Long lot owners continue campaign
OWNERS of the unusually shaped blocks of land in Bena Road, Korumburra, known as long lots were interested onlookers at Wednesday’s South Gippsland Shire Council meeting, at which they were granted an extension of time to persuade councillors not to impose a Development Plan Overlay on their properties.
They argue that should the overlay idea proceed, it will create an unworkable expectation of close to 20 long lot owners jointly preparing a development plan, something that even in the improbable event of all being in agreement would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The recommendation before councillors was to request a Planning Scheme amendment through the Minister for Planning to apply a Development Plan Overlay to properties between 8A and 62 Bena Road.
However, Cr John Schelling moved an alternate motion to delay the decision until a future council meeting, enabling councillors to make a more informed vote, with that motion supported unanimously.
Mayor Nathan Hersey excluded himself, declaring a conflict of interest because he partly owns land in the area that may be affected by significant development.
Sue Hinton is one of the concerned long lot owners, having provided council with a petition on behalf of those opposing the imposition of a Development Plan Overlay on their properties.
She told the Sentinel-Times that 38 of the 50 signatures are from landowners bounding the area concerned, all bar two of whom would be directly affected should the overlay proposal be implemented.
“I don’t think landowners understand how much it would cost to subdivide based on council’s plans,” Ms Hinton said, adding that individual landowners needed to be presented with the costs they would face.
The Sentinel-Times asked about the types of expenses being referred to.
“A lot of reports have to be done up front and then you’ve got to put in roads; it’s not council putting in roads, it’s the landowner,” Ms Hinton said, noting services and drainage are other requirements.
“Half our land is earmarked for public open space and we can’t get clarity about how we’ll be compensated,” she said of her situation should the overlay be applied to the long lots.
“My property would be an access road, so if I don’t agree to it, the whole plan is virtually defunct,” Ms Hinton remarked.
Another owner, Richard Collyer, spoke of the reaction to council’s proposal for the long lots.
“I think people feel it’s a totally unnecessary imposition on them; they want the land to stay as it is,” he said, albeit there is currently a planning application submitted by an owner of a couple of the long lots for a 23-lot development.
Mr Collyer’s sentiments were shared by Cr Sarah Gilligan when she spoke during the meeting on her willingness to defer the overlay decision.
“I know that if I had one of those long lots I would have planted it out and I would be fighting like hell,” she said.
Cr Gilligan also touched on the complexity of the legacy planning issue at stake and the need to strike a balance between preventing piecemeal subdivision of the unusually shaped lots and infringing on owners’ rights.
It’s certain long lot owners will be going all out to ensure councillors have a thorough understanding of their concerns before the Planning Overlay matter comes up for decision.
