Coldstream residents say the majority of Yarra Ranges Council has let the team down as they fight to retain the “cricket in the backyard at mum’s” lifestyle they say is threatened by dual occupancy development.
By Kath Gannaway
COLDSTREAM residents opposing second-dwelling development say they have been underarmed by five Yarra Ranges councillors.
The council voted five/four on Tuesday night to approve planning applications for five dual-occupancy developments in the Coldstream estate.
The estate is zoned residential one which provides for medium density infill and councillors supporting the application argued that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had already overturned an earlier refusal by council.
The Coldstream Community Action Group (CCAG) presented council with a petition signed by almost 600 residents opposing what they say will destroy the character of Coldstream – big back yards and a rural community lifestyle.
CCAG members Maurice Maxwell, Grant Wild and Guy Walker said they believed they had enough community support to mandate the support of council at VCAT.
“There is a petition signed by some 60 per cent of the residents and a strong view to fight it at VCAT,” Mr Maxwell said.
“If they had rejected the application, it would be the applicant having to go to VCAT and we would have council in there batting for us,” he said.
If the residents do take the matter to VCAT, the shire’s staff would support the council’s decision according to Yarra Ranges mayor Len Cox.
Mr Wild said he was “gutted” by the decision which was passed on a vote by Crs Cox, Heenan, Avery, Higgins and Warren.
Crs McRae, Dunn, Templer and Cliff voted against the recommendation.
“We know they (the applicants) are within their rights to do this, but when you have 596 residents on a petition who oppose this, it is just wrong,” said Mr Wild.
“The argument that it’s too expensive for the council to take it to VCAT is just not on – we are the ratepayers.
“You have to wonder if they would have voted differently if it had been in their own wards,” Mr Wild said in response to Cr Avery’s observation that it would involve “an expensive trip to VCAT”.
Cr McRae argued against the application, saying it was not consistent with the council’s Vision 2020 which she said talked about neighbourhood character and protecting what people valued, amenity and the value of open spaces.
Cr Dunn argued that to approve the application would “erode the very values the community holds dear”.
Cr Heenan however defended the decision, saying he had supported Coldstream residents in the past on the Coldstream compost issue and had attended two mediation meetings on the dual-occupancy issue.
“I thought that most of the points brought up weren’t going to hold water at VCAT,” he said.
“It was about understanding all the complexities of what was put before us and I felt the need to support one extra dwelling. I don’t see this as a carve-up of Coldstream,” he said, adding that he would not support unit development in that community.
Cr Cox said the decision represented democracy at work.
“That was the council decision. You have a five/four vote with the majority of councillors believing it will have a minor impact on Coldstream,” he said.
Residents are frustrated also that other options are not being considered – such as rezoning of the green-wedge parcel of land between the railway line and the highway which they say could provide the revitalisation it is being argued Coldstream needs to survive.
That, the residents say, could only be done with Yarra Ranges Council on their side.
