to Council. Here are the answers.
Questions are given in bold, responses in italics.
1. What is the current status of any development applications in relation to the subdivision known as “Bungendore North”, “Elmslea”, “New Elmslea”, or “Elmslea Village”?
14/9/93 Council approved the master concept plan will provide for 400 residential blocks.
stage 1 – 26 lots approved in detail
5/7/99 stages 2A and 2B – 27 lots approved in detail
14/11/01 stages 3 & 4 – 47 lots approved in detail
2. There does not appear to have been adequate consultation with the existing community about the nature, size, or timing of the proposed development. What consultative processes will Council implement to ensure that residents are informed of any new or existing proposals, and allow for Council to receive and act on informed feedback from the community?
Prior to the approval of the master concept plan, extensive public consultation held
- prior to rezoning
i. Bungendore ratepayers public meeting
ii. Public exhibition of proposed rezoning
- Prior to approval of master concept plan
2 day public workshop
3. Does Council hold the view that an increase in the population of either Bungendore or of the whole shire is desirable, and if so what public consultation was undertaken in order to reach that view?
“Part of the common goals of the 2 day public workshop”
4. What research has been undertaken in relation to, and what plans are in place to address, the effects of the proposed subdivision on:
4.1. Groundwater quality
4.2. Water supply
4.3. Infrastructure creation and the provision of new services
such as: schools, pre-schools, emergency services, community health services
etc.
4.4. Changed vehicular traffic flows
4.5. Sewage treatment capacity
4.6. Soil quality
4.7. Flooding – and the proposal to drain the proposed development
into Turallo Creek
4.8. Riparian zone protection
4.9. The retention of heritage values
4.10.
Green space
4.11.
Turallo St Bridge
4.12.
The area known as the Common
4.13.
The extension of Butmaroo
Street across Turallo Creek
“Issues addressed in the Environmental Study
for the rezoning of the land in 1991 included:
- groundwater
- traffic impact
- soils / topography
- drainage & flooding
- water, sewerage, electricity, garbage disposal, bushfire protection
- historic & archaeological features
- open spaces
- education
- leisure sport & recreational facilities
Specific
studies may be required prior to consideration of the application by Council.
As each stage is considered, further studies will need to be undertaken
to meet the standards of the day.
Council, before issuing approval, must be satisfied that the application achieves the requirements set out in regulations, legislation or Council codes.
Work undertaken by Council to cater for the development includes:
- Upgrading of Sewerage Treatment Works
- Emergency Services centre
- School Multi-purpose Hall
- Joint Library
Other issues relating to the provision of services by the state government are not the responsibility of council. Individual government departments / agencies were involved in the approval process and they set their own priorities as the upgrading or provision of new facilities.”
5. What percentage of section 94 contributions will be directed for the benefit of the Bungendore Community?
“The Section 94 Contribution Plan defines
those projects that funds collected from developers can be spent on.
Funds cannot be redirected to any other project within Bungendore or beyond.
The Bungendore Section 94 Contribution Plan adopted in March 1995 seeks
to provide the following facilities
Community hall / Sports Centre
Bush fire / SES station
Pre school land
Expansion of swimming pool
Library relocation
Embellishment of open spaces”.
In relation to all of the above the letter sought access to all technical reports and materials that informed Councils decisions.
We received none of these