City in de­fence of res­i­dents

Western Suburbs Weekly - - News - By JON BAS­SETT

FED­ERAL Gov­ern­ment devel­oper De­fence Hous­ing Aus­tralia (DHA) has been pre­vented from join­ing a City of Ned­lands com­mit­tee for those con­cerned about the pro­posed de­mo­li­tion of the SAS’s Seaward Vil­lage in Swan­bourne.

“The no­tice for ap­pli­ca­tions was aimed at res­i­dents of the Swan­bourne com­mu­nity and it is con­sid­ered that DHA does not sat­isfy the in­tent of coun­cil’s res­o­lu­tion,” Ned­lands Mayor Max Hip­kins said.

Mr Hip­kins said while it would be in­ap­pro­pri­ate for a DHA rep­re­sen­ta­tive to be in the work­ing group, DHA could be in­vited to at­tend “from time to time”.

In June, Ned­lands coun­cil­lors con­cerned about DHA by­pass­ing plan­ning laws for the vil­lage’s pro­posed $165 mil­lion re­de­vel­op­ment de­cided the group should com­prise Mr Hip­kins, a coun­cil plan­ning of­fi­cer, two Swan­bourne coun­cil­lors and two res­i­dents.

Af­ter re­cent advertising, DHA ap­plied for its Mel­bourne-based re­gional de­vel­op­ment man­ager James Wal­lace to join, prompt­ing com­mu­nity con­cern about DHA’s role. A fe­male DHA staffer was also seen at a Depart­ment of De­fence brief­ing for vil­lagers and res­i­dents about the sep­a­rate pro­posed $230 mil­lion re­fur­bish­ment of neigh­bour­ing Camp­bell Bar­racks on June 10.

Mor­ton MHR Graham Per­rett ques­tioned res­i­dents about the staffer at a Par­lia­men­tary Public Works Com­mit­tee hear­ing in Scar­bor­ough on Au­gust 6 but res­i­dents said they were un­cer­tain about her role.

Out­side the hear­ing, Mr Wal­lace said his nom­i­na­tion was not in­tended to re­place a res­i­dent and DHA had wanted an ex­tra seat.

DHA man­ag­ing di­rec­tor Peter How­man said DHA would con­tinue to work with the State Gov­ern­ment about a de­vel­op­ment ap­pli­ca­tion for the vil­lage, in­clud­ing that res­i­dents’ ac­cess to the vil­lage runs through an A-Class re­serve that could be closed to stop the de­vel­op­ment.

Mr How­man said the vil­lage’s pro­tec­tive covenant from 1991, which de­vel­op­ment crit­ics called a “mock­ery” at the hear­ing, ex­isted so any sale of the vil­lage’s land could only oc­cur with the agree­ment of DHA and the Depart­ment of De­fence.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.