By JESSE GRAHAM
AN HISTORIC Yarra Glen site will be put under the hammer following last week’s council meeting, after the mayor slammed fellow councillors at the meeting over cost concerns.
The sale of land at 39 and 41 Bell Street was approved at the council’s 24 June meeting, following lengthy discussion by councillors.
Mayor Fiona McAllister said that the sites, one of which hosted a maternal health centre opened by local women in 1954, were significant to the community.
She said that public consultation, which saw letters posted to every house in Yarra Glen, and the responses from residents demonstrated that residents felt it was an important issue.
In the initial consultation, the council received 66 replies – 44 of these had no objection to the sale, or no objection as long as future development aligns with the town’s character, wants and needs.
The latest round of consultation saw 10 submissions – six opposing the sale, while four do not specifically oppose the sale but raised concerns about any development.
“The community support the sale, but made very clear that this is a significant piece of land in the township,” she said.
Cr McAllister said that by placing a Section 173 agreement on the land sale, the community could avoid inappropriate developments on the site.
“A 173 agreement offers some degree of surety that this precious plot for them will end up with something sited with consideration with how it connects to that streetscape,” Cr McAllister said.
However, other councillors raised their own concerns about the sale, and said a Section 173 could discourage potential buyers or lower the money gathered on the site.
A Section 173 is a condition on the sale of land, which can dictate what the new owner can do in terms of developments or buildings.
In the case of 39 and 41 Bell Street, the Section 173 requires buildings and works on the property to address the Bell Street frontage, be of an applicable scale and have intensive development located at the rear of the site.
Councillor Jim Child said that he wanted to see the best outcome for the Yarra Glen community, and said he believed the best outcome was without the Section 173.
“It’s complicating things, and could be detrimental to a real profitable sale,” he said. (CHECK)
Cr McAllister said she was astounded by her colleague’s comments on the matter, and said that all consultation was undertaken under the proviso of protection being applied to the site.
“Ultimately, for the community, they have said ‘we support the sale, and understand it will be sold with a layer of protection for us as a community’,” she said.
“Do you think they’re going to feel happy at the end of the day, when some inappropriate development gets through VCAT and we can say ‘we got an extra $100,000 for you’?”
Bill and William Verhagen from Yarra Glen’s Integrity Real Estate told councillors that they didn’t think a Section 173 would hinder the land sale.
They also spoke about previous consultation on the sale, which noted that proceeds from the sale would go towards the Memorial Hall development.
However, the council officer’s report stated that, as the hall’s development does not require the extra money, any sale proceeds would go towards capital works priorities in the town.
This, according to the report, was “in acknowledgement of the historical community contribution to acquisition of the properties”.
The sites’ buildings, with the exception of a public toilet, are now vacant.
The sale of the land, with the Section 173 applied as per the council’s agenda, passed in a five-to-three vote.
