Plan refused,

By Melissa Grant
Many people were interested in what councillors had to say on the latest application after neighbour and former councillor Kate Lempriere was controversially given the go-ahead on a similar request in April 2008.
Councillor Collin Ross, elected last November, said those on council at the time of the Lempriere decision were too scared to speak when refusing the latest application on Monday night.
“No-one wanted to touch it with a 10-foot barge pole,” Cr Ross told the Gazette.
Last month, councillors unanimously voted to have the matter deferred. Cr George Blenkhorn then said it would be better to have discussions with adjoining landowners about the effect the proposed subdivision would have on the whole area before councillors debated the matter.
However, there was no debate on Monday night with councillors adopting the officer’s recommendation without discussion.
The recommendation was to refuse the application because beneficiaries of the covenant could suffer detriment and the subdivision was out of character for the neighbourhood.
Four residents had objected to the proposal, saying they would suffer financial loss, loss of amenity and neighbourhood character if it was given the green light.
Former councillor Kate Lempriere and husband Jeff won a fight to subdivide their Fairway Court property, near Oaktree Drive, despite the presence of a restrictive covenant.
Councillors granted a permit for the Lemprieres’ subdivision, despite one resident objecting on the grounds that the development would devalue their property and was out of character for the area.
The vote was deadlocked at 3-3 after Mrs Lempriere, then a councillor, left the room after she declared a pecuniary interest. Councillors Brett Owen and Ed Chatwin, who are still on the council, voted in favour of approving the Lemprieres’ application, while then mayor Bill Ronald used his casting vote to decide the matter.
They passed a motion to vary the covenant to state that it should expire and no longer affect the land in question.
Councils are generally obliged to oppose applications to vary or remove covenants when they are opposed by a beneficiary of the restriction.
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.
Cr Ross said it wasn’t surprising that none of his colleagues withdrew the latest application for discussion at Monday night’s town planning meeting.
When asked why he didn’t, Cr Ross said: “I could have and probably in hindsight I should have done it.
“I just assumed that somebody would have.
“(But) it was like a hot potato – they didn’t want to touch it.”
Mayor Bill Pearson told the Gazette that councillors had made the right call on the latest application.
“The real important thing is there’s a covenant in place and its different to the other one,” he said.
“We were told if it was challenged the covenant would stand up.”