Councillors criticise planners for refusal

A house has been approved for a Seaview property after Baw Baw Shire councillors criticised planners for recommending the application be refused.

The application for a replacement dwelling on a Grand Ridge Rd property was recommended for refusal when planners suggested there were no existing use rights on the land.

But, a number of councillors said the application should never have been presented to council because it was clear the applicants had lived on the land for many years.

Planners said the application had not established existing use rights, failed to preserve productive farmland and would result in a proliferation of houses on agricultural land.

The applicant, Danii Finlayson/TRW Developments, said in a submission to council the property had been used as a permanent residence and occupied as a dwelling for more than 25 years.

She said her clients had permanently lived at the property for more than two years since his father had died.

Ms Finlayson said the land had been used for a dwelling in accordance with the planning scheme’s definition.

“The built form definition of a dwelling includes outbuildings for which the bathroom is one such outbuilding,” she said.

The 1.3 hectare property currently contains two buildings, two water tanks and a driveway.

In their report to council, planners said there was no record of the buildings on the land being approved and there were no existing use rights.

The application sought to develop a new 317.3 square metre house in the centre of the site and an on-site wastewater treatment system.

Mayor Danny Goss said there were inaccuracies in the planners’ report to council and the applicants had provided the correct information.

Moving the proposal be approved, Cr Peter Kostos said the application should never have come to council and should have been approved by planners.

“They have proven that they lived on the land for a long period of time and need to replace the dwelling. It should have been dealt with by delegation,” he said.

Cr Darren Wallace said no farm land would be lost in the application and given there was already a dwelling on the property, a replacement dwelling would not create a proliferation of dwellings.

“This has never been productive farm land. Why on earth is this even in the chamber,” he said.

Cr Michael Leaney said while the house was not your “standard punch out of the mould house” it was a residence and had been used over a long period of time.

“When you go and see the site, it is ad hoc and unusual. If people want to upgrade their houses they should not be refused on the basis that it is not a real house,” he said.

Cr Goss called for a division on the vote. The motion to approve the application was carried unanimously. Cr Joe Gauci was absent.