Archive: Free Lots
Last Updated 17/9/07
Roll Up, Roll Up - Get Your Subdivision Now. Macedon Ranges Council Is Giving Away Free Lots!!!
(28/4/07 - P) Mmm... this one had almost everything - muddled meeting process (again), changing votes, outlandish statements, a couple of bombshells, and of course the usual "blame someone else" and "throw the planning scheme out the window" events - and an old-fashioned land deal
What a tangled web they are weaving... Here's some background on this subdivision application in Melton Road, Gisborne.
This was originally an application for 9 lots - lots which met the size requirements in the Gisborne Outline Development (ODP) adopted by Council. After later finding that some 7000 square metres would need to be set aside as a reserve to protect significant native vegetation on the land, back came a revised application to Council's 11th April meeting - this time for 12 lots (including the reserve). At that meeting, however, the application was found to be missing a vital ingredient - a development plan (which must be approved before Council can even consider issuing permits), so the whole shebang was deferred off to the next meeting on 18th April, 2007.
With now 11 lots and a reserve proposed, the residential lots, of course, are much smaller - as Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) later pointed out, the ODP cites 4000 square metres as the desirable lot size in this area, with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square metres, but the revised application had only one of 11 residential lots bigger than the ODP's minimum 3,000 square metres size.
Here's where it starts to get interesting. At the 18th April meeting, Council's Director of Sustainable Development set the ball rolling by saying the latest (12 lot) application wasn't compliant with the Gisborne ODP. Whereas the original plan had lots just under 4000 sq m, the revised plan has lots less than the minimum lot size contemplated by the ODP.
Are you ready for the first bombshell? The officer's written report to Council said that didn't matter. More than that, the officer's report retained its earlier assessment of the original (9 lot) plan against the planning scheme's Development Plan Overlay (DPO) requirements, even though the application was now for 12 lots. Huh? But the topper was the officer's comment that Council didn't need to be too fussy about the application complying with the planning scheme's Development Plan Overlay requirements as long as --- the application complied with the Gisborne ODP. Huh??
Cr. John Letchford (South), rather than defending his hometown's ODP quickly shafted it by asking Ms. Schilling its status, and she replied the ODP doesn't pass the test of being a seriously entertained document. In essence that meant it didn't have to be taken seriously.
First off, Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) reiterated his request from the previous week that a condition be added requiring the subdivision to be sewered before it can proceed. It was agreed such a condition could and would be added.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) moved the officer's recommendation to approve a permit (as amended above) but also wanted some changes of his own. Those having been agreed to, Gisborne's Cr. John Letchford (South) seconded the motion. Getting to his feet, Cr. Harvey quickly said the issue is balance. He was surprised at Ms Schilling's comments about the ODP but said they strengthened his argument for approval. He said that if Council could give a bit in other areas he believed Council had an obligation to do so. The native vegetation area set aside in the subdivision will become an important part of vegetation links in the township.
The next bombshell came from Cr. Geoff Neil (East) who said he had no dispute with Cr. Harvey's comments, but... The native vegetation reserve had come about through referral of the application to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), who said it wanted more land than in the originally proposed reserve. Cr. Neil said this latest plan had that, and another 11 lots. Cr. Neil then waxed lyrical about how this was an extraordinary subdivision - a prime piece of real estate which will yield maximum dollars for the proponent. However, he had an issue with protecting native vegetation, saying the best people to do that would be DSE. If Council took it on it would be regarded as an open space contribution. He said he felt Council should be able to have its cake, and eat it too, and pointed out that Council doesn't have a development contributions plan. He said he believed that since the reserve contained native vegetation, Council should give it to the people with the expertise (i.e. DSE) and so remove the onus from Council. Council should also be saying to the developer that he is a lucky ducky, getting 3 extra lots, and so he should give Council 5% of the value of the land in cash (as well as handing over the native vegetation reserve to DSE). He flagged an amendment to the permit conditions to include his ideas, which Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) alone supported.
The Mayor Cr. Helen Relph (South) at this stage advised Council it was dealing with both Cr. Neil's amendment and the original motion. However as Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) began to speak against the proposal, Cr. Noel Harvey (West) called a point of order, saying Council couldn't follow such a process. The Mayor then said Council could only consider Cr. Neil's amendment at this stage to which Cr. Harvey responded with the statement that Cr. Neil's proposal was nonsense. He went on to say that the State government couldn't look after the land it already has, and it was an insult to ask the applicant to provide another 5%. Cr. Henry Bleeck (East) didn't support the amendment either, also giving the State government a serve by saying State government land is a disaster, the State has a history of not looking after reserves and was incapable of looking after the new reserve.
Cr. Geoff Neil (East) summed up saying it was interesting how much Council was saying about how hopeless the State Government is at looking after land. As it stood, Council would have to look after the land for something that wasn't its responsibility (i.e. native vegetation) all because DSE said the reserve had to be created. Council was forced into it by a referral response, and shouldn't forego the extra 5%. The motion was lost when only Cr. Geoff Neil (East) and Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) voted in favour, the other 7 Councillors voted against.
Debate then returned to the original motion (as amended earlier by agreement). Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) resumed speaking, saying the application was fatally flawed, as was the process. He expressed strong concerns that Council was again attempting to approve a "development plan" (which extinguishes residents' rights to be notified of and object to future development) without consulting the community. He said if Council was about open, transparent government, it needs to say to Gisborne - hey, if we approve this it takes away your rights, have a say now. Sounding exasperated, he pointed out that Development Plan Overlays (DPOs) have now been applied in most towns, and the process Council undertakes in dealing with them has implications across the Shire. He referred to recent unfavourable experiences for Council at VCAT for failing to get DPO processes right, quoting VCAT's Helen Gibson "It does not appear that the council has a practice of separately endorsing plans as approved development plans under the Development Plan Overlay as recommended in the Planning Practice Note, Applying the Incorporated Plan Overlay and Development Plan Overlay". He also pointed out that if Council supported the officer's recommendation, it would (on paper at least) be adopting a development plan for all of DPO Cell 4b, when it only had a development plan for this particular property, which is only a small part of Cell 4b, in front of it. He asked, where is the development plan for the whole cell? He reminded Council of the recent $4,500 costs awarded against it for issuing a permit without having an appropriate, approved development plan to hand. He said Council couldn't move the application forward because it didn't have a development plan for all of DPO Cell 4b.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) opposed the application on the basis that it didn't meet the requirements of the draft Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development Plan [for which Council is preparing a planning scheme amendment]. The land is located at the gateway to Gisborne. Cr. Gyorffy referred to Cr. Neil's impassioned plea last week to not allow two units at the gateway to Romsey, and said this land was just as important and this subdivision was as out of character as the Romsey application had been. Cr. John Letchford (South) on the other hand said the Outline Development Plan was dead. It had been around for 10 years and had never been finalised. The application was the best outcome for the land and was in the best interests of the community. It was a prime piece of land.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) closed the debate saying the ODP wasn't a seriously entertained document - Councillors could shake their hands as much as they liked but it shouldn't be considered. The proposal accorded with the planning scheme. This is a good outcome, don't be distracted by the ODP.
At this point Cr. Geoff Neil (East) leapt to his feet, saying he was distressed and wanted an adjournment to discuss a matter with officers before Council made its decision. The Mayor denied his request and proceeded to call for the vote. A division was called which showed Crs. Noel Harvey (West), Henry Bleeck (East), Sandra McGregor (East), Helen Relph (South), John Letchford (South) and John Connor (West) supported approval, Crs. Geoff Neil (East), Tom Gyorffy (West) and Rob Guthrie (South) opposed.
MRRA Says:
We'll obviously have to come up with an alternative to 'dog's breakfast', because we can't keep using it all the time! Nevertheless it goes some way to describing what has happened with this application, although we feel something stronger is called for.
Now let's see. This is what it looked like happened.
DSE said save the trees, which it has the power to do. That meant that roughly 17% of the land was given over to a Protected Vegetation reserve, responsibility for which would be Council's. The thinking then seems to have been that carving the rest of the land up as per the ODP's 'large lot' requirements wouldn't yield enough financial return. So, essentially, be blowed to the ODP, be blowed to good planning outcomes, be greedy instead. And all but two of our Councillors (Guthrie and Gyorffy) fell for it, with two (Harvey and Neil) publicly promoting it, hence Cr. Harvey's comments about 'believing Council had an obligation to give a bit in other areas' [apparently in return for saving the trees], and Cr. Neil's comment about the developer being "a lucky ducky, getting 3 extra lots" and so should give Council money as well as land. In other words, some of our Councillors knowingly and publicly acknowledged a deal was being done, contrary to planning requirements, that helped the developer.
A couple of other items caught our attention as well:
For starters, the Gisborne Outline Development Plan HAS NOT been around for 10 years as Cr. Letchford claimed, consultation processes for it began in 2005. It has $25,000 of State government money in it and is starting to look like a stop-start-stop disaster - well, at least in the hands of Macedon Ranges Councillors and the Department's office at Bendigo. MRRA would like to know why a document which Council voted to move forward to an amendment to the planning scheme (C59) only 2 months ago, is now NOT a seriously entertained document. We've asked it before, and we'll ask again, what's going on with the Gisborne ODP? Who doesn't want it?
We got the distinct impression from Cr. Harvey's closing comments that he may not be entirely clear on the difference between an ODP and a DPO.
What's an ODP? It's a strategic framework, a plan, that sets out a vision and future directions for an area or town.
What's a DPO? It's a statutory provision in planning schemes, an overlay that must be complied with, which is (usually) applied to undeveloped land and triggers a requirement for a development plan to be prepared and approved (showing in detail how the land will be developed) before any permits can be approved to develop the land.
Not knowing the difference just cost Council $4,500 at VCAT. So when Cr. Neil said he was distressed, and wanted to talk to officers, how much do you want to bet that the penny had finally dropped that Council was doing it again? Still, there aren't any objectors to this proposal as far as we know, so Council is likely to get away scot-free on this one.
Cr. Neil's comments that native vegetation wasn't Council's responsibility were extraordinary, to say the least! Where has he been while the world changed? And far from defending Gisborne's gateway as he had the week before Romsey's gateway, alas Cr. Neil did not bring forth an alternative motion to refuse this application. Seems, as we suspected, refusals only apply in Geoff's home town of Romsey.
And lastly, did Cr. McGregor change her vote? It seemed she voted against the proposal but when a division was called, voted for it.
Not happy with how your Councillors are performing? Then start thinking about who will replace them in 2008.