Letters to the editor - December 22, 2017

There has even been a recent sighting of deer hoofprints on a Far South Coast beach. How to explain to Rudolf fans, such as my grandaughter, that deer are viewed as fair game by many hunters who will seek them to shoot them? They then hang their magnificent antlered heads on walls as a sign of man's dominance over nature.

Many have asked why Eurobodalla Shire Council really purchased the former Batemans Bay Bowling Club site.

The mayor at the time had his name attached to releases asking for community input and ideas about what they’d like to see done with the site, and even economic opportunities for consideration.

The site was identified as a “gateway site”.

The southern boundary of the shire doesn’t seem to have a gateway identity, though. 

It’s understood senior staffers have attempted to obtain support from the Batemans Bay Chamber of Commerce with the “gateway” theme, but are having trouble.

There appears to be no developed plan, adding to speculation it was a speculative purchase or gamble.   

It’s also indicated the RMS is likely to be using the area for the next five or so years, while new bridges are built at Nelligen and Batemans Bay, giving time for proper discussions about development opportunities.

The new bridge really should be designed and developed as the northern shire gateway.

Wouldn’t that make sense?

I wish to share Eurobodalla Shire Council’s response to my three questions regarding the Batemans Bay Aquatic and Arts Precinct (Bay Post/Moruya Examiner, December  December 6).

Question 1: Apart from Otium, who provided the other two quotes for the development (a mandatory requirement under the council’s Code for Procurement)?

Answer: 

Question 2: Why were community submissions not sought on the concept plan?

This question remains unanswered as the response is made up of seven paragraphs of copy and paste blurbs’ relating to how council informed the community and provided information about the project. Which, of course, has nothing to do with community input on the concept plan as specified in the question. The only opportunity for input was in regard to the use of the bowling club, which is not part of the development.

Question 3: I seek your comments regarding whether the Principles of your Community Engagement Framework (CEF) have been met. I refer to the council’s letter to schools seeking support for grant funding, which did not include the concept plan with a 25m pool – “did the participants get all the information they needed to provide meaningful input?”(CEF)

Answer: (We are) “satisfied that the principles of the CEF have been met in the planning process to date … at the time of seeking letters of support for the purpose of grant funding, the business case and concept plan options were available to view on the council’s website.”

So the schools are at fault? If only they had checked out the council’s website, they wouldn’t have had to withdraw their support. A shameful justification for a shameful act.