State Administrative Tribunal Decision Puzzling

I WRITE in response to the article SAT hands win to couple, Stirling Times, January 26.

Can I suggest that Mrs Mackenzie would have saved herself and her family years of stress, strain and financial hardship if she hadn’t bought a block of land to build her childcare centre in the middle of a residential area in the first place?

Knowing it didn’t meet the City’s land use guidelines and the fact that it was less than the required block size baffles me personally.

Now those people in neighbouring homes will have to deal with the stress of extra noise, extra traffic and likely devaluation of their properties, not only for two years, but for years to come.

Mrs Mackenzie says that the acoustic report showed ambient noise is louder than the noise children could make.

I wonder what she would think if a childcare centre moved in next-door to her home?

And can I point out that what makes Carine “a beautiful suburb” is the prevalence of residential homes, greenery and lack of commercial premises.

Good on you council for considering the impact on neighbours and standing by your residential plans.

Obviously, the State Administrative Tribunal, in making its over-ruling decisions, do not make site visits to determine the suitability of applications. If so, they would have clearly seen that such a development on Duffy Road is not safe and does not suit the area.

And my final question is this – who shall take the blame when someone gets hurt as a result of a road accident on this section of road?

NAME and address supplied.