The article quoted Mr David Adamson, a representative of the Kendall Resident’s Committee.

Mr Adamson drew attention to the fact that recreational facilities as proposed by the MHE developer, are a prohibited development in R1-General Residential Zoning, according to Council’s LEP Land Zone Table.  

In the article, both Camden Heads Lifestyle Villages P/L (the developer) and ‘a council spokesperson’ challenge this claim. 

It is very clear from council’s Land Use Table that recreation facilities (indoor and outdoor) are ‘prohibited’ in R1 zone. The word “prohibited” means forbidden. 

Yet according to the council spokesperson this prohibited item, is permitted, if it’s called, “ancillary to the development”. According to Department of Planning Practice Note PN 11-003 definition, ancillary would mean the recreational facilities are subservient/incidental to the development. 

Are we to believe the recreational facilities proposed are incidental to the MHE development? Without them the MHE would lose its ‘lifestyle resort’ concept. As such they’re hardly incidental.  

The developer on the other hand, refers to the recreational facilities as “community facilities”.  

Council’s LEP-Dictionary defines “community facility” as, “..a building or place owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation.” 

Perhaps council, or a Kendall community group will need to take control of the proposed MHE community/recreational facility, if this development is to proceed. 

They also both appeal to State Environmental Planning Policy. SEPP 36, claiming it permits a MHE in a residential zone. 

SEPP 36 does no such thing. It allows at 2(a) : “ ..with development consent, manufactured home estates on certain land on which caravan parks are permitted.” 

The question we ask council, was a caravan park ever considered, contemplated, advertised as required under DCP 1.3.2.1 and therefore permitted on this site when they zoned the land R1-General Residential ? 

We remind council that legislation states that MHEs may be permitted on,  “certain land on which caravan parks are permitted.” 

So how will we shape our village? Will this development set a desirable precedent, as claimed by the developer?

We believe that as R1 zoning, this site should at the very least provide standard residential housing, not a high density MHE development. 

This site is also compatible with R5 zoning- Large Lot Residential. With the level of growth being experienced in Port Macquarie and the surrounds, large lot residential will continue to be a highly sought after offering in the Camden Haven. 

You have a voice. What development precedent do we want to set for our village?

If you believe this MHE development will not serve Kendall, we urge all residents to write down your objections and submit to council, by the now extended deadline of August 13.

David Adamson, Wendy Hay, Millie Jones, Deb Bennett, Bishop Terry and Jan Gross

Kendall residents