Your say

Have say on plan for small building blocks

Wollondilly Council recently advertised a planning proposal to rezone land adjoining Oakdale Public School.

Unfortunately, unless residents of Oakdale went on to the council website, they would not be aware that a large subdivision between the school and the private road is proposed to have about 100 building blocks with a minimum size of 450 square metres and no larger than 700 square metres.

Access to these blocks would be off Burragorang Road and Blatman Avenue.

The school is on the corner of these two roads with no footpath at all on Blatman Avenue.

I have no problem with sensible development in Oakdale, but with most house blocks about 1000 square metres, I fail to see that this development is in our best interests.

I was under the impression that Wollondilly Council was interested in protecting our rural heritage and the lifestyle that we all enjoy.

However, I oppose cramming 100 blocks of this size in this area as it does not represent rural living.

I urge people to put their views forward to Wollondilly Council and their elected councillors.

Neil Gorman, Oakdale

Poor planning

I have become very concerned about the developments planned for Appin, with lack of foresight and planning of any description in regards to basics such as play areas, schools, recreation spaces etc.

Pollution, the local environment and endangered bushland have been ignored in a set of community workshops paying lip service to our constant requests to be heard.

What purpose do these serve?

Why is Wollondilly Council considering for a moment adding 18,000 homes to feed onto Appin Road, when every study of the area in the past has stated Appin is unsuitable for many reasons? Money.

We will not be silenced and the community speaks.

Kerry Bender, Appin

Marriage inequality

In reference to "marriage equality".

Let me assure you that there is no equality in marriage.

For example, my husband was 19 years older than me and when he reached the age of being able to receive the aged pension he was not eligible due to the fact that I had a well-paid career.

Another example of inequality is now that I am a widow, should I contemplate a permanent relationship with a gentleman whether it be in marriage or in a de facto relationship, once again he and I would be penalised, firstly because I still work and he would lose his pension and secondly if we live together irrespective of being married or not, he would have a claim on my property and therefore cause anguish to my children and visa versa.

So where is the equality?

Are these laws going to apply to gay couples who wish to walk down the aisle?

Secondly, are all the gay couples who do not wish to take legal vows be regarded as living in a de facto relationship and therefore be penalised as I am?

There are also many gay couples who do not openly admit that they are in a relationship.

Are these couples going to be tracked down by the authorities in relation to receiving social security payments and is their property to become a matter of contention?

The legalities are endless.

In my opinion all these areas need discussion, community consultation and the government examining the implications.

Louisa Singleman, Lakesland

Comments