Showing posts with label Council Meeting. Show all posts

Cr Maria Mcarthy Elected Mayor and Cr Jason Callanan Deputy Mayor




I take pride in announcing Cr Mcarthy has been elected Mayor of the Yarra Ranges Council for the next year! I will be right by her side, supporting her any way I can! I proud to be part of the leadership team and will look forward to working alongside Mayor Mcarthy!

Low Density Residential Zone Review




The State Government has ask the Shire of Yarra Ranges to submit their views on their proposed changes to the LDRZ. Tonight we had over 40 submitters from a broad range of community members. Their submissions will then be taken into serious consideration when council considers its position and will then submit that to the State Government.

"FULL HOUSE" at council meeting 24th June



At last nights meeting we broke the record (as stated by long standing councillors) for the longest meeting,  finishing at 1230am. We had a full house with a majority of community members here regarding the proposed cessation of Council Funded Family Day Care services. I received many emails objecting to the closure of this service, and before last night, I didn't really have a grasp of how important this service was to the community. Prior to the meeting I was not for or against the motion and was concerned about the consequences of our decision. Many of you will note that I seconded Cr Mcarthy's motion to end council funded FDC services and yes right there and then I was supportive of the motion. But as the discussions went on and hearing from the public, and other councillors, my opinion had changed. Now I appreciate the work council officers have put into this report and the time spent with educators over the last 12 months. Ultimately my decision was based on "what is council's role? Its "core" business?" Looking after our young, providing services that protect our most vulnerable is indeed "core" business for council, as is waste management and local roads. There are private providers out there that can make roads, and deal with waste, but at the end of the day this is what you pay rates for! Now it may seem that my integrity has been questioned about how I voted last night, but let me say that last night displayed good and healthy debate and councillors coming into the meeting with an "open" mind.

I was also pleased to see my alternative recommendation to approve a "care takers" residence at the Killara Estate Vineyard. This vineyard has undergone many improvements since it was purchased by the new owner "Leo" 8 years ago and to his credit now has a highly respected product. This planning application is just the next step in his dream to increase the standard of his produce.

Council Meeting 11th March - Tenement Controls & The Olinda Pool






Tuesday's meeting "11th" will see 2 issues within my ward of which are of public interest.
 
1: Application for a dwelling in Kalorama - Tenement Controls
2: The Olinda Pool
 
The first is an application for a dwelling and water tank in the hilly suburb of Kalorama. However this application has been recommended for refusal because the property itself has a "Tenement" control.
 
"What is a Tenement control"? you ask?, well let me tell you.

In the 1970’s improved transport networks on the urban fringe of Melbourne made the Dandenong Ranges and the Yarra Valley with an easy commuting  distance from the city centre, with that brought increased development. Between the years 1967 and 1973 the Shires of Pakenham and Sherbrooke building approvals almost quadrupled. This lead to a response from the state government to ensure protection of these areas with the formation of Statements of Planning Policy 3 (Dandenong Ranges) and 4 (Yarra River). These policies outlines specific requirements for recreation and conservation rather than new residential development. A new regional level group resulted in the formation of The Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Authority which set out to create a regional strategy plan (RSP).
 
This lead to a number of actions being:
 
The acquisition of land by the State Government – but due to associated costs it was limited to lots adjoin state land or at extreme risk of bushfire
 
The restructure of “old and inappropriate” subdivisions, which involved the consolidation of lots.
 
Lastly and not very well known was the creation of tenement controls.

 
Tenement controls operate by restricting development within groups of lots known to have been in the same ownership (tenement holding) on a specific date, which was known as the “effective date”. By limiting the amount of dwellings that can be constructed to a specified number per holding (usually just one), as opposed to one per lot. In the past tenement controls had largely been applied to farming areas or the urban fringe, however the RSP was being applied over areas previously zoned residential, such as the northern half of mount Dandenong and weren't being used as a permit trigger but an outright prohibition on development as was its intent in previous planning schemes.  Concerns were raised as to the potential for the control to be eroded due to the fact that 60% of refusals for 2nd dwellings on tenement controls were overturned in the Melbourne and Metropolitan Planning Scheme by the then Administrative Appeal Tribunal. Despite this they were expanded in the Yarra Ranges & Dandenong Ranges.

Now, this application must meet ALL 9 of the Tenement "anomalies" Set out in Clause 53 of the Planning Scheme: They are:

Clause 53 (Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges Regional Provisions)
  
Under Clause 53.01-2 (Use of Land- Tenement Controls), a planning permit can be sought for the use and development of additional dwellings within a tenement holding (ie development of individual vacant lots), provided that it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that: 
The development will not prejudice the primary purpose of the zone and local planning policies applying to the land.

The wider objectives of the tenement provisions are protected from incremental erosion and are maintained as a legitimate means of protecting the areas identified from inappropriate development. 

Services such as constructed roads, reticulated water supply and reticulated sewerage are available, without additional substantial costs to the Council and servicing authorities, and the provision of these and other utility installations will have minimal impact on the environment or landscape of the area.

 If reticulated sewerage is not available, the site is of sufficient size to enable proper onsite treatment of all wastes and retention of effluent. 

If the land is in an area identified as having a high risk of wildfire hazard, appropriate building design measures will be undertaken to provide an acceptable level of protection. 

The development will be consistent with the provision of any Environmental Significance Overlay, Heritage Overlay, Erosion Management Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay that applies to the land. 

 There will be no detriment to the ecology of any stream or watercourse on or near the site by virtue of the development. 

The development can be considered to be infill in an area which is substantially built up. 

Removal of native vegetation is minimised.


Council Officers are recommending refusal because 2 of the anomalies cant be met # 2 and # 8

 The wider objectives of the tenement provisions are protected from incremental erosion and are maintained as a legitimate means of protecting the areas identified from inappropriate development. 

There will be no detriment to the ecology of any stream or watercourse on or near the site by virtue of the development.

I will arguing the case that they do and that this application should be approved.

There will be some talk about "infill development" and "inappropriate development" both of which do not apply to this application. Unfortunately this "Tenement" provision ultimately "bans" any further development within the hills in certain areas. You will see that this application isn't a large development, it fits in with the local character of the hills, ALL risk aspects of the application have been met: Bushfire, Erosion, and Sewerage!

This provision is well hidden within the hills and does take some time and money to establish whether you have a tenement control or not and this concerns me. An antiquated planning control that has seen its day and was well used (in the 1970s). That amount of development and expansion does not exist now and into the future.


The second issue is the Olinda Pool, the report states:

"At the time of preparing this report, the final structural engineering assessment was yet to be received.  This report will be distributed separately to councillors. 

Considerable community interest has been experienced in relation to the structural issues identified with the Olinda pool.  Council’s Aquatic Facilities Strategy recommends closing the Olinda Pool and exploring alternatives once the Monbulk Aquatic Centre is redeveloped and opened. 

As a result of the recent identification of structural damage to the Olinda pool, it is recommended that Council undertake an extensive community engagement process that reviews short and long term options for the Olinda pool site, including options that would allow for continued enjoyment of the site well into the future.  It is further recommended that Council is provided with an update on the progress of community engagement to ensure that consideration can be given to options for the site well prior to the 2014/15 summer season."

 
RECOMMENDATION 
That: 
1. Consultation occur with the broader community on future options for the Olinda Pool as recommended in Council’s Aquatic Facilities Strategy.
2. Further report(s) be provided to Council on the progress of community engagement well prior to the 2014/15 summer season.

At this point I haven't seen the final engineers report so at this stage I will reserve my opinion on this. I will say this though:

"I support the Olinda and the wider Hills community to have a water recreational facility and if this means the "wider community" supports a pool, then I will support it."

We now need to understand what the community wants to see in this space. Ultimately the pool itself is damaged beyond repair, after serving its community for 50 years, it played an integral role in the social and wellbeing of all within the Hills community. I want to see something that will now continue this legacy into the next 50 years!

Lets make sure we get this one right! Lets make sure we develop something so ALL can enjoy!

Council Meeting 12th March


 
 





In this up coming council meeting we will be discussing issues such as:

  • Planning Scheme Amendment C103 - Chirnside Park Acivity Centre Development Contributions Plan.
  • Lot S2 Kiimberly Drive (Lot S2 PS615751), Chirnside Park - Consideration of Amended Plans and Purchase of Urban Park.
  • Planning application YR 2012/1232 - Road Reserve in Ingram Rd between Number 31 and 55 (Including  200 Leonard Rd) and Road Reserve in Boundary Rd between Number 15 and 54 (including Number 98 and 98a Killara rd), Coldstream - Vegitation Removal within road reserve.
  • Planning Application YR 2012/714 - 478 Woods Point Road (Lot 1 PS202580) East Warburton - Certificate of Compliance.
  • Patons Road an Mulhans Road, Macclesfield - Special Charge Scheme Final Costs.
  • William Road (Eastern Section), Charles Road (Northern Section) & Gilba Place, Lilydale - Special Charge Scheme Financing Rate Applicable to Landowners Repaying the Special Charge Scheme.
Councillor Motions

Kilsyth Scout Hall

At this weeks Council Meeting...

So Tuesdays Council meeting again had a number of agenda items of high public interest. We had a number of questions from the public regarding a number of things from colour choice of building material, tree placement in the new streetscape in Monbulk, past election issues, visit of the Collingwood football club, the current downgrade/shift of services in Eastern Health, Vic forest's relocation.

Mr T. Heenan was present to ask a question regarding the Mt Evelyn Skate Park of which he is quite passionate about. Mr Heenan, wanted to ask about the progress of this park and other associated services, also a proposed BMX track next to it. This was taken on board by the engineering team for a response.

First Planning Application was the old "saw mill" site in Healesville. There a number of people present to represent the community of Healesville, including the SES, of which they were one of the objectors to this development. Due to the size of this project and the large public interest, Mayor Jim Child allowed two each (objectors and supporters) to speak to the council. Only one member spoke for the development. 2 people spoke against the application. Council also had a number of objectors from environment, planning and design. Victoria Police also had an objection and unfortunately due to Victoria Police being a statutory authority, this meant that the planning application had to be refused.

"Now this is the second development for this site to be knocked back. I would ask the community of Healesville to think about what they would like to see on this site, It has remained dormant for over 10 years and could be a great "advertisement" for Healesville." It looks like that this, unfortunately will now head to VCAT.

The other significant agenda item was Cr Dunn's motion to Rescind a resolution and adopt and Alternate motion regarding the Ethical Paper Pledge and requesting that the Yarra Ranges Council continue to be part of this pledge.

I made it known that I would be voting against this motion and remain off this pledge. I had not seen any new overwhelming evidence to suggest reasons why we should remain on this pledge. I didn't make this decision lightly and prior to the first vote back in December I had absolutely no idea about this issue.

In December, I visited local contractors and Vic Forest (on site) to see current coupes and current replanting activities. I do admit that fresh cleared coupes don't look pretty, I did see evidence of how coupes were marked out and how within each coupe certain trees were untouched due to its age or wildlife significance. I had read articles from My Environment about native forest logging, wildlife impacts and environmental issues. I am still keen to tour with My Environment to gain a balanced perspective. I also commented that the moving of Vic Forest's head office to the Yarra Ranges was not a priority of mine and wasn't the reason vote against the Pledge.

The motion was lost with Cr's Callanan, Witlox, McCarthy, McAllister and Child voting against the motion and Cr's Cox, Cliff, Avery, and Dunn for the motion.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Blogger Template by Clairvo