sctg-banner-wide2.png
spreads.gif

Are the Tuross heritage grazing lots under attack again by an oft suspected Council


To the Beagle Editor, PROPOSED AMENDED LEP 2012

Ex-councillor Keith Dance’s letter would have rendered far better service to the probity of its argument had its author:

  • Declared his background as a member of the Rural Lands Strategy Committee (RLSC) upon whose deliberations we are told the above amended LEP turns: (ie. he could hardly take any other position than the one the letter publicly espouses)

  • Shared the fact of the resignation (whether subsequently replaced is unknown) of at least one well regarded RLSC member before completion of that committee’s deliberations: ie ‘the dissenting minority’ of which the letter disdainfully speaks would appear to reach up even into the hallowed ranks of RLSC

  • Rather than apparently categorising technically expert objections (presumably still substantially in place) by implication as “ spurious” and as associated with a “minority view”, acknowledged in full the four non-partisan State Agencies as objectors most significantly including, though not named, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

  • Displayed the intellectual rigour to concede, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, that his letter’s assertions about views which might not coincide entirely with his own as those of a “minority” were mere opinion and nothing more.

To prove both the unassailable integrity of the proposed LEP and that it is not about imposing a “one size fits all’ formula upon all Shire rate-payers, in particular upon the local Tuross Head community, this letter publicly invites the Author and/or Council to give iron-clad guarantees in full view of the public via this Letters page, before the closing date, regarding the protections the Amended LEP proposes to provide to the Shire’s much-loved and iconic Heritage Grazing Lands, failing which it must be assumed it doesn’t. Consistent with the Minister’s advice, a proposed (E3) Environment Management zoning would give the logical and correct protections which the now proposed RU1 zoning would effectively strip away with its greatly expanded suite of wholly inappropriate uses - technically even including “Home Occupation (sex services)”. Even a Councillor publicly described the Tuross Head community’s vehement commitment back in 2002, as “Loud and Clear”. As recently as last year (quite unbelievably given the above) one of Cllr Liz Innes’ first challenges as newly minted Mayor was wisely to move swiftly to extinguish the spot fires of growing community disquiet left as an inheritance by the previous Council concerning yet another attempt to change the status of part of those Heritage Lands. Her exemplary conduct in this matter did her great credit and flagged her own electoral commitment to adopting a fresh approach in terms of Council’s responsiveness and transparency in its dealings with its principal stakeholders. Unequivocal public assurances in regards to full conservation of this unique Community bequest and prime tourism attraction, with its rich seam of Culturally Significant local history, would do much to persuade the Tuross Head community that the Amended LEP, as ex-Councillor Dance’s letter insists, is absolutely about ensuring that “all relevant protections are in place”, in this case concerning land that is community owned, not just privately.

Sincerely,

Fitzroy Boulting

Tuross Head

#Opinion

COMMENTS : You can use a pen name or better yet use your real name, you must provide a valid email address (that does not get published) and your comment will be moderated prior to approval (or rejection if that is the determination of the moderator). Refer to our Terms and Conditions if you have any questions) 

Please note that from time to time comments are archived. If you are looking for a previous comment no longer visible please contact us. Last Archived 7th July 2019