Gamble fails with Teesdale rezoning amendment move

A Golden Plains Shire councillor’s attempt to defer consideration of a planning scheme amendment allowing residential development in Teesdale has failed.

Councillor Gavin Gamble tabled an alternative motion at the council’s last meeting seeking a rethink of a rezoning proposal of about 206ha comprising 10 land parcels north-east of the town.

An officer’s report recommended that ministerial approval be sought for preparing and exhibiting the planning scheme amendment. It would rezone the land – in an area known as the Teesdale North East Growth Area – from farming zone to low density residential zone.

But Cr Gamble, a Teesdale resident, said he did not want to see people living nearly 6km from the centre of the township.

“I don’t think it’s good … planning to put so many new residents and houses on big blocks so far out of the main part of the town,” he said.

Cr Gamble’s alternative motion also sought a review of the Teesdale Structure Plan and a subsequent report to determine areas regarded as suitable for rezoning, as well as considering alternative options.

“I’m not against the provision of more rezoned housing land around Teesdale, but this proposal does not adequately address, in my opinion, the social effects and the impacts of housing so far from the centre of the town,” he said.

Cr Helena Kirby seconded Cr Gamble’s motion, but they were the only councillors to vote in favour of it.

Cr Emma Robbins spoke against the move.

“I have two major issues with the alternative motion,” she said. “The first is that the motion asks us to review the Teesdale Structure Plan, but I didn’t actually hear any arguments that would justify departing from the structure plan that this council already endorsed.

“The second issue is that the proponent has relied in good faith on the current planning framework and invested efforts on that basis.

“It’s just not fair to now seek to introduce delays, especially with a view to changing the structure plan to frustrate the amendment.”

The major landowner of the subject site is the proponent.

Cr Des Phelan agreed with Cr Robbins, saying that making changes to the structure plan now would be “totally out of order”.

“If we’re going to walk away from it now and try and change it in the middle of a development, we should be ridiculed out of this place,” he said.

The vote was Crs Gamble and Kirby in favour of the alternative motion and Crs Phelan, Robbins, Sarah Hayden and Owen Sharkey. Cr Dom Cook was not present.

Cr Robbins moved the original recommendation, which was carried in a reverse of the vote on Cr Gamble’s motion.