People need more power

PEOPLE power is rising in Berwick.
Plans to build a hotel and function centre at the intersection of Lyall Road and Anne Street, Berwick, have been on the books for years.
While many people were not happy about how this all evolved, part of it being a deal to shift the historic Berwick Bowls Club to Edwin Flack Reserve, it was accepted grudgingly.
Accepted because we have to agree the result of the bowls club relocation was a resounding success. And we do have development taking place over the wider area.
The Lyall Road development also had the potential to bring business and jobs to the village and had enormous possibilities, if designed appropriately, to provide more car parking.
But now we are told a six-storey complex is planned for the site, that is four above ground, and two below ground. I also believe that the maximum height allowed for Berwick is three storeys. So we are really arguing over one storey although many people will object to a building of that height on that site.
The plan also comes with a request for reduced car parking in the building.
I’ve seen lots of gambits of this sort played out and often wondered what some developers were trying to pull.
Planners who presented this proposal to the City of Casey would have known absolutely that such a scheme would have caused a public outcry. So why do it?
One reason is that they want to push their basic plan a little further than the rules allow.
The other is that they don’t give a damn about the community and will do whatever they can to make maximum profit.
Number one is to put up an idea so over the top that residents will give a little on the base plan if the developer “under pressure” agrees to cut back on the opening gambit.
The developer still wins.
But they nearly always do win because they have the money and the resources to find a way.
So don’t rely on overlays, strategy plans or planning rules to save the day because these are written in a way they can be circumvented for all sorts of reasons.
How easy this could have been for the proponents. Why not call a meeting with people such as the chamber of commerce and the National Trust to discuss the type of building in keeping with Berwick heritage that would be accepted on that site and start from there.
We all accepted that something would be built. The only alternative was the council buy it for a park and we have just won the Pioneers Park. So it won’t be a park.
Another idea would have been to buy it for car parking and sell half for housing to help pay for the project in a land capture arrangement.
But all this building needed was a facade in keeping with Berwick’s heritage and one that did not reach up into the sky.
That might mean costly excavation to go down rather than up, but they dig buildings down in other places, why is Berwick different?
The skyline, unfortunately, is the cheapest place to build. Now, a heap of community leaders have got their wool up and it looks like we are in for a hell of a fight.
The argument here is that people do have a right to protect the heritage and ambience of the place in which they live, especially when alternatives exist.
But we are now seeing so much that is wrong. We are seeing poker machine profits being channelled quite brazenly into the coffers of large companies.
With that, community sports clubs such as Tooradin and Pakenham will go out of business, or at best be unable to provide large amounts of cash to other community groups.
This is happening with a so-called “people’s government” that you would expect to go the other way and give more to social and community groups.
We are also seeing the meltdown of local government and a total breakdown of ratepayer and resident representation on councils through manipulation of the voting system and political party interference.
This includes taking more planning powers away from councils for decision making at State Government level.
Let’s start thinking of communities first for a change. Let’s go back to square one at least with this development and see if there is a common ground and perhaps be able to do that in a way that the project will still provide plenty of profit for the proponents.
Maybe a few meetings among business and heritage leaders might just do that if they try.