Monaro Zone Podcast Episode: Cobbon Crescent, Jindabyne Lakeside Development - By Chris Chan
Introduction
Welcome to another episode of Monaro Zone, where we dive into the latest news and developments affecting our community. Today, we’re covering the recent council meeting discussion, of the 14th November 2024, around the proposed Cobbon Crescent, Jindabyne Lakeside development. A presentation given to the council and public by the developer’s project design consultant Annalise Knight from Brother Nature, has stirred both interest and concern in Jindabyne. Let’s go over the key points, community reactions, and councillor responses.
The presentation by the project design consultant for the developer
The presentation regarding the development began with Annalise Knight, the project design consultant, and General Manager from Brother Nature, who outlined the features of the Cobbon Crescent, Jindabyne Lakeside development. Annalise emphasized the project’s focus on creating a community space, improving public access, and maintaining an environmentally conscious design. This includes roadworks, topography adjustments, and plans for a future park. Importantly, the land could have been split up for up to 60 dwellings, but the proposal here is for a more measured 34 dwellings.
Ivan Pasalich, from Dabyne Planning, spoke in support of the development. He elaborated on the purpose of the concept development application, which he said is meant to clarify the project’s intent for the community. Ivan also acknowledged the proverbial elephant in the room—the removal of pine trees, which is likely to be the most contentious part of this project.
Ivan made it clear that since this is private land, the tree removal does not require council approval. This would become a point of debate later in the meeting, but more on that soon. He added that while the original plans envisioned as many as 48 dwellings, they ultimately landed on 34, with an aim to preserve native vegetation.
Councillor Queries and Developer Responses
The mayor opened the floor for questions by councillors, and Councillor Thaler asked whether the council might defer this matter for a month. The reason? The councillors had only received the final 750 pages of the massive almost 1000 page briefing late on Monday afternoon at 5.02pm (only two days prior to the meeting) which was on the Thursday. Ivan pushed back, mentioning that the application had been submitted as early as January and stressing his desire to move forward. As the council has had the documentation for some nine months it is intriguing that such a huge tome was only provided to the councillors 2 days before the meeting.
Councillor Thaler then questioned whether the proposed land and tree clearing adhered to Biodiversity Development Assessment Reports, or BDAR. Ivan responded that he believed that the developers would indeed comply with current land-clearing legislation.
Councillor Bob Stewart raised concerns about erosion, asking how soon development would commence after tree removal. Ivan reiterated that, while removing the trees doesn’t require DA approval, managing the site afterward would. Although he didn’t provide a specific time-frame, he mentioned that the Jindabyne Library was completed in around three months, suggesting a similar time-frame might apply here for home installation. This seems very unlikely.
Public Comments and Concerns
Several residents shared their concerns, and they didn’t hold back.
Several residents spoke against the development. One resident voiced fears about structural damage to nearby homes. She argued that the pine trees maintain the stability of the site’s geological formation and cautioned about potential landslides, traffic congestion, and pollution, including noise, light, and pedestrian safety issues. Her suggestion? Defer the approval to allow more time for careful consideration.
Another local raised multiple objections to the development. She cited increased traffic congestion, rising population density, and the loss of up to 500 pine trees—a beloved ecosystem for many in the community. Deborah emphasized the value of the tree canopy to the region, adding that over 400 residents had signed petitions opposing the tree removal. She also requested a deferment to allow time for comprehensive wildlife studies, particularly focusing on birds that depend on this habitat.
Councillor Concerns Regarding Public Response
Councillor Rose picked up on this, asking about the total number of residents who had voiced concerns in a recent survey. She noted that over 520 signatures had been collected.
Councillor Stewart then raised an important point: could these pine trees, being privately owned, be removed without council’s permission? She acknowledged that, legally, they could, but expressed frustration that legislation doesn’t currently assign value to the ecological worth of these canopies. Mr. Smith, a council employee, confirmed that the trees could indeed be removed legally.
At this point, the first resident chimed in again, expressing a sense of frustration. She noted that with over 520 voices in opposition, and councillors only receiving the 750+ page part of the document in the last two days, she felt that the community’s concerns weren’t being heard. She underscored her concerns for the area’s flora and fauna, mentioning micro-bats and potential erosion, along with the heritage connection of the pines, which were initially planted by Snowy Hydro. Safety for children was another significant point she raised, urging councillors to visit the site in person before making any decision.
Closing Remarks
So, there we have it: a community at a crossroads, with impassioned public feedback, councillors grappling with the late provision of a hefty briefing document, and developers eager to proceed. It’s a complex issue, and as always, we’ll be here to keep you updated on the developments. Thank you for joining us on Monaro Zone, your trusted source for local news that matters.
But wait… there’s more…
And here’s a spoiler for our next episode: despite the voices of over 520 residents, and significant procedural issues raised by Councillors Thaler and Rose regarding the validity of council approving the development concept at that point in time, the majority of councillors voted to approve the concept DA. The objections of Councillors Rose and Thaler were based on the obligation by council for the provision of more time to consider the application. Section 367 of the Local Government Act requires “business proposed to be transacted at the meeting” to be available at least 3 days prior to the meeting, for due consideration and therefore informed decision making on behalf of the community. Therefore Section 367 also backs up the community’s plea for more time for careful consideration of the issues. However, against common sense and legal obligations the majority of councillors pushed the Cobbon Crescent development through without a pause. They dismissed the calls for caution and for more time for consideration of the documentation, ignored the concerns of the residents, and gave the go-ahead as if those voices hadn’t mattered at all. Join us next time on Monaro Zone, where we’ll unpack the fallout from this decision and explore why so many are left wondering if the council is truly listening to the community it has been elected to serve.
Share this post