Properly Made Submission (object) - Frank Wilkie - MCU12/0023

     Jf
.~

                                                                                               liiiii ii
                                                                                                    80483955


          Dear Sir,
                                                                                                        (9
          Re "Proposed development, have your say"


          Material Change of Use...Appln No. MCU12/0023


          I write to object to the further concessions demanded by the Scanlan Property Group (SPG)

          regarding the redevelopment of what was once a caravan park with affordable accommodation
          and amenities.


          That the redevelopment will go forward is a "fait accompli" due in no small measure to the fact

          that our Council unwisely chose an expert who, unhappily, for rate payers like me, produced a

          Report which supported the opinion of the opposition’s expert??

          As a result, my luckless Council was forced into negotiations with SPG which led to consent

          orders being made in the Court. From these facts emerge several matters pertinent to the

          present issue.




                 Before agreement was reached between the parties, the Council fought and held the

                 line   on   the issue of outdoor   dining, gaining a concession from SPG that it would
                 abandon its claim in this regard. Apparently the Council successfully argued, inter alia,

                 that, because of the      noise    factor, outdoor dining should   not form   part of the
                 redevelopment, and SPG agreed and signed off on the agreement. This then became an
                 order of the Court allowing SPG to otherwise proceed with its planned development.



                 Now SPG brings a fresh application to the Court seeking to vary the original conditions

                 of approval. In this application it seeks to raise, once again, the issue of outdoor dining

                 which our Council had previously vigorously and successfully opposed on the basis that

                 it would create unacceptable levels of noise, particularly in the late evenings.



                 Council’s apparent lack of intention to oppose this present application using the same

                successful arguments is a     puzzlement, and its lack of enthusiasm to argue the case
                disappointingly craven. One would hope that this is not yet another issue of a Council
                simply caving in to the demands of a developer. One suspects, indolence and / or
                incompetence is more likely the reason behind this failure of our Council to act on
                behalf of those who put it there.



                In addition to trying to re-argue the outdoor dining issue, SPG have requested that the

                addition of balconies to 14 motel style units now be permitted. These balconies did not




                                                                         1I1!-

                                                            ~;<: ...U.L~/.... .~...........I
                                                                             R:

                                                                                    Pf;(t