A.White Kabi Submission

Town Planning Conditions

     24. When Kabi was originally approved, I assume Council included Town Planning Conditions
         to prevent the integrated Permaculture component of the application being exploited as
         ‘greenwash’ just to gain approval and later ‘dis-integrated’ for commercial convenience.

     25. Whilst CYC may not have witnessed events of 2011 under the former owner, it seems
         unlikely they’d be unaware of Kabi’s history and therefore have a responsibility to ensure
         assertions made in their applications and public notification documents are factual.

     26. I note CYC contends “The golf course has continued to be maintained and used since its
         construction more than 20 years ago”, however events of 2011 prove that when Kabi
         closed its gates to golfers in preparation for sale, the operation discontinued its “Use” as a
         public golf course/orchard.

     27. CYC’s main argument to support their contention the golf course is operating as a “Use” is
         a reference to the ‘great cost to owner’ of mowing the closed golf links. See Pivotal
         Perspective’s Planning report:

         “In terms of the golf course use, the course and greens have been mowed up to 2 times per
         week and the bunkers maintained since the use commenced. If the use was not operating,
         why would this occur at great cost to the owner.”

     28. I contend the ‘cost to the owner’ of mowing a disused recreation facility during liquidation
         of its assets is irrelevant to the issue of the premises permitted “Use”, pursuant to the
         original development permit (as referred to in Conditions 43 and 54).

     29. It appears at some point after 2011 some activities compatible with the site’s former
         permaculture “Use” may have resumed, which of course is “as of right” not requiring a
         permit in the Rural Zone.

     30. However, I reject any contention the possible resumption of Permaculture activities on
         the site could somehow restore the lapsed approval of the sport/recreational facility and
         its ancillary “Uses”.

     31. I also note the CYC application fails to clarify if the owners have maintained organic
         certification through membership of the Biological Farmers Association, which raises
         questions regarding compliance with Town Planning ‘Condition 44’ of the original
         approval:

         Condition [44] The Owner/operators of the proposed development are required to be
         members of the Biological Farmers of Australia. Accordingly, there is not to be any use of
         non-organic chemicals on the site.

     32. I contend the above information proves beyond doubt the originally approved “Use” of
         the premises as an “Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course
         Complex (18 holes)” lapsed in 2011, as confirmed by Council at the time.



                                                                                          Page 6 of 10