 |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Representing the communities of McCarrs Creek, www.wpca.org.au; email: community@wpca.org.au Pittwater Council MONA VALE. NSW 1660 4th September, 2008 Dear Sir: RE: Church Point POM The West Pittwater Community Association Committee wishes to thank Council for bringing the Church Point Plan of Management to its current stage of broad acceptance. The Design Group, including both local and state officers together with volunteer community members, should be complimented on the plan developed and congratulated for giving so generously of their time. Whilst we applaud and generally support the plan, there are some particular issues that are of major concern to us. We would like to take this opportunity to put those concerns forward. At a Special General Meeting (SGM) held at 1. Multi-level car park. There is very little support for a multi-level car park opposite the The Offshore Community feels it · is inappropriate. · would be visually obtrusive. · would be difficult to adequately screen with landscaping. · would cause light pollution at night as one approached the commuter wharf. · would create a two tier system of users on the point. (Something the WPCA, in particular, has always opposed). The Multi-level car park will not necessarily result in a substantial net increase in parking spaces as many of those who can afford to pay the proposed fees are already doing so in the security of private marinas. We understand that it is a Robin Hood scheme, i.e. getting those well off to subsidise those less well off and it is acknowledged that it is an attempt to lower the costs to offshore residents. However the proposed fees are too high and inequitable to begin with.
The current master plan is the first holistic vision to be put forward for the Church Point Precinct and needs to be looked at — not for five or ten years — but for twenty or thirty years. It should be something to which everyone takes pride in contributing.
The multi-level car park is not a legacy the Western Foreshores Community supports or wishes to be associated with. 2. Proposed Fees: The proposed fees are excessive and potentially damaging to the social fabric of the Offshore Community. There is general consensus that the proposed fees — with or without the multi- level car park — are not equitable. The Offshore Community is being asked to directly contribute monies to something that is not solely for their use. The improvements are also for the general use of the wider/broader community who are not being asked to make any direct contribution.
Likewise, the Offshore Community’s contribution to the realignment of the roadway is disproportionate to its use by the greater community. It will benefit many. It corrects safety issues whilst also creating a bike lane and completing the Mona Vale to McCarr’s Creek walkway. It is suggested the road realignment be viewed as an improvement to the infrastructure at a Council and State level. The Offshore Community pay rates too — yet we are the only residents of Pittwater being asked to put our hands in our pockets for the upgrade, improvements and facilities. It seems unreasonable.
It is imperative, therefore, that Council works with the Offshore Community to ensure our contribution is equitable. It is also imperative that Council work with the Offshore Community to establish/negotiate a fair amount to be paid and the means of payment in order to prevent hardship and fragmentation of the social cohesion of the Offshore Community. As the improvements to the parking and commuter wharf will benefit all offshore residents the idea of an infrastructure levy to all offshore properties was put forward at the SGM. It was felt that this is the best way to ensure surety of revenue and numbers which in turn will minimise the amount to pay off these facilities over time. The great majority of those present supported this concept although there were concerns that provisions needed to be made for pensioners and hardship cases. As has been stated since the beginning of this process — the unimpeded right to get to and from our homes — like everyone else — is paramount. The detail stage now to be undertaken presents an ideal opportunity to — once again — engage with the community. We would like to understand the process that will now ensue. · When will feedback to the POM be analysed? · What will be the process of inclusion/incorporation of any amendments? · Will a new group be established to implement amendments to the CP POM? · What will be the time frame for preparing a capital works plan? · What will be the timeframe for the individual capital works detailed in the plan? · How will council work with the offshore community to ensure that the user pays fee structure is equitable, affordable, maintains social cohesion and does not cause hardship? I would like to stress that at that same meeting there was strong community support for the plan not withstanding those items mentioned above. We look forward to continuing our support for the Church Point Plan of Management and express our thanks to all for their hard work. Yours faithfully, President Copies: Cr. David James (Mayor) Cr. Patricia Giles (Deputy Mayor) Cr. Lynne Czinner Cr. Julie Hegarty Cr. Rex Butler Cr. Bob Grace Cr. Alex McTaggart Cr. Natalie Stevens
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| Site Map |