SO  according to the (until now) silent Nick Campbell Jones," My memory is my servant. Well, it is certainly nobody else’s

I do wonder what has roused the once semi-retired real estate agent and Councillor from his slumber? As he is prone to do, he seems to be attempting to create a smokescreen to cover the facts.

In this instance he seems to be attempting to manufacture sympathy by concocting yet another myth?

Claims that council have blocked the "Southern Highland Wines" development are just not true!

What the majority of Councillors did, was ask the developer Chairman Teo to meet with Council.  To come in and speak to Council about concerns raised around the design of the building and it's lack of sympathy for the local landscapes by residents and neighbours .

This is no more or less of a courtesy than is offered to any other developer by Council. There are only a few who do not take the opportunity to work with Council and to show a willingness to respect local aesthetics and expectations. Sadly there have been no attempts to engage local neighbours or consider concerns in this instance. No conspiracies here, I am sorry Nick. The fact is Mr Campbell-Jones that rather than agree, to work with Council and community after having his development refused by the Joint Regional Planning Panel, Chairman Teo has  decided to pull the application, no pressure from Council at all. Personally, I am not sure why he would choose to do so. Nor do I as yet understand why you would subscribe to a “leg up" for the Chairman?

There was no refusal, by Council nor is there any application to consider. Get it!

 My memory may be my servant.  I have heard others say that It is a shame that Truth is not the servant of some others!

Nick Campbell-Jones’ criticism of the “totally untrained councillors” regarding the Southern Highlands Wines development is unfair and ill-informed.

What Nick should know from his days at council is – the devil is in the detail.

I spoke at both recent meetings re the winery and listened to the deliberations.

Nick argues the winery has not proceeded due to a rejection of Tuscan architecture. No doubt some neighbours do find the architecture unsympathetic to the Highlands.

But there is bigger issue of sympathy that has led to the matter not proceeding, and that is preparedness to listen to the community.

Teo Ah Khing of the China Horse Club, the developer and architect has indicated he is not prepared to listen to the community’s concerns about size, height and style of the proposal. He seems to have a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to his plans which suggests he thinks he is above other people’s concerns.

This is a very strange way for a visitor from Malaysia to behave.

He has exhibited his ‘superiority’ on several occasions. First when he was told by the JRPP that he should listen to feedback on height style and architecture issues raised by the community.

What did he do? He withdrew his application, put the project on a short-term diet to get below the JRPP threshold of $20 million and came to the local council.

His representative when asked if he would consult with the community said an unequivocal ‘No’.

So ‘Take it or leave it’.

I am the chairman of GPT one of Australia’s largest property owners and developers. GPT and almost all developers understand that approval for a development comes from consultation with the community. At one of the meetings I attended, the Berkelouw family presented plans for extensions at Bendooley, which clearly showed lots of community consultation.

The councillors praised the proposal on the day and noted the stark contrast in courtesy, to the stance taken by Teo Ah Khing.

Architecture, height, and size are all matters open for discussion. The community that I have spoken to do not want to see the idea for the winery fail.

They just want some respect. GPT gets it – the Berkelouw family gets it. So why can’t Teo Ah Khing get it?

Last week I was fortunate enough to attend a function where RMS Minister Melinda Pavey was the guest speaker. 

I took the opportunity to raise the issue of the decreased speed limit between Moss Vale and Sutton Forest. 

Being well prepared I presented the facts and figures of accidents and crashes including the 300 strong petition gathered in just three weeks. 

According to their own records there is no justification for the reduction of the speed limit other than one or two people writing in saying they thought it was too fast??! 

This illustrates how easy it is for a minority to make policy changes regardless of what everyone (the majority) wants. 

So if you'd like the 100kph reinstated I urge you to fire off an email to her office. 

The letter published in the SH News (March 7) written by Nick Campbell-Jones warrents correction.

It seems he may not have got his facts right about the S.H Wines vineyard ‘development’ and makes ridiculous statements like ‘millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs, no effect on rural landscape, etc’. Unfortunately statements like these are likely to be believed.

Perhaps the ‘untrained’ members if council should be congratulated for using their brains instead of being led to believe the wonderous development was going to be such a great benefit for the district.

It could well have turned out to be nothing more than an exclusive holiday resort for a selected few, but things like this should no be mentioned.

At least the environment has been saved for the time being and the people most affected will have some piece of mind.

I assume the blockers are considered to be people who are concerned about preserving the environment and historic values of the district with sensible development instead of wholesale destruction.