News

An update on the penalties imposed on both the landowner and the excavation company responsible for this environmental vandalism:

The matter has been settled out of court with an 'enforceable undertaking' in place for the landowner. This includes a fine of $70K to be paid to Council.

That $70K is just 2% of the cost of the $3M mansion that the land owner sought to build. A pathetically small sum for such environmental devastation.

Whilst an 'enforceable undertaking' to also replant the land may sound acceptable, the specific details of that undertaking raise a lot of questions:

• The undertaking was 'proffered' by the land owner - Surely they didn't write their own punishment??

• The land owner pleaded guilty to carrying out prohibited vegetation clearing on the land and carrying out development without first obtaining consent. Why then were they not dealt with by the Court and punished to the full extent of the law?

• The undertaking was signed off by the landowner and Council in April and the NSW Govt on 15 July. The $70K was to be paid within 30 days of the commencement date so Council hopefully now have that money.

• The land owner has submitted a DA for the site, the outcome of which has not yet been determined.

• The replanting works are to be completed within 18 months of the commencement date. If during that time the DA is granted, the replanting is to be completed within 2 years of the issuing of a construction certificate or prior to occupation of the dwelling, whichever comes first. So . . .if the replanting is started and then the DA is granted, does the area then subsequently become a building site?? What about any replanting that has already taken place?

• The undertaking includes a 5 year Vegetation Management Plan. This plan also estimates the vegetation recovery time for land in a highly disturbed condition, such as cleared areas, as 20 - 40 years. Given the level of vegetation degradation at this site, is a 5 year plan really appropriate or adequate??

• And anyway, once replanting has been completed the undertaking states it only needs to be maintained for 2 years.

• There's also a chart showing month by month the work that needs to be done. In the first month this work includes site stabilisation, weed control, tubestock planting and watering. Has this happened yet??

• The undertaking states that significant additional sediment controls also need to be installed and maintained to manage sediment outflows from the disturbed area. These controls should be managed under a dedicated sediment control plan. Is this plan now in place?? The sediment controls certainly aren't.

And what of the undertaking given by the earthwork's excavation company involved in the land clearing? Their fine of $40K goes to Councils Green Street planting budget, for Council to plant new trees in our streets and parks. And that money, along with the $15K for Councils legal costs, can be paid in instalments over 570 days.

If this is the best possible outcome, then the current system is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.

Council advised on 30 June that they  '. . . undertook a comprehensive asset inspection to assess the condition of the building. Regrettably, the inspection confirmed that the hall is uninhabitable and has reached the end of its usable life. The building is structurally unsound, with significant water damage and extensive black mold throughout, which poses serious health and safety risks. Due to these factors, the building is not repairable and cannot be reopened for community use.

Redevelopment of the hall is also not considered feasible under current and future planning controls, as the site is flood-affected and would require extensive, complex, and costly engineering to meet essential safety and design standards.'

Following our WRCA meeting on 16 July, a community delegation met with Council on 31 July. As a result of discussions:

• Councillor Cowell drafted a Notice of Motion requesting that Council review the ongoing use and condition of the Hall and consider options on how it can support its renewal and continuation as a community facility. This motion was accepted unanimously at the Council Meeting of 18 August.

• A building inspection report has been ordered to assess the current condition of the Hall and to explore any required remediation and renewal works. We are now waiting for the result of the report.

• There is a commitment from Councillors and Council staff to work toward reopening the hall for community use, once its safety and feasibility is confirmed.

Great news! Council has agreed to the request for additional tables and benches at the beach end of the Park. The additional seating is scheduled to be installed in early June, weather permitting. 

Update: It's August and its still raining! 

Many of our streets have river or water related names. 

On the East side of the river there's a collection of streets named after rivers in the UK and Ireland:

Tay Place The River Tay is the longest river in Scotland

Severn Road The River Severn is the longest river in Great Britain

Wye Close The River Wye is the 4th longest river in the UK

Mersey St The River Mersey is a UK major river from Liverpool to south of Manchester

Liffey Place The River Liffey is an Irish river that flows through the centre of Dublin

Thames St The  River Thames is the longest river in England and flows through London

On the west side of the river there is a collection of streets which are named after Australian rural towns or waterways derived from Aboriginal language words. The Aboriginal language names often include a reference to rivers or water. These include: Manilla Place, Boomi Place Yanko Close and Nundah Place.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woronora