Heated debate on Fish Creek development sees votes swing within a matter of minutes

A PROPOSED development in Fish Creek sparked heated debate at last Wednesdays council meeting and uncovered a flaw in the Shires zoning regulations.
In the proposal, five new cabins containing two bedrooms each would be built on the 3.2 hectare property at 252 Soldiers Road, Fish Creek, which currently has an existing five bedroom dwelling on the site.
Five objections to the proposed group accommodation had been lodged, primarily from nearby residents. 
These outlined a mixture of concerns, some of which are noise impacts, traffic management and vehicle movements, unsatisfactory effluent treatment arrangements, drainage issues and impacts on surrounding properties. 
Subject to council approving the application, the developers would need to adhere to over 45 stringent requirements. 
The recommendation before councillors at Wednesday’s meeting was to issue a Notice of Decision to grant a Planning Permit for the project. 
Cr Scott Rae put forward an alternate motion for Council to refuse the permit of application on the basis that it doesn’t meet the purpose of the farming zone by not being compatible with adjoining and nearby land use activities. 
 “When does group accommodation become a motel? Although a neighbour on a small lot in a subdivided area under four hectares in the farming zone could reasonably expect a farming operation to impact on their serenity, they might not have ever considered a motel and a volume of neighbours that just suddenly appear next door,” said Cr Rae.  
“When is there a trigger to a rezone a property to become a commercial lot?.”
“I believe to approve this application would set a very detrimental precedent for small lot farm zone blocks lots to be overdeveloped in manners you could not do with any other Shire.”
Cr Nathan Hersey and Cr John Schelling agreed with Cr Rae. 
Cr Hersey argued that the Councils planning scheme work needs attention and a strong strategic direction to ensure land is protected and development occurs intentionally. 
“Agriculture land is being eroded in South Gippsland Shire at a rapid rate,” said Cr Hersey.
“It’s being lost to those who are planting out their property in trees. Those who buy lifestyle properties and rewild, therefore essentially letting it turn to weeds. There is so much wrong with this direction in approving something that is not in line with what is the intended purpose.”
Cr Schelling believes the proposal is on a house block and is bigger than what’s needed; and accommodation should be constructed in tourist specific areas, such as Yanakie and Sandy Point - rather than in zoned farming areas. 
Cr Gilligan meanwhile sat on the fence as she believed it was a tricky situation due to the zoning. 
Although, she also stated that concerns have been addressed through the conditions applied by Council and accommodation is needed in the area to invite and invest in tourism.
“Since 2003 it was deemed as lost to agricultural land and I think the issue is, is that it’s still zoned for farming whereas, actually all of these small blocks are not actually used for farming,” said Cr Gilligan. 
“So, it highlights absolutely, the cleaning up we need to do in our planning scheme. It’s a tricky one.”
“We do want to encourage more accommodation. We do have a lack of it,” Cr Gilligan added. 
Cr Bron Beach, Cr Clare Williams and Cr John Kennedy were supportive of the development proposal. 
Cr Beach believed it presents an opportunity rather than a threat as the land is never going to be farmed. 
“Theres a desperate need for visitor accommodation and also housing. It fits well with South Gippsland’s tourism objectives, the design presented is compatible with the natural environment and it’s close to attractions including supporting small scale tourism in our villages as well as the great Southern Rail trail.”
Cr Williams also debated that it isn’t productive farm land and group accommodation could present a good opportunity for businesses to gain additional economic support from the 1.2 million visitors South Gippsland sees every year.
Cr Kennedy stated that the lack of accommodation in the shire hinders prosperity, and the proposal ticks a lot of boxes and should be considered and approved. 
He also debated that many such proposals have been rejected in the past and development shouldn’t keep being overlooked by Council, particularly when people are willing to spend money in the interests of tourism and investment in the region.
Cr Raes alternate motion to refuse the planning permit was initially lost to a vote of five to four, the original motion – to approve the planning permit - was then also lost to a vote of four to five. 
Cr Raes alternate motion then underwent a revote, gaining an additional vote, to be carried at five to four. 
The permit applicant may now seek a review through VCAT, at a cost of about $20k to council.