Baw Baw goes against panel ruling on Wesley

Baw Baw Shire Council has not adopted an independent planning panel’s recommendation in relation to a heritage overlay on land that forms part of Warragul’s historic Wesley church precinct.

The panel recommended council abandon the amendment to delete the heritage overlay from a section of 60 Victoria St and further suggested council should review whether a heritage overlay should be extended to the entire former parsonage site.

But council did not support the recommendation.

Planning scheme amendment C89 proposed to delete a heritage overlay from a 7.7 metre strip of land at 60 Victoria St, the former parsonage site.

Council’s submission to the panel hearing was that the heritage overlay should only apply to the church site.

Council submitted removal of the overlay from the 7.7 metre section would address a series of “errors” during which the overlay was removed from the remainder of 60 Victoria St.

Council agreed it would write to planning minister Richard Wynne presenting an argument on why the heritage overlay should be removed from the site.

Council will argue the planning panel’s recommendation was “outside the scope of the amendment.”

A number of Wesley supporters submitted the overlay should be restored to the entire site, including the former parsonage building.

The former parsonage at 60 Victoria St is now in private ownership by Bruce Jones, who purchased the site without any heritage overlay.

Panel chairman Michael Kirsch said there were grounds for extending the heritage overlay over the entire parsonage site as sought by some submitters.

But, he said this could not be done as part of the amendment C89 process.

The panel recommended council review the heritage significance of the parsonage at 60 Victoria St and whether extension of the heritage overlay over the entire site or its removal was warranted.

The panel suggested council also review the design and development overlay on the area.

Cr Mikaela Power moved that council endorse the panel’s recommendation and review the heritage significance of the entire site.

However the motion failed to gain a seconder so did not proceed.

Crs Murray Cook and Power then moved that council hold over the matter to allow for further discussion between Mr Jones and Wesley representatives.

Cr Cook said there was good will on both sides so “I’d like to think a compromise is possible that can protect the site with everyone thinking the best outcome had been achieved.

“There is sympathy for the landowners but there is concern that the land could be sold and (there would be) no control over it,” Cr Cook said.

But holding the matter over was not supported by councillors.

Crs Peter Kostos and Terry Williamson moved the officer’s recommendation that council not accept the panel’s recommendation

Cr Kostos said there had been lots of opportunities to resolve the issues.

Cr Kostos said he had a problem with a heritage overlay being inflicted on private property.

Cr Williamson said heritage was great and was a way the community could value the past.

“We all value heritage. But it creates problems for the owners of those properties,” he said.

Cr Williamson said all parties had an opportunity six months ago to have mediation and resolve it amicably and it didn’t happen.

Cr Cook said even if council referred the amendment to the minister, council could find itself in a position where the Wesley committee may apply for a heritage overlay over the whole site, and then the process would start again.

“So why not try and work it out if they have some common ground,” he said.

Cr Cook said the umpire (planning panel) made a decision and council was going against it.

Cr Kostos said the motion adopted by council allowed the matter to go to the minister to make a decision.

Cr Power called for a division. Crs Kostos, Williamson Joe Gauci and David Balfour supported the motion to reject the panel’s recommendation. Crs Power, Cook and Debbie Brown opposed the motion.