Council approves house despite erosion concerns

An application to build a house on a Seaview property has been approved by Baw Baw Shire Council despite officer concerns about erosion.

Planning staff recommended council refuse the application, saying there was a “risk to property and/or life” and the application would result in the loss of agricultural land.

But, after hearing from the applicant and builder, councillors approved the application, satisfied that the geotechnical report was satisfactory for building on the land.

The report to council said the applicants sought to develop a house and outbuilding on a 27 hectare property on Warragul Leongatha Rd. The property is located in a farming zone.

The report to council said a planning permit was required to build a house on lots less than 40 hectares in a farming zone.

Officer’s said the applicant proposed to use and develop the land with a house to support an existing Limousin cattle enterprise, with no additional financial commitment proposed. There are currently 52 head of cattle on the property.

But planners said the farm management plan did not demonstrate that the enterprise was commercially viable or justified the need for a full time presence on the land.

“The site has been identified as an area that is prone to landslip and as such, it is considered that the dwelling cannot be supported at the site given the significant land disturbances and the inconsistency of information provided to support such an application under the erosion management overlay.

“If the proposed dwelling was brought into being it will increase the likelihood of erosion or landslip and there could be a risk to property and life,” the report said.

Officers also said there was an illegal dwelling on site and the removal of native vegetation has been carried out without a planning permit.

Planners also said earthworks and vegetation removal had occurred on site since the geotechnical report, which “compromised the accuracy of the report.”

But the applicant, Andrea Webster, denied this was the case.

Ms Webster said their geo-technical report maintained there was a “tolerable risk” and suitable for the proposed development.

She told council vegetation was removed after a storm passed through the area in November last year that caused “carnage” and a number of trees to fall.

She said they received advice from an arborist who informed them to remove the remainder of the trees for safety.

In relation to the illegal dwelling, Ms Webster said shire officers inspected the property on May 30 last year and said a shed on the property was classed as habitable.

She said they were told to either get a permit or de-commission the shed within 28 days.

Ms Webster said a letter was sent to the shire on June 7 informing staff the works had been undertaken and was ready for inspection but no one had contacted them since.

“It’s not an illegal dwelling and we did not illegally remove vegetation,” she said.

Despite planners recommending council refuse the application, Crs Terry Williamson and Peter Kostos successfully moved council approve the proposal.

Cr Williamson said councillors heard from the owners and builder and had received geo-technical reports.

“I see no reason why we can’t approve this. They are legitimate. It’s a steep block and someone living on the site always farms better than someone off site.

“Council has the right to review planning in the rural zone and that’s what we are doing,” he said.

Cr Peter Kostos said almost the exact same house had been built by the same builder further up the road.

He said council had been presented with a geotechnical report saying it was possible and sustainable.

Cr Murray Cook said it was definitely a situation where you had to go and look at the property and proposal.

“If you aren’t living on a property like that it isn’t managed well.

“If you want to stop a slip, you do what they are doing – you put posts down into rock and they are doing that at great expense,” he said.

Cr Mikaela Power spoke against the motion, saying the proposal was inconsistent with a number of planning clauses.