Development labelled dangerous
THE CONTROVERSIAL Turf St development, which would have seen five additional dwellings added to the property, has been denied by Clarence Valley Council.
Residents raised concerns about the new development, which would have fronted Maud Lane, noting the lane is regularly used by pedestrians and could not support the extra traffic generated by the development.
While some councillors tried to find ways to make the development work, in the end, the motion to approve the development was voted down.
Cr Peter Ellem said there was plenty of infill development in Grafton and the potential for more, but this particular development had major impacts on a public lane.
"I'm not convinced with the widening of (the lane) that we're not setting ourselves up for potential injury or fatality," he said.
"The objectors who live about (this development) during the weeks witness school children walking laneway. Cars backing out of driveways could be very close to them. There is very little wiggle room if two cars were passing.
"I can't in good consciousness accept this development as it is."
Cr Andrew Baker spoke in favour of the development, saying the fear of too many cars in the lane should actually be a fear of people who should not have a licence.
"Even the longest car pulled up facing their garage won't prevent one-way access," he said. "They don't have to drive up the lane quickly, ignoring pedestrians. There is nothing except for fear and in some cases, exaggerated fear for the purpose of defeating the normal provisions."
Most councillors agreed that while more infill development was on the cards for Grafton, there were too many issues with the development for them to approve it.
The motion was defeated in a five to four vote.