It backed onto bushland, with eucalypts virtually in our yard; this was our idyll and we were anxious it remain so. Upon asking the estate agent about the possibility of the bush being cleared, his response was “not in your life time”.

I’m wondering if he foresaw our imminent demise; within a year the land was cleared and blocks up for sale. We were devastated, but after careful planting, have created our own haven with abundant birds and a yard big enough for privacy, but not a maintenance burden. That we are surrounded by 800 m square blocks is a plus. Broulee people want green corridors, and this is understood, but the armageddon-like conflagration which hit Tathra should make people rethink. We don’t need belts of eucalypts in the middle of houses; we need blocks bigger than handkerchiefs so owners can create their own green space.

Money-grubbing desires to cram as many houses into any one area is appalling. If households could create their own green space, we would not need a meeting as was held in Broulee recently. People would pay extra for larger blocks. I can’t believe we even allow such small blocks where there is no apparent shortage of land.

With the development of 500 houses along George Bass Drive, it is imperative recreational facilities are provided.  Clearing a small parcel of trees adjacent to Captain Oldrey Park would never be enough, so leave that section alone. Larger areas must be found to encourage children to outdoor and indoor sports that appeal and live a healthy life.  

There will be many critics of this letter, perhaps none more so than some councillors and developers, but without ideas, no further discussion will ensue. Let’s hear from dissenters and supporters; let us have your views.

Thanks in part to you publishing my letter of last week, advising of my sixth informal “have a coffee and a chat with a councillor” invitation to residents, I had a larger-than expected response last Saturday morning in Batemans Bay. (“Wee project”, Bay Post/Moruya Examiner, April 27)

Alas, due to circumstances beyond the control of the proprietor of the chosen coffee shop, it couldn't open.

There I was, footloose and caffeine-free, loitering, and soon joined by around 25 or so concerned residents, mostly from the Surfside area, gathered on the footpath outside a closed coffee shop.

In true democratic spirit, we had a footpath meeting anyway, lasting well over an hour.  People expressed their disparate views, some in measured tones, some more emphatically, about their concerns over the proposed Coastal Management Plan and the potential impact on their homes and investments. A key concern was the mapped and publicised inundation scenarios, as they impacted on their part of our shire.

It was a positive morning for me and I trust for those who showed up.

Subsequently, I was invited to meet  a smaller group (from the larger group on Saturday) of well-qualified (engineering) participants, to hear more technical arguments. I met them on Monday. They are residents of Surfside and, in my view, have a reasoned and co-operative attitude to engaging with the council, to have their views heard, and seek a way forward.

I have since had discussions with Mayor Liz Innes and she has genuinely welcomed the opportunity for this smaller group of three engineers/scientists to explain their concerns to councillors at a  briefing, to provide more information to help in future decisions.  

I will now butt out, leave it in the hands of our mayor, and look forward to the proposed briefing.

Did you know questions Eurobodalla Council asks in its Community Engagement Framework in relation to projects include:

In addition: “A project’s level of impact relates to how significantly a proposal or action will affect community stakeholders … defines the degree of impact in five levels …on the assumption that any project…will have some impact on the community.”

The council’s Community Engagement Charter (CEC) states it: “… will engage with the community and our stakeholders … in regard to major issues and plans affecting the region and activities that will have an impact on the community.”

In the case of “the removal of a shire-wide service/provision of a regional facility, the level of impact is 4: MODERATE – HIGH and requires collaboration - to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution”.

The council did not engage/collaborate with pool stakeholders. The council admitted it knew the 25m pool “would not be accepted”, insists the existing pool needs demolishing, yet keeps an engineer’s report secret and maintains an indefensible decision to remove Batemans Bays 50m pool – infrastructure valued by the community.

The council’s attitude is that stakeholders will just adapt, despite a recent poll finding only 6 per cent support for a heated 25m pool and Survey Monkey finding only 11.11 per cent support for a 25m pool.

Why did the council fail to engage/collaborate? Why the secrecy?