Hulls ‘the bogeyman’

By Paul Dunlop
CARDINIA Shire Council will have to defy recent history if it is to persuade Planning Minister Rob Hulls that the panel he appointed ‘got it wrong’ on the proposed Pakenham golf course reevelopment.
Councillors, who last week rejected the panel’s recommendation to abandon the proposal, are now urging the Minister to do the same.
But council could face an uphill battle in its bid.
A spokesman from Planning Panels Victoria said last week that Mr Hulls, who took over the portfolio from Mary Delahunty in January, had never yet overturned a panel’s recommendation.
The spokesman said every case would be judged on its merits but instances of panel findings being reversed were “fairly rare”.
Council maintains it has a strong case to argue. It has accused the panel of making serious mistakes in its assessment of plans to turn the golf course into a 600lot housing, park and waterway development.
Mayor Garry Runge said fundamental procedural and factual errors had been identified in the panel report.
“The act recognises these panels occasionally produce flawed reports so enables council and the Minister to override their recommendations,” Cr Runge said.
“Review panels comprise people from out of the region, who are engaged to assess a single plan in a short time without necessarily having full knowledge of the area’s wider planning issues.”
Mr Hulls has just returned from leave and was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Council’s decision to reject the panel’s recommendation has been a talking point in the community.
The threemember panel, which heard arguments for and against the golf course proposal during a sitting in Pakenham earlier this year, made an attimes scathing assessment of council’s plans in its report released last Tuesday.
The panel said the proposal did not appear to be the product of a “rigorous, directed and orderly strategic planning process for the future community and recreational needs of a swiftly growing growth corridor”.
“It does not reflect best practice in open space planning as developed in other growth corridor locations.
“Rather, in its current form, it represents an ad hoc response to the immediate perceived need to replace the Pakenham Golf Course, without sufficient regard to its potential to cause adverse affects in the wider community.”
Councillors were adamant when they met last Monday to discuss the panel report that they should press ahead with the plans.
Cr Graeme Legge said the report was fundamentally flawed. Cr Helen Ward said the panel got it wrong.
Cr Ward said the report contained inconsistencies.
“The only sensible course of action is to proceed with the amendment,” she said.
Residents opposing the proposal have expressed anger at council’s decision to press ahead, saying they would also write to the Minister and urge him to back the panel report.
Resident Heather Shallard said she was incensed. “I’m very cross, I thought the panel report was very good, council had every opportunity to put its case,” she said.
Cr Bill Ronald said councillors’ actions showed they were out of touch with the community.
“The community, and rightly so, believe the current golf club should be retained and that a second golf club will be required in the very near future,” Cr Ronald said.
“Nobody, except most councillors and the executive administration, believe Pakenham needs another housing estate.”