MORPETH RESIDENT ACTION GROUP

The Traffic Assessment does not take into account construction traffic, particularly trucks bringing in fill right through the centre of town or conversely, taking it away. It does not address other construction vehicles during construction or provide even the framework for a Construction Management Plan.

​

​

The proposal is inconsistent with the following objectives and strategies of SEPP 36 – Manufactured Home Estates: 

“2 Aims and strategies

(1) The aims of this Policy are—

…

(d) to ensure that manufactured home estates are situated only in suitable locations and not on land having important resources or having landscape, scenic or ecological qualities that should be preserved, and

(e) to ensure that manufactured home estates are adequately serviced and have access to essential community facilities and services, and

(f) to protect the environment surrounding manufactured home estates, and

…

(2) The strategies by which those aims are to be achieved are—

(a) by allowing, with development consent, manufactured home estates on certain land on which caravan parks are permitted if the land meets the suitable locational criteria stipulated in this Policy (which it would not do if, for example, it contains important resources, is subject to natural or man-made risks or has sensitive environmental or ecological features), and

(b) by applying this Policy to areas where there is likely to be a demand and suitable opportunities for the development of manufactured home estates, and

…”

 

The development could also be excluded by Schedule 2 of the SEPP because the Site – not just the bit being developed - contains a wetland and is partly zoned “environmental conservation” and part “rural”.

​

·Clause 9 of the SEPP - Council has to be satisfied the development can be supplied with reticulated water, a reticulated sewerage system, drainage and electricity – but there is no services strategy or documentation demonstrating it can be provided apart from the Hunter Water stamped plans (which is not an assessment of being able to supply the services).

​

There is no economic or social impact assessment to demonstrate the likely social and economic effects – both positive and negative and no justification that people living in the development will have adequate access to community facilities or services.

​

There is no ecological assessment of the impact on the previously identified threatened species or potential koala habitat: https://webmap.environment.nsw.gov.au/Html5Viewer291/index.html?viewer=KoalaSEPP.htm5

​

There is no assessment of the extent of earthworks required – how much the land surface will be modified and whether there will be fill imported or taken away. There is no assessment of whether the fill will be placed within the flood zone or where exactly the 1:100 year flood level is and no assessment of whether the fill will displace floodwaters.

​

There is no detail or assessment of how many dwellings will be within the flood zone – that is, they will still be sitting in floodwater but the floor level is 500mm above that water level. And no assessment of whether the flood waters will push the dwellings off their foundations.

​

There is a big difference between the 1:100 year flood event and the PMF – Probable Maximum Flood and no assessment of what happens in the PMF. This is critical as there are potentially many more people being put at risk during such an event.

​

An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan should be provided up front with the DA, as should a Site Environmental management Plan, considering the land contains a wetland.

​

There has been no Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report and no liaison with police.

​

There is also no street lighting strategy or demonstration how the estate will be illuminated at night.

​

There is no assessment demonstrating that there is an actual need for this form of housing, despite the claims made in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE).

​

The applicant has not provided a Preliminary Site Assessment to demonstrate the change of use from Rural to Residential does not present a contamination risk or demonstrate that the provisions of Clause 7 of SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land has been satisfied.

​

​

An almost identical development proposal on this site, proposed by the same developer, was refused in 2007.  The rejection placed significant weight to how contrary the development would have been to the heritage of Morpeth

​

​

A summary of the refusal is as follows:

​

“The impact of this proposal will not just impact on the rural character of Morpeth but significantly change the traditional boundaries and footprint of the village, and thereby change the very nature of its significance of its listing. The proponent has undertaken heritage studies arguing that the town boundaries can be extended and attempted to address these issues through design. However it is determined that the matter cannot be resolved and that the location of the proposed development is not appropriate. “

​

“The Morpeth Management Plan 2000, a Council Policy guiding the future management of Morpeth, identifies Morpeth as a separate and distinct component in the landscape. It reinforces that the type of dwellings should be single storey detached, although two storeys may be considered on steep slopes providing street frontages are always single storey. Multiple housing developments may be considered for special needs in limited numbers”

​

“It is considered that the proposed expansion of the town would severely compromise the heritage significance of the Morpeth township as a result of: 

•  fundamental changes to the town’s historically intact layout and loss of the existing town’s rural aspect and vista; 

•  the creation of a divided town whereby different design and urban design characteristics would be clearly evident; 

•  High density and building pattern of the development; 

•  Inappropriate scale of buildings within the development 

​

Development of the site will set a strong precedent for the development of land to the west of the existing lot. This is a crucial implication of any approval, which would lead to the visual merging of the Morpeth Township to Morpeth Manor and Raworth.” 

 

“Council has received correspondence from Mr Jim Arneman the Labor Candidate for Paterson representing a local resident of the Morpeth community. The concerns raised relate to the lack of facilities currently available and the inability of Morpeth to deal with a possible expansion of the local population, and the potential for the proposed development to destroy the atmosphere of the town.”

 

“The National Trust requested that the proposal be referred for their consideration. The Trust is concerned that the proposed location and scale of the development will have a major and detrimental effect on the special qualities and character of the historic town of Morpeth”

​

A copy of the full document is contained in the following PDF:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​