Riverslea residents in Margaret River take dog park petition to Shire of Augusta-Margaret River council

Residents opposed to a planned disability centre on Tingle Avenue disrupting a treasured recreational space say they’re disappointed the original use for that land wasn’t ensured. Although the property subject to a development proposal was on privately owned land, last week’s Shire of Augusta-Margaret River council meeting heard long-term residents cite the site’s 1970s and 1980s history which argued against what they see as a de facto residential project. The item from disability providers Habilitas was considered by councillors required to pass a Shire verdict so the multi-million-dollar project could be voted on by WA’s Joint Development Assessment Unit. Direct neighbour Marian Rowe and resident Beth Ross, who helped co-ordinate a 300-strong petition, with Jacqueline Knight told councillors the Habilitas land was eked out of a public open space agreement and always intended to provide a future community use. Ms Rowe, who had lived opposite since 1994, said the council decision was in a “rushed time frame” to the proponent’s benefit rather than residents who sought more time and to give input on the JDAP decision. “It should be preserved for the community as intended,” she said. She said people who bought in Riverslea early always expected tennis courts or something similar. Many neighbours had long believed the land was part of an existing park used as a dog exercise area and lamented its loss for the project designed to give disabled people and their families respite. Ms Knight said the developer should seek a formal rezoning because it failed to meet its own criteria. “What is not included on this list is any form of residential use,” she told councillors. While not intended disrespect to the disabled, Ms Ross questioned whether it would provide “community use” when most guests would mostly be visitors. She said it was better suited to a location closer to primary health services. “There was a clear opposition to this development,” Ms Ross said. “We should not have to be fighting to save a park.” In comments online, other residents said owners had a right to develop privately held land.