Ecovillage - Letter to Editor

Sentinel Times 13-Jul-10 - Letter to Editor

Dear Sir,
In response to your article in last week’s paper about the Cape Paterson Ecovillage proposal we take issue with statements by the developer that the independent Panel appointed by the Planning Minister demonstrated a ‘lack of understanding of the sustainability attributes of the project’ and showed ‘a very narrow interpretation’ of coastal set back policy.

Both these issues were dealt with extensively during the nine-day Panel hearing. The developer was represented throughout by a Queen’s Counsel and called eight expert witnesses to make presentations on their behalf. The community had no legal representation and called one expert witness. 

To suggest that the Panel showed ‘a lack of understanding’ is insulting to the Panel member’s professionalism and independence.  A frequent comment during the lengthy Panel process was that everyone had received a fair hearing, regardless of the outcome, and that after six years this issue would finally be resolved. Instead, councillors are now being lobbied to reject the Panel recommendations, despite the detailed strategic analysis presented in the Panel’s report.

The panel’s conclusion regarding C53 (Ecovillage) was that “on balance the special sustainability features of this project are insufficient to set aside the disadvantages of the development of this site” and they recommended that C53 should not be approved.

Our association is also concerned about misleading statements being circulated in the community about the relationship between Bass Coast Amendments C53 (Ecovillage) and C93 (Strategic Coastal Framework which sets town boundaries). Any suggestion that councillors can choose between the Ecovillage OR development to the north of Cape Paterson is either uninformed or deliberately misleading.

Development to the north of the township will happen regardless of what happens to the Ecovillage. Whilst our association is actively campaigning to reduce the amount of land allocated, we are under no misconception that approving C53 would prevent future development to the north.

The association’s position since 2004 has been to support limited development to the north as the preferred option for Cape Paterson and that expansion to the west is in breach of local and state planning policy and sets a dangerous precedent for other coastal townships. 

We encourage concerned members of the community to read the full Panel report - available at council offices - so they are fully aware of the many other strategic issues considered during the hearing. We have also placed a summary document on the Community Exchange website at www.capepaterson.asn.au

Regards
Cape Paterson Residents and Ratepayers Association