A subdivision earmarked for social and affordable housing has been approved - somewhat reluctantly - by Launceston councillors.
Although they agreed the city was in dire need of new houses, they lambasted the site as being inadequate for its purpose.
Land at 50 Wildor Crescent, Ravenswood was identified by Homes Tasmania as a site suitable for development and subject to a Housing Land Supply Order.
Planning firm 6ty° Pty Ltd had an application to re-zone the land as residential and subdivide it into 100 lots approved by the City of Launceston council on November 16.
As part of the development, 15 lots would be reserved for social and affordable housing with the remaining 85 to be sold on the private market.
The council received five submissions from the public about the proposal.
Issues raised included boundary concerns, potential environmental contamination and traffic, some of them raised again at the council meeting.
Other residents highlighted the fact the site had a slope of 17 per cent, which made development difficult.
By comparison, Balfour Street has a 25 per cent incline, and Lord Street has a 15.9 per cent slope.
The project proponents said they were well-aware of the site's constraints, but its location within the wider Launceston area made it ideal for such a development.
A traffic impact study suggested the development would lead to 1041 car trips per day along Wildor Crescent - something council planning officers said was well within the road's capacity.
The nearest bus stop is 750 metres away on Henry Street, as Metro previously cancelled services on Wildor Crescent due to low demand but planning officers said other options, like taxis, were available.
Other complaints were that the subdivision would "adversely impact" views from the city, and that the land should be turned into a parkland.
Councillor Andrea Dawkins initially shared concerns with a resident the site might be home to wedge-tailed eagles, which would trigger environmental protection laws.
Planning officers said this was for the state government and developers to consider and address, not councillors.
Cr Dawkins said the 100 new homes were sure to impact neighbouring properties, councillors had to take the experts' word that the site was suitable.
"This is a development that has a clear pathway to being permitted," she said.
"We expect it to be built as quickly as it can be for the vulnerable low income people in Launceston who are doing it pretty tough, many of whom are living rough.
"We need to see them in safe homes and this is one of the pathways to do that."
Councillor Danny Gibson said he sympathised with many of the objections as it was clear residents wanted good planning outcomes for all and, for the most part, were not being NIMBYs.
However, Cr Gibson said the fact that those living in affordable housing would be forced to rely on cars and not have easy access to public transport was "disgraceful".
"I have some challenges with regards to this Housing Land Supply Order," he said.
"The fact that you could have 100 new lots developed without any consideration of public transport ... that's disgraceful.
"That means that needs work from us to bring that to the attention of the minister and the services in the lead up to this housing stock coming online. Not once it's online."
Councillor Alan Harris was more optimistic about the development.
He said although there were some problems at present, adding to the city's housing stock was, on balance, a good thing.
"We must hope to make the best of what will be developed there and I encourage Homes Tasmania to get on with this because it is the only way out of this housing crisis is building new homes," Cr Harris said.
"We will end up with 100 new homes on the east side of the city, they will have some fantastic views across the city.
"I look on the positive side of what this development brings, rather than all of the negative potential problems that will then need to be resolved in the future."
A motion to approve the subdivision was endorsed by 10 councillors.
Councillor Joe Pentridge left the room citing a potential conflict of interest, while councillor Tim Walker abstained after claiming the site had "no equity of access" due to its slope and distance from public transport.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.