UNVEILED amid tremors of excitement and howls of protest in 2010, the road for the ambitious Peel River Estate was always bound to be tree-lined and treacherous.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A fully integrated, environmentally sustainable lifestyle village on the urban fringe of the city, the estate was once lauded as a shining prototype for future developments.
But almost five years on and the plan is in tatters, the estate abandoned and its chief investor vowing to never develop in Tamworth again.
How a model development could disintegrate so spectacularly should act as a cautionary tale for all future developers.
Ignore public sentiment at your peril.
The decision to walk away from the estate is a testament to the power and passion of a small group of King George V Ave supporters.
Chief investor Andrew Richardson, never the shrinking violet, said as much last week when he branded the process a “nightmare”, conceding the tree action group had won.
He also launched a blistering attack on Tamworth Regional Council (TRC), accusing its planners of “shifting the goalposts” and costing developers more than $1 million in delays and “wasted” planning costs.
Mr Richardson, the owner of Centrepoint shopping centre, also warned council was compromising its own planning principles by allowing issues to be hijacked by special interest groups.
“Getting swayed by public opinion is no way to plan a city,” he said.
But such logic conveniently ignores the critical role public feedback plays in any development.
Council should be commended, not castigated, for listening to the authentic and articulate voices of protesters and factoring them into the process.
TRC under mayor Col Murray and general manager Paul Bennett is unashamedly pro-development and pro-growth.
To label it anti-progress is an overreach.
Just ask the lobby group opposing a Baiada at Manilla or those who stood against a new Dan Murphy’s in the city.
Ultimately, the Peel River Estate issue forced council to solve an impossible equation: Is the monetary benefit the development would bring of more value than protecting a cherished part of the city’s history?
The answer to that depends on what you value and where you sit.
And Andrew Richardson was sitting on a very different side of the street to those who fought to stop the development.