Council refuses Rokeby development

A residential development in Rokeby, described by objectors as a “quasi Waterford Rise,” has been refused by Baw Baw Shire Council because it failed to meet rural living standards.

The proposal sought to develop the 20 hectare Brandy Creek Rd property into 19 residential lots and a balance lot of 12 hectares containing a dam, considered a landmark on the Rokeby landscape.

But planners recommended refusal because the lot sizes were less than the one hectare minimum required for rural living.

The lot sizes ranged between 2563 square metres and 6222 square metres.

The application was lodged by Gippsland Licensed Surveyors on behalf of Rokeby Investments Pty Ltd.

Planners said the lot sizes failed to respond to the purpose of the rural living zone, which amongst other things sought to provide residential use in a rural environment while protecting and enhancing the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage values of the area.

Officers said the application failed to address a number of concerns relating to onsite wastewater management and stormwater management.

“The pattern of subdivision could contribute to an intensity of development which is at odds with the preferred scale and density of development being sought within this area of Rokeby,” the report said.

Cr Danny Goss said the development had the potential to “change Rokeby forever.”

He said the development did not meet the one hectare minimum and missed the intent of 20 lots in 20 hectares.

“The intention of the rural living zone is rural living in a rural environment but the density of this doesn’t indicate rural living,” he said.

Cr Goss said the lot sizes were more like low density residential lots.

He said the application also did not provide information about a proposed path around the dam, service roads, drainage and vegetation.

“I am happy to see the parcel developed but it has to be done better to reflect rural living. It’s up to the owners to provide a rural living outcome. It fails to meet the character test,” he said.

Cr Darren Wallace said he supported development in rural environments but the application only went 95 per cent of the way.

“The smaller lot sizes in the rural living zone don’t do it for me,” he said.

Cr Wallace said he did not understand why the developers would retain a four hectare dam on the property. “Why would you leave behind a public liability like that.

He said he understood what the developers were trying to do with 20 lots in 20 hectares, but not leaving behind a quasi hobby farm of 12 hectares.

Cr Jazmin Tauru voted against the refusal. She said there could have been better collaboration between all parties.

“Having different sizes of land caters for everyone who might want to live in Rokeby. They want to enjoy the scenery and the lifestyle.

“I believe this development would bring people to the area and increase the value of surrounding properties,” she said.

Cr Annemarie McCabe also opposed the recommendation, saying the development would provide a great place to build a home and have a rural lifestyle.

“There were a number of opportunities for the community and objectors to work together to seek the best outcome but it seems the community was reluctant.

I hope they can come together and achieve the best outcome,” she said.

Josh Tyrrell, one of the property owners, said they had offered to meet with community members and no one took up the opportunity.

He said requests to attend community meetings were declined.

Mr Tyrrell said they had no plans to remove the dam from the property. “Removing the dam destroys the property. At the end of the day, that dam is Rokeby.”

A number of community members addressed councillors when the application was first tabled for consideration last month.

Rokeby community member Kate Hill told council if the subdivision was approved, “Rokeby runs the risk of an identity crisis.”

“We don’t want a quasi Waterford Rise in Rokeby,” she said.

Ms Hill said if the proposed subdivision was in accordance with provisions of the rural living zone it would be accepted. “We support a subdivision of that farm but we want to know our perspectives are understood,” she said.

Council issued a notice to refuse the permit. The applicants will have an opportunity to appeal the decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.