Council asked to take stand on rural area ‘industrialisation’

p2241-Petrick-road-shedRural area resident Ross Copland took his campaign against “industrialisation” of the rural area to the Town Council last night.

 

Mr Copland, accompanied by Member for Araluen, Robyn Lambley, used public question time to ask council where it stood on the issue. He was referring to the permit being sought by his neighbours at Lot 1893 Petrick Road to allow their plumbing business to be run from their residential block (pictured).

 

What is council’s policy to deal with non-compliance issues and enforcement of orders, he wanted to know.

 

He said industrialisation, while requiring escalating services, would force property values down in the area. This would lead to a decrease in rates being paid to council. The burden of extra services would have to be spread to the rest of the ratepayers.

 

Mayor Damien Ryan took his questions on notice. He said council does have representatives sitting on the Development Consent Authority. Mr Copland offered to put his questions in writing and asked for a response ahead of the DCA meeting on June 10.

 

Councillor Chansey Paech asked to be copied into the correspondence as he is an alternative member of the DCA. He said his personal view is that he supports the rural area remaining a rural area, not an industrial precinct.

 

 

Declaration of interest: The writer, Kieran Finnane, lives in Petrick Road and has formally objected to Lot 1893’s application.

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Rod Cramer
    Posted June 2, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    It’s a worry when the mayor cannot answer a simple answer to a simple question like this, and then offers some quite misleading information!
    The fact is, that while there are two Councillors on the DCA, they do not “represent” the Council – they are merely two members of the DCA who are selected from and by councillors. They are under no obligation to represent the views of Council, if indeed it had one.

    View Comment
  2. Fred the philistine
    Posted May 28, 2015 at 8:29 am

    I think some town planning would be a big help. It is time the Alice Springs council did a little bit and stop putting rates up, take some responsibility and not always duck shoving it onto some one else.

    View Comment
  3. Trevor Shiell
    Posted May 27, 2015 at 8:55 am

    This is not a direct result of council action but of very short sighted Government policy and planning for industrial land development.
    It is obviously more profitable for the real estate industry to sell houses rather than industrial land.
    As pointed out above this is happening because of a lack of availability of affordable industrial land and the lack of Government encouragement to utilize the land at Brewer where the infrastructure already exists.
    People will come here to work and for lifestyle, if the facilities for commercial enterprise are here, and the need for housing will follow.
    Government has the order in reverse and is now advertising for people to fill the houses.
    The airport report now indicates that they are intending to look at another 3000 houses there and the common thought is now where are the people coming from to fill them?
    With now the RBA and the banking sector making noises about investment housing, the policy shows cracks.
    Add to that the skepticism in the international investment community about the viability of Inplex and cost over runs (Platinum Asset Management Japanese fund Annual report) and we are on thin ice by relying so extensively on housing.
    No matter whether these housing projects are financially successful or not, we are left with the legacy of poor planning and lack of foresight, and the determination of Government to turn Gap Road into Paramatta Road with eight stories.
    I invite your readers to look via the BBC website at what is happening in Columbia, a much impoverished country, where they have targeted emerging modern industries as sources of employment and then housing, and planned industrial development accordingly, with spectacular results, to see just how far out our planning has been.
    Again we will pay a very high opportunity cost for the Kilgariff development, and that is beginning to emerge with the failure to sell the first batch of blocks.
    Without the accompanying industrial development it was an exercise only in making money for he real estate industry. As a cynic I scoff at the signage there – “and so much more”.
    Although I live in the area of the proposed development and have also objected, I think it will go ahead because of the pig headed approach of Government as manifested by the CM last week where he blasted a local Councillor for having different political views than his own.
    I don’t belong to any political party but vote on issues, and more people should do that rather than follow blindly as they might follow Collingwood without thinking.

    View Comment
  4. Observer
    Posted May 26, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    The other issue is that Rural Zoned land is considerably cheaper than Industrial/Commercial Land. If Rural zoning becomes open slather then Industrial/Commercial Land owners who are trying to do the right thing will suffer considerable cost to their investment.

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*