Orange is a wonderful place to live. The influx of sea change people and the increasing number of visitors and tourists are a testimonial to this.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Why? The ambiance and climate of Orange coupled with the growth and prosperity of our community results in an increasing awareness of the attractiveness of living and visiting our regional centre.
Orange has an envious image as a nice place to be. Sound public investment and commercial entrepreneurship has contributed to this image.
But an increasing population and visitation rates requires a continuous upgrading of accommodation, food and wine and recreation facilities.
The trend to upgrade and improve over the last three decades gives Orange a competitive edge over other regional centres and is paying dividends.
We have been fortunate to have public and private entrepreneurs with foresight to put Orange in this position.
On the other hand facility developments need to be up to standard and comply to established terms and conditions.
Glenna Coxhill in a Letter to the Editor on December 9 nicely explains the need for building renovations and extensions to align with the existing architecture in the heritage precinct of the inner city of Orange.
Judgments of how this alignment fits appear to vary.
Orange City Council planning judgement may not align to the opinions of some members of the public, particularly neighbours.
There are recent examples of this happening.
Enthusiastic and aggressive opposition by vocal minority groups to a number of entrepreneurial projects aimed at improving accommodation and food outlet facilities have been reported in this newspaper.
The council reviews concerns from individuals in the close proximity of the project in the process for gaining development application approval.
Negative responses from individuals or groups to projects that are positively evaluated by town planners influence council’s final decision.
Entrepreneurs are subjected to this process.
Changes to original development applications are costly in time and dollars and sometimes necessary.
Council judgments for changes to plans can and have been challenged legally at considerable cost to council and the developer.
This is a lose-lose situation.
One wonders about the motives of the minority protagonists when statements of “residents that want to alter their property, must, and rightly so, dance at bit” are made.
Does this reflect a commitment to architectural preservation or other agendas that disrupt an approval process where good will, compromise and common sense are prerequisites for successful win-win outcomes?
It appears that the balance between preservation and growth and development has been influenced by well organised and unified protagonists.
At this point the silent majority are observers.
It is hoped that council can balance the extremist views of a few to a wider community commitment to improving Orange as a place to live and visit.
Edward Henry
- Letters to the Editor can be emailed to mail.cwd@fairfaxmedia.com.au, or mailed or dropped in to 190 Lords Place.