Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette - - NEWS LOOKING BACK -

Peo­ple in the shire should not be com­pla­cent if they are against the pro­posal for a re­tire­ment de­vel­op­ment on Fer­raro Road. A lot of things go through govern­ment anad coun­cil be­cause of pub­lic pres­sure. If an ap­a­thetic pub­lic fails to voice their views, change is pos­si­ble. The only way to slow down the evo­lu­tion of this area into de­vel­op­ment sim­i­lar to the north­ern Beaches or even Mul­grave Road, is for the gen­eral pub­lic to ex­press their re­jec­tion of new pro­pos­als.

If you re­main si­lent, things will hap­pen which res­i­dents will re­gret. Now is the time to ex­press your re­jec­tion of this pro­posal in the strong­est pos­si­ble terms by writ­ing to the coun­cil.

Don’t for­get, if older res­i­dents want to move out of their big houses, they can buy a flat. Liv­ing in a re­tire­ment vil­lage is not a cheap op­tion. This vil­lage will only serve cashed up mem­bers and ob­vi­ously pro­vide a good re­turn on Steve Thomas’s in­vest­ment. More de­vel­op­ment brings more pop­u­la­tion growth, more crime, more road ac­ci­dents, more ur­ban sprawl, more ug­li­ness, more re­stric­tions on daily free­doms that you take for granted now. Fight for the right to re­main a small com­mu­nity and don’t let de­vel­op­ers dic­tate the growth of the re­gion.

An­drea Col­lis­son, Oak Beach

re­stric­tions on trans­port cor­ri­dors like the Capt. Cook Hwy. The Fer­rero road de­vel­op­ment pro­poses in ex­cess of 150 al­lot­ments in the first stage with the pos­si­bil­ity of a sec­ond stage propos­ing at least that. That rep­re­sents po­ten­tially 300+ plus new res­i­den­tial dwellings po­ten­tially ca­ter­ing for a pop­u­la­tion of 600+ peo­ple. That is es­sen­tially the equiv­a­lent of another town.

There are plenty of op­por­tu­ni­ties for ur­ban in­fill to take place and site re­de­vel­op­ment for res­i­den­tial pur­poses on the eastern side of the high­way in Port Dou­glas and Craiglie and at Moss­man which are po­ten­tially more suit­able for a de­vel­op­ment of this na­ture. Cur­rent in­fra­struc­ture ca­pa­bil­i­ties take these ar­eas into ac­count.

Quite apart from any of the above the Coun­cil can­not in my opin­ion sim­ply re­zone the pro­posed Fer­rero road site for res­i­den­tial pur­poses. Con­sid­er­a­tion would have to be given to a broader re­zon­ing than the boundaries of this land oth­er­wise it could quite le­git­i­mately be per­ceived the Coun­cil is mak­ing a de­ci­sion for the ben­e­fit of one de­vel­oper. Also, if the Fer­rero road al­lot­ment is con­sid­ered suit­able for ur­ban ex­pan­sion why not other sur­round­ing prop­erty on the west­ern side of the high­way?

This de­vel­op­ment, if it goes ahead on the Fer­rero Road site, will cre­ate a prece­dent and put pres­sure on the Coun­cil to ex­tend the ur­ban foot­print on the west­ern side of the high­way even fur­ther in my opin­ion.

My un­der­stand­ing also is that the Coun­cil can­not re­zone the site for “re­tire­ment vil­lage”. This is not a le­git­i­mate zone de­scrip­tion. It would have to be zoned “res­i­den­tial” which means any type of con­form­ing res­i­den­tial de­vel­op­ment could go there, not lim­ited to a re­tire­ment vil­lage.

David Carey, coun­cil­lor

Site of the pro­posed re­tire­ment com­mu­nity

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.