The Central Coast Greens have added their voice to a chorus of disapproval over development plans for the Peat Island precinct.
They have called on Central Coast Council to consider objections by Mooney Mooney residents, traditional custodians, and the Hawkesbury River community, saying they don’t believe the proposed development is appropriate to the site and the local community’s needs.
“The Central Coast Greens seek to highlight Peat Island’s cultural and historical significance and this iconic public land in response to the proposal,” spokesperson Chantelle Baistow said.
“The traditional custodians in our region have strongly indicated that Peat Island and some of the surrounding country is of continuing high cultural significance to them.
“We maintain that the traditional owners must support any land development included in this proposal.
“The absence of their support should be taken as a clear indication of the proposal’s merit.
“The Greens are opposed to any significant increase in private residential development on Peat Island.
“The current proposal includes a new two-storey hotel, proposed minimum Lot sizes of 150 sqm for the residential portions and R2-zoned Lot sizes as small as 300 sqm.
“This proposal would result in unprecedented densities for the local area.
“Likewise, the loss of the school is unacceptable to the local community.
“If new residential development were to occur, the need for a local school would be among the first public priorities to emerge.
“In light of this, the inclusion of the former Mooney Mooney school site in the proposed asset sale is short-sighted.
“Another concern is the lack of consideration of realistic sea level rise driven by climate change.
“The consent authority needs to consider the resulting flooding risk in future property insurance coverage.”
Baistow said she understood the development will be subject to a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Central Coast Council.
“We are troubled by the infrastructure costs associated with upgrading the sewer and water assets that will be cost-shifted to the local public purse,” she said.
“We are alarmed at the costs of a new electricity supply to enable this development.
“NSW has many excellent examples of heritage renewal for iconic public lands developed in collaboration with local communities.
“These include Cockatoo Island and Nobbys Head.
“These positive examples need to be applied to guide the department in producing a suitable concept for Peat Island.”
Baistow said the Peat Island site and surrounding public land holdings would greatly benefit from public investment in local playspaces, transport services, schooling, child-care and improved access to health services.
“In the absence of a compelling case for the sale of public land and public assets without a tangible and direct public benefit, we do not support any divestment from public ownership associated with this proposal,” she said.
Source:
Media release, Jan 7
Central Coast Greens
That is excellent. The area should be kept as parkland with minimal development similar to bobbin head which is used extensively by tourists and residents of NSW.
Darkinjung Land Council do not represent the traditional owners of this area.They are infiltrated by developers supported by government to destroy much sacred Aboriginal land. GuriNgai people of this land oppose this development. Attempts have been made to discredit GuriNgai people and they have been conveniently labelled as not being an Aboriginal mob even though their history can be without any doubt traced back to Bungaree,”King of the Broken Bay tribe”. He was the first recorded first nations man to circumnavigate Australia with Matthew Flinders. Bungarees decendants “the GuriNgai People” are the true traditional owners of this area not the “Darkanjung Land Council”. The neigbouring tribe, the Darkinjung people are not”The Darkjanjung land Council!!!! The “Darkanjung country” road signs placed all around central coast are also not representative of the true traditional cusodians, the GuriNgai people”. It has been convenient for the Darkinjung Land Council, developers and governments to create this myth to allow further development and destruction of significant cultural sites and conveniently attempting to discredit and silence the true traditional custodians of this area. This development should not be allowed to proceed. GuriNgai decendants can prove through bloodlines that they are the traditional custodians of the land which incorporates the central coast region.