COUNCILORS have given a name to the Inverleigh play space following a heated discussion at the Golden Plains Shire council meeting on Tuesday, 23 March.<\/p>\n
The play area will be named Yerram Yaluk Bun, after the choice received the most votes during a period of public consultation between 16 December and 29 January, including a community vote on four options.<\/p>\n
Before the final call was made, Cr Brett Cunningham submitted an alternative motion, saying there should be further community consultation to decide on a name for the play area.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo individual name received the majority vote and the two leading vote names were only separated by one vote,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019d like to propose that council resolves to seek further feedback from the community on the two names that receive the highest number of votes, being Yerram Yaluk Bun and Leigh River Park.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019d also please like to note that my proposed alternative motion is no way to be seen as being disrespectful to the Wadawurrung people, but to allow the Inverleigh community the opportunity to partake in further and a final consultation period.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cr Owen Sharkey spoke against Cr Cunningham\u2019s alterative motion, claiming council has got all the public feedback it needs.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis process\u2026 is nearly two years in the making, we have gone out to community consultation and by going out and seeking more feedback, we\u2019re going to end up coming back here in 60 days or 90 days\u2019 time with the exact same information,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Cr Cunningham\u2019s alternative motion was shot down by council, with only he and Cr Ian Getsom voting in favour.<\/p>\n
The original motion was then carried with all councillors voting for, besides Cr Cunningham and Cr Getsom.<\/p>\n
Having voted in the poll that was put out to the community, Cr Clayton Whitfield declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in deliberations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A town sub-divided <\/strong><\/p>\n A notice of decision to grant a planning permit for a nine-lot subdivision on Donaldson Road at Lethbridge has been approved by council.<\/p>\n Objections regarding drainage were raised by a community member, who was concerned that the proposed works would obstruct residences along a nearby road.<\/p>\n Cr Whitfield said the proposal met the requirements of the planning scheme \u201cquite well\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that this subdivision is going to provide some growth inside the current town boundaries and is consistent with current growth patterns,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe council\u2019s works engineers have reviewed the plans and are satisfied that the plans provide an acceptable drainage solution and that adjoining properties will not be impacted by drainage from this subdivision.\u201d<\/p>\n The motion was carried with all councillors voting in favour, besides Cr Sharkey, who did not participate in the discussions due to a conflict of interest declaration.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Planning needed for structure Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n Council has referred objections to the Teesdale Structure Plan and Planning Scheme Amendment to an independent planning panel for further consideration.<\/p>\n Several small changes were made to the structure plan, while outstanding feedback was seen to require impartial resolution.<\/p>\n The original plan and amendment were on public exhibition between 25 November and 25 January, during which council received 23 submissions from the community, 14 of which were considered objections.<\/p>\n Speaking for the motion, Cr Whitfield said sending the matter to a planning panel was part of a \u201cnormal process.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHopefully compromises can be made at that panel and we\u2019ll take on their points and move forward,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Cr Gavin Gamble spoke against the motion, raising concerns that the new developments could compromise \u201ctown character.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTeesdale has a lot of large blocks and people living there. So, there are quite a lot of people that don\u2019t want to see that diminished,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cI support the residents that are supportive of well-designed infill or the small-scale subdivisions\u2026 As it is at the moment, I think I\u2019m reflecting a good portion of Teesdale residents that are not entirely happy with the amendment as proposed.\u201d<\/p>\n Cr Gamble voted against the motion; however, it was carried with the other six councillors voting in favour.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Surplus land to surplus cash<\/strong><\/p>\n Shire owned Land in the northern part of the Bannockburn Recreation Precinct will be rezoned and developed as residential.<\/p>\n The 3.5-hectare area was slated to be used for an AFL football oval; however, a preferred location has since been found.<\/p>\n A recreational future fund will be set up from the sale of the land, so that any profits are set aside for use on recreational developments across the Shire.<\/p>\n Cr Sharkey said he supported the motion and hoped the money would benefit the entire municipality.<\/p>\n \u201cThat gives us a fantastic opportunity\u2026 and hopefully we as a council can leverage that money\u2026 where we contribute $100,000 out of this fund and turn it into a $550,000 project and not just for Bannockburn but for our whole Shire,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The motion was passed with Cr Rowe and Cr Cunningham voting against.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n