A number of business owners are still fighting council's draft local environment plan (DLEP), just as a group of almost 40 organisations and individuals has published an open letter urging the Planning Minister to approve it.
Create a free account to read this article
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Mountains Combined Chamber of Commerce (MCCC) argues the DLEP does nothing to encourage sustainable economic investment and doesn't allow urban consolidation around Mountains towns and villages.
A number of the members recently voiced their concerns at a meeting with Planning Department staff, which has raised eyebrows among some councillors.
The mayor, Mark Greenhill, said the MCCC's submissions had already been considered before the draft was prepared.
"What saddens me is that a group of people from the side of the debate that is at odds with community sentiment has been afforded the time to undermine the LEP draft that was exhibited, contrary to the expressed view of the majority," Clr Greenhill said.
"I believe most people would, like me, be very shocked to learn that these meetings have been taking place with greater regularity than that afforded to other community groups."
But a spokesman for the department said its officers "are encouraged to meet a range of stakeholders about a range of issues.
"And this is no exception".
The department considers submissions from everyone, he said.
"This includes submissions which may be made by individuals, proponents, community groups, other government agencies, councils and key stakeholders. That consultation helps inform any final decision."
The open letter to the minister, Rob Stokes, urging him to approve the DLEP, was published in The Saturday Paper on September 12. It was signed by 20 groups, including the Conservation Society, Historical Society, National Parks Association and the Total Environment Centre, as well as 18 individuals, including all councillors.
But Lew Hird, honorary secretary of the MCCC, said the DLEP didn't properly cater for business and tourism development.
"The DLEP hinders business development by virtue of not permitting urban consolidation around the mountains towns and villages. The population needs to be concentrated around existing urban infrastructure and transport nodes. Consolidation is vital to maintain the economic viability of the mountains towns and villages," he said.
The MCCC believes constraints on site cover, period housing, floor space ratios, parking requirements and height restrictions make development opportunities unviable.
But Clr Greenhill said the group was trying to undermine elements of the DLEP. "[And it] has been granted more access to the department than other stakeholders and that is effectively acting in defiance of community sentiment."
Clr Daniel Myles said the MCCC had a "greedy overdevelopment agenda" that the community should know about.
"In promoting development, MCCC will destroy the precious residential amenity that we all love and which also drives the tourism industry. They don't understand that more development would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."
But Barry Jarrott, president of the Leura Village Association (one of the groups under the MCCC umbrella), said it was about "balance".
"None of us want to see any degradation of the world heritage area or listing - that's why we live here. We don't want to see high-rise through the Mountains."
Clr Don McGregor said the MCCC's submissions "got the same respect and consideration from council that all other stakeholders got and deserved.
"The broader community has not been given the opportunity to directly lobby state planning authorities on their private interests," he said.
