Don’t dwell on it compromise

WE have another planning issue in the southeast that is going nowhere.
This plan is to build a conclavetype development of 40 dwellings at 50 Inglis Road, Berwick.
To the outsider, that would appear to be an excellent idea.
I believe the new homes would sell almost immediately. So what’s wrong?
The problem goes back to early council planning when no action was taken to protect and preserve a valued network of longstanding but unofficial walking tracks in the area. The legal aspect is that most of them were on private property, but the development cuts this network.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal member John Bennet decided after ‘another’ appeal in what has been a longrunning issue that a permit for the development should be refused.
It is time some commonsense and compromise came into this. I have a great deal of respect for the person behind the development, but totally disagree with his way of handling this issue.
This is because heritage and past situations in a community need to be taken into account and I believe the developer has not done this.
So I am offside with the developer on this one, only because the walking tracks have not been retained.
I am also offside with the residents because, despite the enormous amount of support I gave in the press to their cause, I still felt the sting of their point scoring.
I received a nasty phone call one Saturday morning that disgusted me because of its trend. The source of the wording was easily recognised and it was totally uncalled for.
Had I received an acrimonious phone call from an “unhappy” developer who sees no real reason for refusing the permit, well, I may have said fair enough, that’s the way the job goes.
I can also recall protests from people who were against building the homes in which these protesters live.
But that’s okay, they are there now, and the scene in Inglis Road has changed.
It’s all okay so long as it’s not in my backyard.
However, my view is that no one will go broke if the design could find some way to preserve this network by perhaps allowing space to reroute the walking tracks.
As Eliza Doolittle says, “the sun will still come up” for the residents if the conclave or mediumdensity development goes ahead.
Residents objecting to increased traffic on Inglis Road were the first contributors to this problem so that argument goes out the front gate. If it was fair enough for them to move in and live there adding to the traffic problem, then why isn’t it fair enough for other people?
People who live in conclave type developments tell me that their situation is highly desirable so I see a pathway for some give and take.
Let us have the development, with the walking track network left intact and let existing residents find enough good grace to welcome their new neighbours as they were welcomed themselves.