16 February 2024

Broulee population set to double if 800-lot development gets the go-ahead

Join the conversation
55
Area map of locality of proposed Broulee development.

If approved, the 800-lot development would double the population of Broulee even though the site is not recognised for growth by any regional or local strategy. Image: Brightlands Living.

A proposal for a new 800-lot housing development incorporating a market garden and wellness centre is to be considered at next week’s meeting of Eurobodalla Shire Council.

The development known as ‘The Farm’ located at 207 Broulee Road is proposed for a 126.7 hectare site incorporating the Mount Oldrey Homestead and part of the Illawong Nature Reserve.

The site is currently used for grazing cattle and zoned RU1 Primary Production and C2 Environmental Conservation.

The development would allow about 800 low and medium density dwellings with an average lot size of 6oo sqm, targeted to a mix of markets comprising over 55s, families and workers, in clustered housing ‘hamlets’ linked by private roads.

The master plan also includes an ‘agri-hood’ centre, wellness centre, cafe and market gardens.

The proposal, by Sydney-based developer Brightlands Living, would require a rezoning to allow for an expansion of Broulee village to the west side of George Bass Drive – setting a precedent for future development outside the Eurobodalla Rural Lands Strategy and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy.

The Brightlands Living website names developer Ed Fernon, a dual Olympian, as co-CEO with IT and wellness professional Craig Schuetrumpf.

Past applications for development consideration on the corner of Broulee Road and George Bass Drive, including a school, have been rejected on environmental grounds.

A planning proposal review prepared by an external consultant and presented to Eurobodalla Shire Council in July recommends the proposal not be supported.

Council will consider whether it should support the planning proposal at the meeting on Tuesday 20 February.

Region understands some councillors may be considering approving the proposal against advice of council staff and the external expert advice.

READ ALSO ‘Plan for the future’: Council calls on Eurobodalla Shire for wish list

The review and report prepared by an external consultant, and published on the Eurobodalla Shire Council website, documents a long list of concerns, primary among them that the draft planning proposal would double the current population even though the site is not recognised for growth by any regional or local strategy.

The consultant’s report states, “While the ‘agri-hood’ vision in itself is commendable, it is considered that the draft planning proposal is inconsistent with the vision and planning of the strategic planning framework at State Government and Eurobodalla Council levels.

“This includes being inconsistent with the draft South East and Tablelands Regional Plan, council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and various state environmental planning policies and Ministerial directions.

“The proposal is inconsistent, or its consistency is not able to be demonstrated, with various Eurobodalla Council strategies including the Eurobodalla Rural Lands Strategy and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy.

“The most fundamental issue is the site not being located within any current adopted growth area identified by the strategic planning framework. The proposed scale of growth and location is a significant departure from the strategic planning framework.”

map of proposed development

The development would allow about 800 low and medium density dwellings in clustered housing ‘hamlets’ linked by private roads. Image: Brightlands Living.

The character of the proposal was also of significant concern, with the report stating, “It comprises a large development, essentially urban in density, form and character, on currently unserviced and isolated rural land.

“It will require a significant infrastructure investment.

“There are uncertainties in the delivery of infrastructure, in particular that of water and sewer, roads and public transport. It will result in the dispersal and inadequacy of infrastructure provision in Eurobodalla Shire and divert resources from the existing priority growth areas.

“The site will substantially change the rural character and impact Broulee village and the surrounding critically environmentally sensitive area.

“In conclusion, the extent of the inconsistency is significant, and it will undermine the achievement of council’s current long-term planning. It is therefore recommended that the proposal not be supported.”

READ ALSO Batemans Bay ‘gateway’ developers to have their say on town’s master plan

No community consultation has been undertaken at this preliminary stage of the application.

The report states, “The proponent has undertaken limited, selective consultation with key stakeholders and other interested parties within the community, some of whom have indicated support to the proposal.”

However, some community groups named in the proposal as supporting the development have since denied offering support.

One group, the Broulee Mossy Point Community Association (BMPCA), has written to council opposing the development on a number of grounds saying: “The development does not provide a good model for housing development in the Eurobodalla”. It cites risks of environmental damage and says it “is contrary to the long-term concept of Broulee as an integrated village”.

“The BMPCA does support the design of future housing development to meet environmental considerations … it does not see this proposal as meeting these criteria.”

Join the conversation

55
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

This proposal is submitted by what looks like serious players in the development industry, something this Council is not used to dealing with. I would suggest that the Council approve the application in principle, have the complete project – including the price of blocks – on display for public comment, and then take it from there. Rejecting it based on the staff’s recommendation is not due process, something this Council does need to understand.

The concept in itself is exciting but by no means unique. It’s just a rebranded gated community with agriculture as a managed facility to keep the individual lot sizes to an average of 600m2.

As a farmer who lives at the beginning of Broulee Road, it will be sad to see the open, lush pasture turned over to a small residential block, but at the end of the day, progress requires forward movement or it’s not progress.

Realistically, if I could obtain substantially more for my rural land through development (or to a developer), I would be a fool not to consider it.

John Wilshire8:16 am 18 Feb 24

Too much too soon for a small like Broulee.

The Bower at Broulee10:15 pm 17 Feb 24

The majority of current residentially zoned land is heavily constrained by native vegetation (e.g. DALMENY and Capt Oldrey surrounds Broulee) and/or geotechnical issues e.g Batemans Bay foreshore.
Would you prefer more tree clearing or high rise in Broulee/Batemans Bay ?

I’ve had a bit of a look over the proposal, and while not being across a lot of it, starting at the ‘ Background and Context’ section, its a load of codswallop! Its a mish mash of composite ideas put together by wishful thinking and a lack of understanding of the real world.

A few points here and there. In these sort of developments, community facilities quite often never go up once blocks are sold. Casualisation of the workforce doesn’t lead to more time for hobbies and special interests; it leads to low incomes and not enough money realistically to live on. Lets be real, sense of place/sense of community can’t just be put in a report and it will happen. While I’m sure its conceptual, why would workers live in their hamlet, downsizers in theirs etc. Community is of many different peoples living mixed in together. Etc, etc.

Anyway, enough rambling.

patricia gardiner6:39 pm 17 Feb 24

I feel for the people of Broulee who bought/built in a small coastal village for the lifestyle it offered them and their families.
To have developers pushing in to change the rules so as to expand development that would destroy existing social and environmental values is unconscionable.
It has nothing to do with affordable housing and everything to do with making money for developers.
And how much would be added to ESC’s multi million dollar debt in order to provide the required infrastructure?
This proposal must not become a reality.

cannedbeeria3:03 pm 17 Feb 24

At first I was ambivalent. There is a need for more housing…
But, reading on makes me definitely against the proposal.
The article says:
“No community consultation has been undertaken at this preliminary stage of the application.
The report states, “The proponent has undertaken limited, selective consultation with key stakeholders and other interested parties within the community, some of whom have indicated support to the proposal.”
However, some community groups named in the proposal as supporting the development have since denied offering support.”
By limited selective consultation, I understand that to mean asking people and groups that you know will be in favour, to gather strength for the yes case….
Watch with interest!

Wherever you go it is always ‘environmental’ problems. No wonder Sydney and other large cities are impossible to live in re costs etc when land is not being released anywhere. Rates here are high because there land is in larger lots so less council income.

Daily Digest

Do you like to know what’s happening around your region? Every day the About Regional team packages up our most popular stories and sends them straight to your inbox for free. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.