Core issues on golf course fence

I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Beverley Park Golf Club’s application to erect a fence around the course perimeter.

While the matter has now seen accusations and rebuttals in the press, we must really look at some core issues, which, as my family has lived in our home overlooking the course since 1959, I feel able to address.

The golf club made no effort to engage in community consultation prior to the lodgement of the application with the Georges River Council. No attempt was made to find a solution to the alleged issues raised by communicating with us.

A number of the golf club office bearers intimately involved in the presentation of the application do not live in the immediate area, some living as far away, I understand, as Oatley.  Therefore, they would not have to look at the unfortunate fence as a resident or find their properties devalued because of the less than pleasant outlook. This could have further legal implications.

How the proposed fence could be described as a “good looking stylish black fence”, I shall never know.

On March 22 last, you reported that Frank Bates, the Club President,  advised 119 trees and 25 shrubs will be removed but 217 new trees will be planted. The trees to be removed will include magnificent Casuarinas.

Yet, in his letter to you of October 24 last, Mr Bates stated the number of now 116 trees.  Furthermore among the structurally unsound trees to be removed are, no doubt, the highly diseased and dangerous poplars which have plagued the local residents for years.  Now it’s in the club’s interests, these trees are to be removed.  Why was no effort made to do so earlier?

Developments in the security industry are such that there are more viable and efficient initiatives than those proposed by the golf club. We have not seen the documented evidence presented by the club as to the management consultants’ observations. Perhaps if the club relied more on community communication, we might all be better off.

 Gabrielle Clara