Council must treat covenants as a very serious matter

MANY residents remember former Cardinia Shire councillor Kate Lempriere succeeded in having a covenant removed from her Fairway Court property and thus created a situation whereby other applicants now believe they are entitled to do likewise.
Historically, a covenant is a serious and binding agreement between parties for certain purposes. It is not to be treated lightly or equated with a planning or zoning category and ethically, its removal should only occur with the full agreement of the parties who entered into the covenant in the first place.
Accordingly, we can be curious to know what advantage Cr George Blenkhorn saw in moving to examine more closely the application for removal of a covenant on an Oaktree Drive property, particularly in the face of four objections and a strong planning department recommendation to refuse that application.
Also, we can be critical the apparent woolly thinking of Cardinia mayor Bill Pearson, who believed that because the previous council had approved the removal of a covenant from the Lempriere property, the current council was obligated to remove the covenant from an Oaktree Drive property.
We should be concerned about the inability of the five remaining councillors to discern the basic principles that were at stake here.
At the council planning meeting on 7 September, the silence was remarkable when all councillors chose not to discuss what has now been learned, that covenants must be treated with respect for all parties concerned, accordingly to the individual legal merit, and that any proposed removal of a covenant remains a very serious matter.
Gloria O’Connor,
President,
Cardinia Ratepayers
and Residents Association.