I don’t understand how an area “that was not serviced” and surrounded by houses that clearly are “serviced” could have been a problem, much less ambitious.

My understanding is that during the three years between submitting plans for DA approval in 2006 and getting “conditional” approval in 2009 many things changed. The Eurobodalla started its much maligned LEP with its new zonings and environmental constraints which moved the goal posts considerably.

The chosen locale would have been appraised for its viability by the developer prior to attempting the project.

Clearly it was a viable proposition when it was first submitted to council way back in 2006 and yet, three long years after submission, it had become unviable.

While it is true that approval was given for the project in 2009 it is also true that the approval was conditional. And there’s the fly in the ointment.

In the real world approval means yes, however, in our council’s world approval can be conditional, which means you can go ahead provided you are able to meet certain conditions, which is a another way of saying yes while simultaneously saying no.

It’s like the wife giving you approval to go to the pub on the condition that: you mow the lawn, build a shed, hang a new front door and fix the washing machine – you’re never going to meet those conditions and still make it to the pub, but she did say you could go.

The facts remain, while NSW has become an economic powerhouse on the back of a property/

construction boom, the Eurobodalla is in a property and construction slump.

It is also clear that other people with ambitions for this shire are watching on and going to other shires that encourage ambition.

Michael Johnson

Tuross Head