Wollombi Valley update - 20 November 2009

Date: 20-Nov-09
Author: Peter Firminger
Log in or join to add comments below

CC: Mayor Alison Davey, The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon, The Hon George Souris, The Hon Kerry Hickey and the approx 330 Wollombi Valley Online members

Hi all,

Events for the coming week [removed for brevity]... but first some thoughts:

An interesting couple of weeks here with the Council LEP information meeting last week doing pretty much a backflip on the proposed E3 zone.

Director of City Planning Darryl Fitzgerald chaired a fairly quiet meeting which resulted in a couple of points. 1) That there would be no 50m buffer zone along the Great North Road (in Wollombi Valley) and 2) that the planning staff would recommend to Council, a holding RU2 zone for Wollombi Valley, rather than the E3 zone currently on display. "Holding" as it is in lieu of a comprehensive study,which is not likely to happen until 2011/12.

It is hoped that this study will identify real areas that deserve E3 protection while leaving the agricultural areas in the valley floor without further bureaucratic restrictions.

This statement, supporting the vast majority of submissions already sent to Council (on this issue), was of course met with calls of foul play by the E3 supporters and while they do have a small point - in that the exhibition period hasn't yet finished so statements like this can be seen as premature - it's really not a big deal, the Director was simply telegraphing current thinking - his opinion - which I believe he is entitled to do. The system works and the majority view has risen to the top as it should do in a democracy.

But it's not over. If you have a view on any issue in the proposed Cessnock LEP 2009 in it's exhibited form and haven't yet sent in a submission, please please still do so. The number of 300 or so submissions is not just from Wollombi Valley on this topic, it's LGA-wide on all issues surrounding the proposed LEP.

Still on Council matters (and the democratic will of the people), Cunneens Bridge is an accident waiting to happen. Since four Cat 1 tankers from Singleton went over it during the Watagans fire (they are 13 tonnes GVM each - way over the 4 tonne limit), the bridge has been further damaged with a loose plank now jeopardising all vehicles crossing the bridge, especially motor cycles. Who knows what other damage occurred to the structure.

We need the bridge fixed/replaced/whatever NOW Council!

It needs an immediate survey to ascertain the current safety level following the recent damage.

Many people have said this and I'll say it again. If there is a death or injury on that bridge due to pathetic malingering to appease a whinging minority (and a fictitious vision of a totally undocumented yet supposedly proposed "cultural precinct" - on private land I might add), the death or injury will be solely on the hands of every person involved in purposely holding this up (and I give myself a yellow card for adjective abuse in this paragraph :)

We made our decision as a community in September last year, which agreed with the preferred Council plan. Acquire the required land immediately downstream and build the new bridge with the funding that has been already allocated by the Federal Government. Fight over the compensation due (depending on the Dept. Lands boundary dispute) later, that won't change.

The best solution (as it has always been regardless of the three options offered) is to fix the current bridge. I'm not an engineer but you can't tell me that $1.25M in repairs to the current bridge won't fix at least the major issues - along with keeping the skills in timber bridge-building alive. How's that for a living heritage strategy? Fund the Cutting repairs from the rates - as should be the case anyway.

Remember, at least part of the money alloca

Comments (5)

Posted: 20-Nov-09 14:40 by Dolores Permalink

Thanks Peter,

Although Patrick and I are currently in Korea we still have a vested interested in developments and activities in the Wollombi Valley. Your entire report was extremely informative and well presented and not a rant at all!!

Keep up the good work.

Have a great weekend and best regards
Dolores

Posted: 23-Nov-09 13:40 by Paul Flemming Permalink

Hi Peter,

Draft Local Environmental Plan 2009.

I fully agree with your endorsement of the democratic process, in this and most similar situations. Those crying foul will feel less hardly done by when they digest the Department of Planning's (DoP's) comprehensive guidelines for applying Environment Protection zones, issued for the first time on 30.04.09, which clarify that E3 is not the appropriate zoning for Wollombi Valley, and RU2 is. For reference, google "LEP practice note PN 09-002", and see in particular, the "Local environmental provisions" section on page 2, under which environmental sensitivities within rural land are to be addressed using RU1 or RU2 zoning, overlay maps and local provisions clauses.

You'll also note that dot-point-three in the same section precludes sub-zones, which I interpret as arising from the addition of inappropriate objectives and/or permitted-with-consent land uses. DoP's failure to issue these comprehensive interpretive guidelines with, or soon after, the launch of the Standard Instrument (Template) in 2006 is reprehensible in view of the great waste of time and money this deficiency has caused, and we shouldn't be too hard on our Council planners, who, it seems probable, got their interpretation of zoning from DoP Newcastle. We do blame DoP Newcastle for ignoring our letter to the Minister of 11 September 2008, which was passed to them. In it, we pointed out in a clear exposition that "the integrity of the Standard LEP Instrument is being compromised by the distortion of the purpose of the E3 Environmental Management zone by the Cessnock planners". DoP Newcastle acknowledged our letter, said it would be considered, and then approved exhibition unamended. It is therefore with a mixture of frustration and satisfaction that we read on page 7 in the guidelines "It is important that councils maintain the integrity of E zones by including only uses consistent with the zone objectives".

Cunneens

Also fully agree with your comments on Cunneens, except as regards timber repair. I attended the three workshops which Council held with the Cunneens Bridge Group (the group to whom I assume you make colourful reference). I was there to observe for Wollombi Valley Progress Association. Although I'm an engineer, I was not to participate, as I was deemed "not like-minded". The workshops proceeded through the following stages;

* Repair existing bridge - not possible, as almost all timbers, particularly piers and girders, are too far rotted away, and a number of girders have major cracks. In other words, it would be "throw the lot away and start again".

* Re-build as is - not an option, as RTA will not accept single-lane replacement bridges on this class of road. Must cater for at least 50 years horizon, as I recall, but it may be 100 years.

* Two lanes with footpath therefore mandatory. Council engineers drew up and costed such a timber bridge design. Cost around $4M and at least $2M more than concrete. Timber bridges also have whole-of-life maintenance costs far exceeding concrete bridges. The group accepted that the combination of initial and ongoing cost differences couldn't be justified.

* At the group's request, council engineers then designed and costed a timber decked concrete bridge passing directly above the old bridge, with its concrete piers passing up through holes in the deck of the old bridge. This was set aside on a number of grounds and the group then switched to their cultural precinct approach, to which you refer.

As much as I understand the sentiments you and many others have expressed regarding retaining the bridge in timber, you'll see that repair or replacement of the bridge in timber was fully researched and could not be cost-justified, in this day and age. Minutes of the three workshops record that the Cunneens Bridge Group accepted this at the time. Accordingly, I think you should communicate this to your readers to allay any hopes or wrong im

Posted: 23-Nov-09 14:25 by Peter Firminger Permalink

Thanks Paul,

I agree totally on the LEP Comments. Well said!

I'm happy to publish the info above to clear up my Cunneens Bridge comments. I guess I ran on from my main point, being, "Acquire the required land immediately downstream and build the new bridge with the funding that has been already allocated by the Federal Government." so I essentially agree with you.

I know that the wooden bridge is not going to be repaired/restored or replaced by a new wooden bridge, but - in my opinion - it is the best solution. I don't see a need for two lanes and a footpath on that road, in that location, now or in the next 100 years but let's move on...

Remember, I'm not speaking on behalf of any group. I'm not a member of Progress and I therefor wasn't invited onto the Cunneens Bridge sub-committee (and if you recall I was rather rudely removed from the LEPA Group sub-committee but, even though I resigned from Progress over this ridiculous action, I continue to whole-heartedly support the LEPA Group and the Progress Association in general).

I'm happy to publish ANY view on this website (as it is here for everyone in Wollombi Valley), or forward any view to the relevant mailing list if I deem it required.

Anyone challenged by the technology is free to email material to me and I'll put it online for them (in their name).

Regards,

Peter

Posted: 24-Nov-09 12:18 by Stephen Permalink

Congratulations on one of the best Newsletters I have read - keep up the good work
Stephen

Posted: 25-Nov-09 10:15 by Peter Firminger Permalink

I note that the loose plank on Cunneens Bridge was replaced by at least Tuesday afternoon

Join or log in to leave a comment