Ellinbank house to be demolished

A house that should have been removed from an Ellinbank property 10 years ago has not been granted planning permission to remain on the Petersons Rd property.

Neale and Lisa Parke told Baw Baw Shire Council the house had been used as a caretaker dwelling “in every true sense of the word for over 10 years.”

But, it was not enough to convince councillors to approve a planning permit for the house to remain on the 20 hectare property.

One councillor said over recent years it was hard enough to get one house approved on land under 40 hectares, let alone two.

A report to council said a planning permit was issued in 2007 for a replacement house on the land. Permit conditions required the existing house to be removed within three months of the new house being completed.

Officers said the owners had the right to challenge the condition at VCAT but never lodged an appeal.

The report said failure to remove the original home was brought to the attention of council’s enforcement officers and a contravention notice was sent to the Parkes in January.

“The owner is now seeking approval to retain the original dwelling in addition to the replacement dwelling…this would result in there being two dwellings on the land,” officers said.

The Parkes told council their farming operation consisted of about 400 hectares across the shire and more than 1000 head of cattle.

As well as the commercial farming enterprise, they also run a carpentry business, which they said gave them the financial capacity to farm.

“As this land is solely farmed by us, our need for a caretaker has become more and more paramount however the financial burden of employing somebody proves difficult.

“Our caretaker’s dwelling over the last 10 years has provided us with the ability to provide low cost housing in trade for the much needed assistance on all of our farming land,” they said.

The Parkes said after 10 years, council had started charging rates on the house.

“In this day and age it is hard to believe that there is any appetite by council to demolish a perfectly liveable four bedroom home when the community is crying out for affordable housing, what a waste of amenity and resourcing,” they said.

Five letters of support also were submitted to council supporting the Parke’s application.

Cr Peter Kostos moved the application be approved, arguing the applicants needed the house to support their business.

Cr Kostos said the applicant was at fault for not removing the house, but so was the shire for not following it up.

“You can argue the property is small but the applicant has a carpentry business and a large parcel of land.

He said if the property was sold and the new owner could not justify a caretaker’s house then it would have to be removed.

Cr Kostos said precedents had already been set with other permits.

His motion was not supported.

Council adopted the recommendation from planners to refuse the application to retain the house.

Cr Darren Wallace said approving the house would be against the conditions of the original permit.

“The previous conditions should’ve been enforced by our officers.

“Over the past few years it’s been hard enough to get one house approved, to get two approved on 50 acres is a minor miracle.

“I get that he has land all over the place but it is still less than 100 acres. He has one house on it yet he wants two – tell him he’s dreaming,” he said.

Cr Joe Gauci said the application did not relate to his 400 hectares across the shire, it related to 20 hectares that has two houses on it because they didn’t fulfil the planning conditions.

Cr Mikaela Power declared a conflict of interest.