Botany Bay City Council - Dirty Tricks, Incompetence or Hidden Agenda?

Below I have provided a copy of an e-mail sent to Rodger Dowsett (Director - Planning and Development), all councillors at City of Botany Bay Council, and the Hon. Kristine Keneally, MP.

Please read it and, if amenable, write to the above with your objection to this outrageous development. This development is in your "backyard". You can do something to stop it. Your objection is important.

Don't hesitate to call me to discuss any matter: 0409 821 266, anytime.

You can also make a comment on FaceBook. Click on this link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Council-Gripe/139073275202

You can also have a voice through concerned newspaper editors by sending a letter to these papers. The email addresses are;

Daily papers.

Daily Telegraph: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/letter

Sydney Morning Herald: letters@smh.com.au

Weekly papers.

Central: editor@centralmag.com.au

City News: citynews@alternativemediagroup.com

Southern Courier: southerncourierletters@couriernews.com.au

Monthly

South Sydney Herald: letters@ssh.com.au

You can also have your say by making a comment on: www.CouncilGripe.com

Thanks for your support.

Jerome Whitcroft

www.SaveRosebery.org

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, jebtorch@yahoo.com wrote:

From: jebtorch@yahoo.com
Subject: Newmarket Hotel + Manhattan Superbowl "New" Re-development...
To: "Rodger Dowsett" , mayor@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, council@botanybay.nsw.gov.au
Cc: council@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, mayor@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, anne.slattery@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, brian.troy@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, george.glinatsis@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, greg.mitchell@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, heffron@parliament.nsw.gov.au, mark.castle@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, stan.kondilios@botanybay.nsw.gov.au, office@keneally.minister.nsw.gov.au
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 11:30 AM

8th June 2009

Mr. Rodger Dowsett,

Director – Planning and Development

City of Botany Bay

Coward Street

Mascot, 2020

Newmarket Hotel + Manhattan Superbowl Re-development

City of Botany Bay: DA 09/278

I am now in receipt of your letters (25th and 27th May, 2009) regarding the amendment to DA 09/278 which seeks to extend the proposed 'licensed' trading hours of the subject properties.

This amendment to DA 09/278 contained in your letters of the 25th and 27th of May is outrageous. It is also in total contradiction to your previous advice of the 15 April, 2009 in which you stated: "... No changes to the existing trading hours of the hotel."

Notwithstanding the above, the information provided by the owners and the applicant's consultants - and in turn quoted by you - regarding the existing trading hours of the hotel, is wrong: The hotel is not permitted – and it is not licensed - to trade, "…10.00am to 3.00am...", as quoted by you.

You know what the actual trading hours of the Newmarket Hotel are, because your previous correspondence in this matter reflects those licensed trading hours, yet you make no effort to correct this misleading, if not devious, claim.

Your concealment of the factual trading hours may have deceived those who received these latest letters and those who received the original Development Proposal letter dated, 15 April 2009. Thus, those person’s rights have been compromised. They deserve to be informed of the truth.

Accordingly, please correct this situation by advising the actual trading hours - in writing - to all of the affected parties. Also, please have the owners and their consultants re-submit this amendment to reflect the factual trading hours and the reasons why the extension of hours is required. Please observe the statutory requirements for notice to affected parties. We await your written advices as to the progress of those matters.

Again, I confirm that I represent more than 300 persons who have petitioned their opposition to:

The proposed redevelopment of these properties; and,
The extension of trading hours by the operators of these businesses.
The issues relating to the opposition and objections to this matter have been put to you and all councillors of C of BB in writing and through many discussions and at a public meeting in July last year. As a result of those discussions and the meeting the previous DA was "withdrawn" because of the backlash of adverse public sentiment over the proposed extension of trading hours and the scale of the proposed re-development.

On behalf of the petitioners, we again object to the re-development and the extension of trading hours of these properties. The grounds for objection have been set out in previous correspondence and in a report prepared by Mr. George Smith of town planning and development consultants, DESIGN COLLABORATIVE PTY. LTD. Again, we attach a copy of the report provided to you in August, 2008.

The above report concluded that the proposed development should not be approved. The reasons are too numerous to mention here, but in essence the scale and magnitude of the proposed re-development and the impact of changes in the uses and the operations of the businesses would have a severe negative effect on the amenity of the surrounding properties, homes and families and the primary school, it's staff and its pupils and families located directly opposite the subject properties.

Again, this "new" DA is almost a carbon copy of DA 08/223. It, too, seeks to almost double the size of the operations within this venue, enlarge the licensed areas, amalgamate the site, increase the size of the improvements and change the use and the operations of the three properties. It also proposes to extend the current trading hours of the hotel over all of the subject properties. Further, it seeks a major - if not unlimited - expansion of its 'entertainment' potential whilst compounding the negative effects of the current problematic operations.

The owners continue to operate in violation of planning conditions and controls. The 2009/278 DA proposal does not address the operators’ and owners’ long-standing non-compliance and violation of planning conditions going back to 1999, nor the rectification of issues raised with council over the last 10 months by the Residents' Consultative Committee (RCC), and other parties. The owner continues to ignore the issues of non-compliance with its obligations and many planning violations including excessive noise, nuisance and disturbance by its patrons, security lapses, traffic congestion, illegal uses, parking and access problems and other serious abuses. The 2009/278 proposal is premised on this unlawful situation. The 2009/278 proposal presumes this as precedent for further inappropriate development. This is an abuse of the planning process and should be rectified.

The council also continues to turn a blind eye to these long-standing problems. The proposed re-development will only compound the above issues. Please tell us why the issues that were raised in that report - and accepted as unlawful by you - have not been acknowledged or referred to in this "new" proposal? Please tell us why you and the council have failed to demand that these issues be addressed in this "new" proposal? Is this applicant receiving special treatment?

As per the previous proposal, the exhibited "new" DA is incomplete and does not contain information necessary to understand the full ramifications of this major re-development and its undisclosed uses. As you know, the supporting documentation attempts to play down the true impact on the neighbourhood and community through vague, erroneous and deceptive information and flawed propositions. The contentious issues raised with Council are not dealt with appropriately.

Again, we object to this DA proposal as it is not in the interests of the existing affected parties. Accordingly, on behalf of the RCC (Residents' Consultative Committee) and the affected parties, we request that the C of BB set aside the process of this proposal until such time as full disclosure and proper public consultation has been affected.

Further, I confirm our discussion of the first of June, in which you - again - advised me that you will respond in writing to my letters on behalf of the RCC (Residents' Consultative Committee) relating to the non-compliance of planning conditions and licensing violations by the current operators of these two businesses. You made verbal assurances on three other occasions since July last year, yet you continue to duckshove these crucial issues and avoid a meaningful response. Please reply as a matter of urgency.

On behalf of the affected persons, I request, Under Section 12 of the Local Government Act that you provide copies of all correspondence and information relating to this DA received or sent on behalf of Council on and after the date of the 15 April, 2009. Kindly have the documents available for collection on Wednesday, 10th June, next.

Yours, sincerely,

Jerome Whitcroft

www.SaveRosebery.org

• Botany Council
• Not Fixed
• General