THE prospective sale of a 2,504 square metre block of land at Winchelsea has proved a contentious issue among Surf Coast Shire councillors.<\/p>\n
Meeting for the final time before the local election, the council voted to give a declaration of intent to sell the council-owned land on 325 Mousley Road, Winchelsea.<\/p>\n
The only two councillors to vote against the motion were the two Winchelsea Ward councillors: Cr James McIntyre and Cr Heather Wellington.<\/p>\n
The land informally known as Pound Paddock was recommended for subdivision in the council’s Winchelsea Industrial Estate Master Plan 2010 and Growing Winchelsea 2015 reports.<\/p>\n
Councillors were in general agreement that subdivision was the best outcome for the land but disagreed over how to best ensure this outcome was achieved.<\/p>\n
After a long pause where no councillor acted to move the motion, Cr Smith raised her hand to do so.<\/p>\n
Upon seconding the motion, Cr Goldsworthy said he had expected the Winchelsea Ward councillors to be eager to have the motion discussed.<\/p>\n
“I was quite surprised that neither councillor from Winchelsea would support a motion or at least move the motion on the basis of getting it out so we can have a debate on this.<\/p>\n
“I see it as a very positive thing. It’s surplus to our needs, it provides an opportunity to increase the industrial estate in Winchelsea, and it also brings in much-needed to our unallocated reserves.”<\/p>\n
In response, Cr McIntyre said he was concerned the land would be bought but not developed.<\/p>\n
“In principle, yeah, sure, let’s get it developed, let’s get someone in to subdivide it, let’s do all that. But there’s a real issue here, and that issue is how do we know that is going to happen and how can we protect the interests of the Winchelsea community to ensure that’s going to happen.”<\/p>\n
Sharing this concern, Cr Wellington then moved an amended motion, which added a new clause to the original motion: “Council includes as a condition of the contract of sale, the option for council to re-purchase the land at sale price if the land is not developed and released for sale within three years of its purchase.”<\/p>\n
Cr Goldsworthy criticised the idea of a clause allowing the council to buy the land back if it was not developed.<\/p>\n
“I found that discussion rather strange because you’re basically offering a free option for the seller that if the market goes down he can walk away and get back what he paid for the property,” he said.<\/p>\n
“Furthermore, if that was something, we talked about doing, those funds would have to remain in a reserve until such a time as that agreement was completed or terminated.”<\/p>\n
Cr Bell and Cr McKiterick also expressed concerns that a buy-back clause would be counterintuitive and instead allow the buyer an avenue out if they did not develop the land.<\/p>\n
In her closing statement, Cr Wellington emphasised the added clause would mean the council had the option to repurchase the land, not the buyer.<\/p>\n
“This is not an option for the developer, it’s an option for us to protect the interests of our community,” she said.<\/p>\n
“If we end up with Winchelsea locked with no industrial land that would be an absolute shame on this council.”<\/p>\n
Cr Wellington’s amended motion was defeated, as Cr McIntyre and Cr McKiterick were the only others to vote in favour of it.<\/p>\n
The council then returned to the original motion, which was passed with only Cr McIntyre and Cr Wellington voting against it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE prospective sale of a 2,504 square metre block of land at Winchelsea has proved a contentious issue among Surf Coast Shire councillors. Meeting for the final time before the local election, the council voted to give a declaration of intent to sell the council-owned land on 325 Mousley Road, Winchelsea. The only two councillors […]<\/p>\n