South West Rocks Tourist Facility

I would like to object to the application 09_0019 going ahead as this is a natural wet lands. This development will obviously not remain at only 9 cabins in the future if allowed to go ahead, therefore would eventually bring excess traffic. The area continues to be a popular spot to launch boats and can at times have more than 150 boat trailers parked up and down New Entrance Road.

Riverside Tourist Cabins at New Entrance Road, South West Rocks 09_0019.

I strongly object to the construction of above for the following reasons:

* The area is a natural wetland and is Flood Prone. Construction of roads and buildings will make water harder to dissipate.

* Being in a Fire Prone area I object to Timber decks and boardwalks being built to add more fuel for potential fires.

* Extra trees being planted will interrupt water views and potentially lower values of existing homes.

* I believe where the entry point for the road is proposed, to be in a very dangerous position for entry and exiting being so close to the bend in the road of Marlin Drive and also corner of New Entrance Road. This could cause car accidents.

* By adding houses to the wetlands area, this will have to push the huge kangaroo habitat further up into the homes of Marlin Drive and surrounding streets where this is already a problem.

* Finally I believe this Tourist Facility is not in keeping with the quality homes in the surrounding area. How may tourist facilities do we need in South West Rocks.

Dear Sir

I write to express my disapproval about the proposal to build 11 cabins on the New Entrance Road opposite the Macleay River. I ask the question why does South West Rocks need any more holiday rental properties as there are more than enough to cope with all the tourism that the town needs.

My concerns are that –
• the infrastructure cannot cope with the proposed units,
• the recent floods are a great concern where the proposed site was entirely under water for a period of at least a week and half
• And the impact a development such as this will have on the wildlife such as kangaroos and bird life. I think it would be a sad day when the wildlife is pushed out due to over development.
• The increased traffic would be a concern especially for the residents living close to this area and there would be increased traffic flow along Rudder Street, Gilbert Cory Street, Entrance Street, Marlin Drive, and Ocean Street as these would be the thoroughfares to access the site.

Why can’t some things stay as they are and be enjoyed for their natural beauty and nature?

Yours Sincerely,

Confidential to DoP

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/coastal-areas/tourist-development/?action=view_job&job_id=2880

Submission to proposal Riverside Tourist Cabins South West Part 3A Application No. MP 09_0019
Dear Sir/Madam
If ever someone decided to try to build in the most inappropriate place this project would be hard to beat in NSW. The Tavern itself raised serious misgivings in the local populace regarding its appropriateness in a floodplain away from the CBD of South West Rocks and now it appears the cabin development which has already been rejected is again proposed presumably to secure the viability of the original establishment.
I object to the incremental development on the following grounds.
• The Executive Summary states that there have been no improvements to the land which is accurate in respect of structures but the grassed and “maintained” areas north and south of the tavern along New Entrance Road have been continually slashed which has changed the character of the vegetation which was previously more consistent with the SEPP 14 vegetation adjoining. The previous condition of the now grassed area and the loss of the scenic value of the natural vegetation should be taken into consideration and the area assessed for its prior environmental characteristics.
• The site is entirely floodplain which is obviously going to be of major concern to tourists, local SES police and Kempsey Shire Council both in the present time and importantly with increased flooding incidents and sea level rise over the life of the establishment.
• If the project was to proceed there would need to be major compensation contributions lodged now with DoP to cover all contingencies involving flood victims and their rescue, accommodation and medical care for the life of the establishment as well as the raising of the buildings above sea level/flood rise by 2050 as proposed.
• The site is a likely Acid Sulphate Soil hotspot and building, roading and trenching for sewerage, power and water pipes will inevitably expose Acid Sulphate Soil to the air and likely cause contamination and increased scalding in the SEPP 14 and EEC saltmarsh areas adjoining and draining to the north.
• The section on climate refers continually to the lovely aspect of the site but not to floods and expected effects in an inappropriate site under climate change effects.
• The site map clearly shows the effect of the Government Road with water on the northern side but drier scalded saltmarsh on the subject site. There should be an order to either remove the road or ensure proper saltwater incursion through sufficient flap drains to better hydrate the natural areas of the subject site.
• The whole area is bushfire prone and thus will add to the responsibilities of the local bushfire brigade. The timber cladding, balustrades and balconies will obviously be more visually appealing but also more prone to bushfire. The mass planting of casuarinas to “help disguise and visually absorb the structures” will also provide some interesting moments in a hot westerly.
• The situation of planning for a 1:100 year flood level for the floor and the future raising of that floor level by persons unknown by 2050 to the 2100 sea level rise predictions is an alarming concept both the visitors caught in the flood and for the unsightliness of cabins up on poles in a scenic protection zone. This scenario would seem almost comical if it were not a serious bid. The fact that the Macleay is one of the fastest flowing rivers in the world now has not even been mentioned nor the strong possibility the cabins will become a shipping hazard rather than “floating objects” on the landscape.
• The construction of a wetland buffer in the wetland will likely release ASS water into the remaining wetland when overtopped. There is no modeling on the effects of the introduction of 1 metre of fill (7500 m3) to the developed area, roading, paths, bitumen, oil, rubber, detergents, fertilisers, and pets on the EEC Saltmarsh. There is a distinct possibility for such an enormous amount of fill to be washed during the construction stage into the wetland area and the EEC. It is most likely there will be increased walking, biking and pet traffic into the SEPP 14 and EEC area with associated trampling and pollution. The extensive new planting will also pose a potential risk of spreading into the SEPP 14 area.
DECCW website
Many threats face NSW coastal saltmarsh from urban, industrial and agricultural activities. The most pressing man-made threats are reclamation, rubbish dumping, spills of oils and other chemicals, foot and vehicle traffic, invasion by exotic plant species and inappropriate stormwater discharge. Natural processes such as incursion by fast-growing mangroves and climate change also threaten the sustainability of saltmarsh habitats. The latter is likely to result in sea-level rise and hence increased inundation of the upper intertidal areas occupied by saltmarsh species. Because human activities already encroach on these areas, there will be limited capacity for saltmarsh species to ‘migrate upshore’ as sea levels rise.
• It is not shown how much of the wetland area is to be consumed by the development, the fill onsite and the “freshwater wetland” but it is interesting that the wetland management plan includes noting that the Government Road and the broken flap drain have prevented the natural flow of the saltwater in the EEC and SEPP 14 area. The wetland improvement plan includes opening the drain again which indicates that it has been known that the site has been denied water for many years. It would then be precautionary to open that drain to the natural processes and see just what is wetland before the fill goes in.

I am writing to object to the proposal 09-0019, Tourist Facility at South West Rocks for the reasons listed below and trust that you will take these issues and opinions into serious consideration when determining the outcome of this proposal.

1. Flooding
o In the last floods in May 2011 the entire proposed site was under water for at least a week. I ask the question - Where will the tourists move vehicles and boats to in times of flood – nearby residential areas where that will impact on permanent residents on SWR?, the boat shed car park which is a privately held lease so that would impact on that leasee’s business and property?
o In the May 2011 floods, the tavern basement flooded and the water had to be pumped out by the fire brigade – what contingencies are in place to remove flood water and where is that water going to be dispersed to and then what impact will that extra water have on wherever it is moved to?
o If the flood water is dispersed to the Macleay River, will that mean that any fertilisers, poisons etc used on the grounds or gardens will also be dispersed to the Macleay River, thus causing impacts on marine life and the river eco system?
2. Roads Infrastructure
o The access roads of Gilbert Cory Street, Rudder Street, Ocean Street, Marlin Drive & Entrance Street are not suitable for heavy traffic use. These roads are already in disrepair, with numerous pot holes and patch work repair jobs. These roads at present are not to a satisfactory standard for the local residents of South West Rocks as it is and the local council does not have the funds to repair them sufficiently and to return them to a satisfactory standard. Increased traffic and traffic towing boats etc will only further deteriorate these roads which local residents will be forced to suffer with and ultimately will be left to foot the bill for the repairs.
o Further, Marlin Drive and Rudder Street have steep slopes that will cause, and does cause towing vehicles to use lower ranges and thus higher revs on their engines causing more noise for local residents.
o It will be fair to say that many of the increased vehicles will be towing boats due to the proximity of the boat ramp and this will increase noise to local residents with the trailers/boats etc. Noise that is not fair for local residents to have to endure as they have chosen to live in a quiet dress circle location.
o This proposal I believe also has the potential to lower property values in the surrounding residential area due to the increased noise from traffic.
3. Wildlife –
o The construction of this proposal has serious potential to impact on the kangaroos and birdlife that inhabit the area. There is no way of knowing what impact this will be prior to construction and if the wildlife environment was to be destroyed or irreversibly damaged, it would be very sad for our town and for the river foreshore if the wildlife could no longer be enjoyed by local residents and tourists.
4. Wetlands –
o Again, the impact on the sensitive wetlands cannot be properly gauged prior to construction and if construction does get the go ahead, I believe there is potential for irreparable damage to this important and vital eco system.
o Although protection measures are apparently in place to preserve the wetlands and ensure they are not damaged, the changes to the landscape, water runoff, sewerage etc, could have long term effects that cannot be foreseen now. The wetlands are not only a beautiful, natural occurrence they are vital for marine and wildlife reproduction. If the wetlands were to be impacted or damaged, this would have flow on effects far into the future for marine and wildlife.
o I don’t believe that the proponent can 100% guarantee the wetlands will be free of damage.
5. Visual impact
o The cabins are proposed to be built extremely close to the roads edge and despite the efforts to screen the cabins with plants, they will be a visual detriment to the natural beauty of the site.
o The layout of the cabins has covered decks facing the river, obviously for the tourists to be able to enjoy the river and mountain views. This means that the cabins will not be sufficiently screened from the road side otherwise these views would not be visible to the tourists. Hence, the cabins will be an eyesore to the natural landscape and will have a negative visual impact for this otherwise beautiful area.
6. Rubbish
o There is the potential for rubbish along the river foreshore from tourists staying in the cabins who will inevitably fish or use the foreshore area, but there are no bins provided by council for rubbish disposal and unfortunately tourists do not respect our town in the same way as local residents. This rubbish will inevitably end up in the river and in the bush which will have negative impacts on the marine life, river eco system and wildlife.
7. Noise from tourists
o Inevitably tourists will enjoy themselves while on holidays and the noise created from them will impact on nearby local residents. Tourists will sit on the verandahs of the cabins or noise travels quite clearly at night which will be unavoidably heard by local residents
8. Sufficient tourist accommodation
o Currently in South West Rocks there are –
 3 x Private Caravan Parks
 2 National Parks Camping Grounds
 Hotels,
 Bed & Breakfasts,
 Units,
 Flats and
 Holiday Houses
o The current holiday accommodation available in SWR is really only booked to full capacity in the Summer months (6-8 weeks out of 52). Even during Easter, accommodation is often not fully booked and I speak from experience having worked in one of the private caravan parks for a period of 4 years. The remaining 44-46 weeks accommodation houses often struggle to fill their rooms etc and additional accommodation in the town will only further hurt these businesses, real estates etc.
o Therefore the extra 11 cabins will not have a great impact on additional accommodation to service only 6-8 weeks of the year. It is likely, that these cabins will be vacant for the majority of the year and if that is the case, the construction of them will be a waste of time and a just another destruction of our towns opens spaces.

As stated at the beginning of this letter, I trust these issues are taken into consideration when determining if this proposal should be allowed to proceed. In my opinion if this proposal is allowed, it will be a negative outcome for our town and will negatively impact on the natural beauty of the area.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues.

I am an owner of a block of land in Grandview Pde and intend builing a family home in the near future. I feel the development would have minimal impact on residents in the area but would have positive impact on the South West Rocks economy. Due to the increased costs in day to day living families and recreational fisherman would utalise this form of holiday accommodation therefore providing the tavern with another income source to aid in there survival.

Objection to the development on the following grounds:

Environmental - the location is a wetland and home to a variety of water birds. It is also the feeding ground for the Eastern Grey Kangaroo. This area should be developed for community purposes which incorporates the wetland and its habitat.

Flood zone - the piece of land is regularly covered with rain and storm water and has been totally flooded on 3 occasions in the past year. It is undesirable and unsuitable for the proposed development.

Access roads - Marlin Drive which runs through a growing urban area is already subjected to constant heavy traffic seeking access to the boat ramp or servicing the tavern and boat shed. The proposed entrance to the Development is close to a corner which has the potential to create traffic accidents as the proposed entrance is blind when traveling down Marlin Drive. New Entrance Road is the least preferred access road to the boat ramp and presumably the proposed development. The road is narrow and constantly affected by potholes resulting in the large vehicles with boats and service trucks traveling through the residential area. Increased traffic in this area is detrimental to family life as the road is a major thoroughfare for cycling and walking, the higher volume of traffic increases safety risks and produces a high level of noise pollution.

River foreshore infrastructure: there are currently three fishing charter boats located on the river at the junction of Marlin Drive and New Entrance Road. Clients park their vehicles along the road and on the proposed development site. In the tourist/holiday season the parking area at the boat ramp is always overflowing to the road and onto the proposed development. The proposed development would increase the parking issues and safety to road users.

Camping and holiday accommodation: South West Rocks and the Arakoon area already has 4 separate tourist parks that more than adequately meet demand for this type of accommodation throughout the year. The proposed development on New Entrance Road would therefore be completely unnecessary for visitor requirements and would create an unattractive blot on the landscape of the Macleay River surrounds. The proposed development would also create the potential for permanent low cost housing - a situation that should be avoided at all costs, not least because of the potential threat to the river foreshore, existing residential areas and the surrounding wetland.

See attached

See attached

see attached

see attached

My submission is attached.

Please see attached submission from Council

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment