chirnside park golf club redevelopment gets a green light

report from the roundtable - 25 Oct

Once again council found itself considering the Chirnside Park Country Club Golf Course redevelopment. An application that's had a long history with Yarra Ranges, it was first refused by council in September, 2008 (see blog).

However after council refused the application the then Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, called in the application and proceeded to approve the planning scheme amendment/redevelopment. In 2010, the Minister requested that he be the responsible authority for the development, councillors unanimously refused his request in November, 2010 as it would have been to the detriment of the local community by not allowing them to have a voice or be part of a local democratic process (see blog).

The development was back before council again this week to approve the redevelopment of the 54 hectare site which included 553 residential lots and 13.6 hectares of open space.

I could not support the motion to approve the Development Plan and support the Ministerial Amendment. In speaking against the motion I talked about a number of key issues. At the heart of the issue was the Ministerial interference in local democracy. However it was my view that we had not worked hard enough to get the best outcome for residents in Chirnside Park.

The original development presented to council was for 450 lots, however this current proposition of 553 lots was a complete overdevelopment of the site. The 22% increase in lots would see the destruction of 1520 trees, 256 of them assessed as being of high retention value. It was obvious from the cut and fill plan supplied with the documentation that little had been done to preserve the high amenity values of the site.

Although seeming to be generous in public open space, the linear parks proposed are poor in terms of their usability, although I can understand why abutting residents want a buffer between them and this development. Other public open spaces include wetland areas, also unusable as parkland as their primary purpose is to manage storm water.

The developer, as part of the presentation on the night, stated that the proposal included "economically viable housing" due to smaller lot sizes that would be a lesser cost than larger lots on the site. To suggest that smaller lot sizes respond to the affordable housing crisis is a nonsense and defies logic.

The lack of clarity as to the purpose of the super lot proposed as part of the redevelopment was also a key concern. There was no surety for council or residents as to the purpose of the lot and no third party appeal rights to any proposal for the lot. It would have been a terrific site for social housing, but without certainty no one in the community or council truly knows what this site will be used for.

The intensity of the development was too great, considering the site is outside of the defined area for the Chirnside Park Major Activity Centre, where council has determined higher densities should be contained as part of a broad community consultation.

The motion was won but it was clearly a contentious issue with councillors voting 5 for and 4 against.

FOR:
Cr's Higgins, Warren, Templer, Heenan and Avery

AGAINST:
Cr's Dunn, Cox, Cliff and McRae.

chirnside park golf club

report from the roundtable - 9 nov

At this week's meeting council had to consider a request from the Chirnside Park Country Club that the Minister for Planning become the responsible authority for determining the outcome of the Oakhaven development at the Chirnside Park Golf Club.

Back in September, 2008 council abandoned a planning scheme amendment which would have allowed the golf course to be rezoned to residential to allow an inappropriate development of 450 housing lots, which would have seen the removal of 1,248 trees.

However the Minister for Planning called the matter in and approved the rezoning and a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to guide the development of the site.

The Chirnside Park Golf Club have developed a new plan for the site which proposes 620 housing lots and have requested that council approve the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority.

I could not support the request. In summing up my refusal of the request my first response was – you have got to be joking.

The proposal, which has changed significantly since the Minister signed off on the DPO, has not been seen by the community, there has been no opportunity for the community to comment.

It is an outrageous transformation of the proposal, to go to 620 lots, an ever greater vegetation loss, more traffic impacts with an additional 2000 traffic movements generated per day, a reduction in open space down to 20% - without even asking the community what they thought.

Not only was the proposal quite different to the original there was a request to significantly water down the DPO to change the setbacks and create grey areas by using terms like should (rather than must).

The proposal should be part of the local democratic process, the community’s voice must be heard and must be taken into account.

We’ve had enough Ministerial intervention in Yarra Ranges, it seems the Minister would like to make council’s redundant with the changes sought in the Planning and Environment Act.

There must be consultation, the community has a right to articulate its aspirations and must be heard.

There is no role for the Minister play in this matter.

Councillors voted unanimously to not support the Minister being the responsible authority.

report from the round table – 9th September

A very big night at council this time round. Although a big agenda with a lot of major applications, one dominated more than any other, the amendment proposed to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme (C67) to allow a residential subdivision of the Chirnside Park Country Club Golf Course. The recommendation from officers was that the Minister for Planning be requested to appoint an independent panel to hear further submissions.

As such a large crowd was anticipated for this meeting it was moved to the York on Lilydale in Mt Evelyn to fit everybody in. I estimate that the crowd in the gallery numbered around the 350 to 400 mark.

First off council heard verbal submissions from objectors and supporters, both sides had the opportunity to put forward 4 speakers.

Cr Ken Smith moved a motion to support the request for a planning panel and was seconded by Cr Terry Avery. Then the debate began, most councillors had a say and it was certainly one of the most contentious matters I have dealt with as a councillor.














I could not support the motion and said:

“this proposal would see the removal of 1248 trees. We like to pride ourselves on our environmental stewardship, 1248 trees, we like to pride ourselves on environmental leadership, 1248 trees. We wear these badges with pride, how can we continue to be proud of our environmental credentials and allow the removal of 1248 trees?

The proposal does nothing to protect the existing vegetation, we cannot continue to cut down mature trees, 1248 trees, this isn’t an option we can support.

The number of objectors speaks volumes, and we’ve already heard from Cr Keane about the numbers (note: 963 objectors to 399 supporters, 87.3% of objectors lived locally, 52.8% of supporters lived locally). The people have spoken and we need to listen.

I would just like to read part of our (council’s) mission ‘we will work in partnership with the community to improve the quality of life of residents, protect and enhance the natural environment, create jobs and manage the Shire to provide for the needs and expectations of local and wider communities’. We would not be living up to our mission to allow this motion to go through.

We do not need an independent panel, we have already heard submissions and the message is clear. This amendment has already been on exhibition, the people have already had an opportunity to have their say, we do not need an independent panel. The people have spoken, we know what our community wants.

Councillors I cannot support this motion, I cannot support the removal of 1248 trees, I urge you to not support this motion and I foreshadow an alternate motion.”

The vote was taken and the motion was lost with the votes as follows:
For: Crs Avery, Heenan, Warren and Smith
Against: Crs Dunn, Keane, Cox, Cliff and McRae
.
As I had foreshadowed an alternate motion in the earlier debate, I had the floor so I moved a motion “That Council abandon Amendment C67 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme,” which was seconded by Cr Keane.

In support of my motion I spoke about how people don’t realise how precious something is until it is threatened and that’s what had happened with the Chirnside Park community. I urged the community to work in cooperation with the Golf Club to find a way forward.

The motion was won with the votes recorded as follows:
For: Crs Dunn, Keane, Cox, Cliff and McRae
Against: Crs Avery, Heenan, Warren and Smith