Estate wins fight to keep Trucks out
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007A VOTE by Tamworth Regional councillors to reject an application for a Heavy Truck repair facility in Impala Estate has been described as “a glimpse of democracy”.
The vote was taken at the recent services and infrastructure committee meeting and a number of councillors readily accepted responsibility for the “anxiety” the vote, which was deferred from a previous meeting, had caused.
Cr Rob Schofield said he’d “received hundreds of letters û some nice and some not so nice”. “I am more than happy to reconsider (the application) and I am sorry for the anxiety this (deferral) has caused,” he said.
Cr Shirley Close said, “it is wonderful we have such interested people (referring to Impala Estate residents) who contributed what they did with such dignity”.
Residents of the estate, off Warral Rd south of the city, had met on October 5 to rally support to have the application rejected at council level.
Impala Estate resident David Simmons was one of a number of residents who addressed the councillors in the open forum session prior to the committee meeting.
He referred to the council’s own development policy which would not permit any application for a Truck repair workshop to get to a vote in open meeting.
Mr Simmons said the single lane, tar road would not withstand increased numbers of truck movements û he recorded up to 13 movements a day in the course of a week.
Another resident, Terese Vincent, said she and her husband û a race horse trainer û had bought the property 12 years ago as a rural retreat. She said horses they owned were at risk by any increased Truck movements as the noise tended to “make the horses react violently”.
Another resident was Pat Varley, who said she bought her property three years ago so she could enjoy the quality of life a rural residence offered.
“We are quite passionate about our area,” she said.
Terry Dawson said the fact there were no speed limit signs along the road, no kerbs or paths exposed pedestrians to increased risk from passing traffic. He said if the application were approved, then the movement of trucks increased the level of risk.
The application was rejected in a unanimous vote as it was not consistent with the objectives of zone 1d rural residential and it did not comply with the definition of a home activity.
