It’s time out

By Melissa Grant
CIVIC leaders have given themselves more time to rule on an application for a two-lot subdivision and removal of a restrictive covenant on Oaktree Drive, Pakenham.
Many people will be watching the decision with interest after neighbour and former councillor Kate Lempriere was controversially given the green light on a similar application in April last year.
Councillors were to decide on the Oaktree Drive application on Monday night but Cr George Blenkhorn was unanimously supported to have the matter deferred. Council received four objections to the applicaton.
Cr Blenkhorn said it would be much better to have discussions with adjoining land owners about the effect the proposed subdivision would have on the whole area before councillors debated the matter.
The council officers’ recommendation was to refuse the application based on objections from beneficiaries within the covenant who said approval would result in financial loss, loss of amenity and loss of neighbourhood character.
Councils are usually obliged to oppose applications to vary or remove covenants, when they are opposed by a beneficiary of the covenant. However, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) ruled in 2006 that an application could be approved if the authority was satisfied that any beneficiaries would not be adversely affected.
In April 2008, Mrs Lempriere and husband Jeff won the fight to subdivide their Fairway Court property, not far from Oaktree Drive, after a fiery council meeting. The vote was deadlocked at 3-3 after Mrs Lempriere, then a councillor, left the council chamber after declaring a pecuniary interest.
Mayor Bill Ronald used his casting vote to decide the matter, paving the way for the Lemprieres to subdivide.
At the time Cr Bill Pearson, now mayor, said it wasn’t right that councillors had voted in favour of issuing the planning permit.
“I believe as councillors we have the same right as everyone else,” he said at the time. “I believe that if we oppose one we oppose them all. We have a moral obligation.”
One person objected to the Lemprieres’ subdivision, citing concern that the development would devalue their property and was out of character with the surrounding area.