A resident of the street, who did not wish to be named, was disappointed with the way the clearing occurred. “The main reason we moved here for was the view and the environment - the bush,” he said.

“In other countries there is a process where the local authorities need to define if there are any important species on the land before just bulldozing.

“We were aware there were plans for developing the land but we thought it would be a civilised process - but they were like guerillas, moving in early in the morning and destroying the bush.

“They broke the road, they broke the sewer - what’s here now is a mess. “Any construction needs a plan, a schedule. Now no-one knows when it will start or be completed - there is no common sense about this - no balance.

“It is the task of the local council to ensure there is a balance and that they (the developers) are accountable for this. The price of my house may be affected by this. It is a great pity.”

Other Chiswick St residents, Sharon Williams and her husband Ray Gore said they were not against development, but it needed to be done sensitively and they wanted to see more protection for the local environment in the area.

“We are not against development but instead of just clearing the block, I would have wanted them to put some thought into protecting the endangered species that are there,” Mrs Williams said.

“My biggest concern is about the animals and the protected trees - the yellow box gums and the gang-gang cockatoos and the goanna that lives in the scrub there that have been affected.

“We also get a lot of roos moving through here and I don’t want that to stop. I think there needs to be provisions for them so that they have a corridor to pass through to the wetlands.”

She also questioned the planning consent for the proposed development. “The original planning consent for this development lapsed in 2013. Council needs to re-examine the conditions of consent,” she said.

However, Council’s environmental services manager Sonia Spotswood previously advised the Post that the consent was still “live,” owing to some work completed on the site.

Mrs Wilson said neighbours had concerns about the increased fire risk due to the buildup of timber and rubbish left on the block, as well as concerns about increasing traffic in the street.

“Increased traffic as a result of this development is also a concern for residents and particularly the pre-school because it already gets quite busy there between 8 and 9.30am and 4 and 5.30pm,” she said.

Her husband Ray Gore echoed her need for more sensitivity when developing such blocks. “We are not Nimbys. We know that development is good for Goulburn,” Mr Gore said.

“But we need a workable solution that enables people to live in harmony with the environment that Goulburn offers.

“It should not always be about the most profit; there needs to be a compromise. It is also good business sense to make the development look more attractive by working with the environment. It makes it a selling point, it might even improve the land price.”