LAST week’s Southern Grampians Shire Council (SGSC) meeting opened with a long and complex discussion relating to a proposal for four self-contained group accommodation dwellings at the foot of Mt Sturgeon, but the outcome to approve the plan still has at least a Supreme Court case pending to resolve the matter entirely.

135 Fairburn Street sits just north-west of the centre of Dunkeld, near the Consolidated School and is prime real estate, with spectacular views of the southern end of the Grampians towering over a significant part of the horizon.

This was not the first application to the council in respect of the project; an application was made to council in 2021 and was approved with objections from local residents forcing the matter to be heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Despite VCAT upholding the council’s decision, a question of law was raised in the hearing with the matter to be reviewed by the Supreme Court later in this year in respect of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over matters relating to the Design and Development Overlay.

The practice of VCAT is to designate cases of interest such as these as ‘Red Dot Decisions’; the outcome of the court case may affect other planning applications in Victoria.

A second planning application - outlined on the agenda as two separate planning applications (one concerning Design and Development Overlay and the second application concerning the use and development of the site) - was made to SGSC with some changes and this was heard with the owner represented by Coast to Country Building Approvals director, Fiona Castley, who spoke to the meeting.

“The landowner purchased this property a number of years ago, with a view to hopefully constructing a small boutique accommodation business on the property,” she said.

“We gained a permit via VCAT a while ago, but unfortunately, have not been able to act on that permit and commence construction on site due to a Supreme Court hearing that is scheduled to happen later this year on a question of law, not of merits of the proposal.

“My client wishes to follow through and construct the four cabins on the property to provide an increased diversity in tourism offerings in Dunkeld.

“He genuinely believes in the future of Dunkeld, and that there is a wider ability to provide accommodation to all levels of the market that isn’t quite there at the minute without impinging on anyone else.”

After Ms Castley had concluded, Greg and Jo Lindquist - who own the land adjacent to the north at 141 Fairburn Street - lodged their objections.

“The reason that we’re here tonight is that we objected the first time around, and we see this as a new proposal put forward, not that everything’s a fait accompli as Fiona suggested,” Mr Lindquist said.

“We want people to look at this in new light and realise what this would do to the township of Dunkeld, the sacrosanct area of the escarpment and the views towards Mount Sturgeon.”

Mr Lindquist said they felt it broke the Shire’s own guidelines of “one residence on a rural living zone site” and claimed, “they keep on changing the position of the cabins”, adding the potential would be a loss of privacy to their property which they hoped to still build on.

“There’s a balcony that looks directly onto our building envelope and our building envelope is greatly reduced,” he said.

Ms Lindquist also spoke to the meeting and said the application “couldn’t possibly be given the okay, if you follow your own definitions” and raised concerns about traffic, local staffing and “damage to the natural beauty of that particular site”.

“I just urge you as counsellors read the objections, and really seriously consider what rules you’re breaking of your own definition,” she said.

SGSC Wellbeing, Planning and Regulation director, Rory Neeson, submitted the application and said, “the proposed development has been assessed against the objectives of the design and development overlay and is found to be an acceptable outcome for the site”.

During discussion by the councillors, Cr Katrina Rainsford questioned the issue of privacy and this was answered by SGSC senior statutory planner, Anita Collingwood, who said the relevant rural residential zoning “essentially, first in, best dressed is the principle that applies”.

“If there’s not an existing building on the adjacent property, we can’t really protect their privacy or (the) overlooking (of) all views,” she said.

Cr Helen Henry said she took the matter seriously but supported a pathway of development for the area after personally looking at the site.

“When this application first came to Council … myself and Counsellor (Greg) McAdam, we are local, we understand the significance of this area and it’s something that we considered long and hard,” she said.

“We did walk arounds, we looked at environmental overlays, we thoroughly read the objections time and time again.

“When I look at this development, it is thoughtful. It is trying as best as possible to be absolutely sensitive to the environment and the amenity and for that reason, I cannot see that we can stand up in VCAT given that it’s the same application with the same conditions and defend ourselves if we were not to pass it again.”

However, Cr Bruach Collition via video link spoke at length against the application, and said “it’s not clear cut” and criticised the council for failing to endorse a significant landscape overlay.

“Why is the applicant submitting two planning permits?” he asked.

“It’s a piecemeal approach that’s either designed to confuse or deceive the council into granting this permit.

“There are serious objection(s) to this and we need to listen and work together for appropriate outcomes that satisfies all parties.

“This parcel of land was subject as other significant parts of our land in the Southern Grampians to an investigation of the landscape and how significant it is - this particular one with Grampians vistas, and where the Wannon River flows where the volcanics meet the limestone, arguably the most significant portion of landscaping in all of Southern Grampians.

“But we didn’t make a decision - Council dropped the ball because it was hard and complex. We’ve left ourselves wide open with little protection of the most significant landscape in the Southern Grampians. Council failed to endorse the significant landscape overlay, but this doesn’t change the facts.

“Lucky for us, much of this land has been protected and preserved as conservation land. This particular parcel has fallen through the cracks, which is why we are all here today.”

Cr Rainsford said she wanted the town to progress and pointed to the grants the council had expected to pass later, with $34,000 “going towards Dunkeld and it’s all to do with tourism”.

“It is a tourism town - Dunkeld is known before people have heard of Hamilton,” she said.

“There’s a lot of people pressure going on, we are trying to manage this, sensitively.”

The first application concerning Design and Development Overlay was voted on and passed with Cr Colliton being the sole vote against, and a shorter discussion followed on the second application concerning the use and development of the site.

Cr Henry again voiced her support for the plans, but Cr Collition had more to add to his statement on the first application.

“I’m sure the public’s wondering what the heck’s going on,” he said.

“(I’m submitting) the same arguments as before, Mr Mayor, it’s 10 objections - that’s a significant number of objections and we’re just going to sweep this through like it’s not a problem for Council.”

Cr Colliton said he wasn’t against development but considered it important to have “proper process and due diligence to find a better outcome”, criticising the owner for refusing mediation.

Cr Henry said the matter had “definitely kept me up at night” and added, “I’m not intending to impact on anyone’s lifestyle”.

“However … we all impact on each other’s lifestyle and we try and do it, hopefully, within our guidelines, as gently as possible,” she said.

“I can’t in all honesty say that your build won’t impact on someone else’s lifestyle, and the people to the south won’t impact on someone else’s lifestyle and that’s the reality of it and this is going to be the first development in this area, but it’s not the last one.”

Cr Henry said she knew the Supreme Court case outcome on the matter of law was still a factor in the final outcome of the development, but the council had a duty to consider the project on merit alone and said, “it still weighs up”.

The vote on the second application also passed with Cr Colliton voting against; Cr Mary-Ann Brown was not present for the meeting.

SGSC mayor, David Robertson congratulated the councillors on debating the complex issue and said, “I think it was very healthy”.