I attended the public meeting at the Kendall Services and Citizens' Club at which amendments to the development application were to be presented to the residents of Kendall with a view to assuring us that the proposal is of great benefit to Kendall and its residents. Sadly, the meeting was a great disappointment.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This proposal has been the subject of a number of rather lively public meetings of the people of Kendall.
The last resulted in a massive effort by the people lodging with the council more than 110 objections to the proposed development.
While the developers are to be commended for their willingness to listen to the people and to amend their plan to meet the right of the people of Kendall to determine the nature and style of their own community, the proposed changes are light-weight, cosmetic and ineffective.
They do not address the issues of access, provision of hygiene and public utilities and services, and road traffic noise and congestion which the residents of Kendall rightly consider to be aspects critical to their community. A reduction in the number of accommodation units, modification of the building facades, removal of the compound perimeter fence are but a sop to the misgivings the public has about the effect of the development on Kendall and do not address the basic issues. Kendall is a quiet, co-operative country village where children can safely walk to school, not a Mid-North Coast imitation of Parramatta Road; it is a place where there are facilities for people of all ages; it is a place where life is good. I would like it to remain that way.
The effects on the village of the proposed development are potentially substantial and will eat away the heart of the nature of the community. As responsible citizens we have a duty to do what is best for our community. This does not include nor permit the making of bad decisions and putting the failure down to the ‘gaining of experience’. We need to get it right first time. I was also disappointed that neither the developers nor the council had thought to explore alternative ‘out of the box’ solutions to the issues raised in the 110 in-principle objections to the development.
Some of these issues are the clear responsibility of the council but will be paid for by the developer and subsequently by the purchaser-tenant of the resort. The fact remains that unless suitably and effectively addressed, these issues will not go away; nor is it acceptable to have them deferred to some point in the distant future.
It is a shame that the character and spirit of the community of Kendall should be so nakedly available to be compromised in so cavalier a fashion.
