Council & Business
24 November, 2022
Planning permit approved for Golden Wattle Drive
A six-lot subdivision and construction of six dwellings in Golden Wattle Drive, Maryborough, has been approved by the Central Goldfields Shire Council. At Tuesday’s ordinary council meeting, councillors moved unanimously to grant approval to...
A six-lot subdivision and construction of six dwellings in Golden Wattle Drive, Maryborough, has been approved by the Central Goldfields Shire Council.
At Tuesday’s ordinary council meeting, councillors moved unanimously to grant approval to planning permit application 024/22 with 40 conditions attached, despite the application receiving two objections.
According to the report tabled to council, the application was lodged in March this year and proposes the development of the land known as 62 Golden Wattle Drive, Maryborough, for six dwellings with associated works, reduction of car parking and a six-lot subdivision with the creation of common property.
Each of the dwellings, according to the report, are to be single-storey and contain three bedrooms, a living/kitchen/dining area, two bathrooms and an attached two-car garage, with the lots ranging in size from 260m2 to 286m2.
The application presented to council states access to three of the dwellings will be from Golden Wattle Drive, while the other three will be via Spring Street.
The associated works include the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings at the site as well as replacing boundary fencing at the developer’s cost, the report states.
Speaking at the council meeting, Cr Wayne Sproull moved that council grant the planning permit, noting the application was a prime example of “maximising” the potential for housing on a residential block.
“We’re in a position to take advantage of residential development and we need to,” he said.
“We know that from community feedback and work on our residential strategy that housing stock is in high demand.
“This is a good example of maximising a residential housing block to provide a modern housing development.
“Generally there would be no issue with signing off on this as it seems a well thought out and professional application, however it did receive some objections.”
The report tabled during the meeting outlines the two objections the application received, with the first raising concerns for privacy during construction and upon completion of the development, noise from vehicle movements and that nothing would be done to reduce noise.
The second objection was centred around the alleged loss of boundary line, privacy and space, that a two metre fence rather than 1.8 metre fence would be more suitable, that the boundary should be respected and works may affect the foundations of adjoining buildings, among others.
In the report tabled during the meeting, the planning officer’s response to both objections addressed each of the points raised, stating screening, fencing and landscaping will be implemented to reduce noise, a 1.8 metre fence meets requirements and addressing privacy issues and damage to adjoining building foundations is not expected.
Cr Sproull said he had met with the objectors to discuss their concerns with the proposal and was sympathetic.
“Planning issues can be difficult at times and sometimes have emotion involved, it’s part of our job to sift through information and make decisions based on fact and that in itself isn’t as easy as it seems,” he said.
“I’ve carefully considered the objectors’ concerns and spent a fair bit of time thinking about this and I’ve found that I’m contradicting myself.
“Yes we want development and housing growth as they bring many positives to the community, but we also want to protect our residents from some of the disadvantages of development which can be more individual.
“This is where mediation can be a great help but doesn’t always resolve all of the concerns.”
Cr Sproull said some of the concerns raised by objectors had been addressed and while approving the application may not please everyone, it was the responsible decision to make.
“In this instance, some of the concerns have been addressed and I feel the response has been adequate but with others, I am in a constant battle with my own thoughts,” he said.
“If we were to reject this application, the developer could take the matter to VCAT and would most likely win which would be a cost to council financially.
“We could also put future developments at risk if we attempt to micromanage each application.
“Ultimately, the application meets the criteria of our planning department and there have been many attempts to resolve issues between parties.
“While the end result may not please everyone, we need to vote on the facts before us and as previously stated, the application meets the current planning guidelines.”
Cr Geoff Lovett said that because the proposal met all the required guidelines set by council, it should be approved.
“As Cr Sproull has said there were objections to this proposal and council heard from those objectors last week,” he said.
“I’m of the opinion that the proponent has taken their concerns on board and made some adjustments accordingly.
“This is a major development that will significantly add to the housing stock in an area that will greatly benefit from it.
“At the end of the day the application has been assessed against the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme and it’s considered the proposed development is appropriate, therefore I will be supporting it.”