Sorry - I do not see any compromise here at all.

OK, a pelican crossing is ruled out due a to lack of accidents/deaths.
OK, We cannot keep the island crossing, as the junction is being moved forward to help the Hindley's place traffic see past the new flats.

But I see no explanation why there cannot be a raised crossing point at the safest point south of the underpass.
The raised crossing point north of the underpass, while not finalised, is not designed to serve people travelling south from the underpass, as MH's text explains. The north ramp is well positioned and already is designed to serve two separate pedestrians flows.

A narrow rd in itself will not encourage traffic to slow to a safe speed - you do not have to look far to see examples of this - Honor oak Rd. Traffic will happily near brush by pedestrians by day, and speed by night.

And indeed this is exactly the reason I suspect he is reluctant to provide an ordinary crossing point- it would not be as safe as the existing island crossing by some distance.

This particular area by the station has a high density of people using it - it is more than reasonable that is provided with sufficient raised crossings. I'm sure zebra crossings and 20 mph zones are far more popular with drivers than tables/ramps as they can just ignore them.

And yes, as I pointed out, MH has been responsible for some good changes on Perry Vale which need to be acknowledged. But he has some blots as well.

Snazy, I share your hope that MH gets this one right.