WITH a date at the Supreme Court in August, the dispute surrounding a tourism development in Dunkeld is likely to get significant coverage in the mainstream media with the revelation it involves two high-profile names.

Former two-time Hawthorn Football Club premiership player, Brad Sewell, and his wife, Louise Smith, will be taken to court by the children of well-known Dunkeld landowner and businessman, Allan Myers KC, in order to stop the construction of four self-contained group accommodation dwellings at the foot of Mt Sturgeon.

The Myers family own the prominent Royal Mail Hotel in Dunkeld (home to fine dining restaurant Wickens), along with the renowned Mt Sturgeon Woolshed.

Also named in the case is the Southern Grampians Shire Council (SGSC) - on April 19, The Spectator reported that SGSC approved the planning application in its April council meeting after a long and complex debate, the second time the planning application had been before council.

The new application was presented as two separate items (one concerning Design and Development Overlay and the second concerning the use and development of the site) and the approval was granted despite additional objections in person by next-door landowners, Greg and Jo Lindquist.

The site of the dispute is 135 Fairburn Street and is prime real estate, with a spectacular view of the southern end of the Grampians.

Raising the stakes even higher, VCAT has designated this case as a ‘Red Dot Decision’ with the outcome of the court case potentially affecting other planning applications in Victoria.

The court case has already been recognised as being highly technical in its scope and is expected to require a ruling on a question of law in respect of VCAT’s jurisdiction over matters relating to the Design and Development Overlay.

One concern raised was that the potential cost of the legal dispute could unnecessarily cost SGSC ratepayers.

Fundamentally, the objections claim the development would ruin the views of the Grampians and were not consistent with the tourism goals of the area.

If the Supreme Court rules against the approval, the dispute would again head to VCAT for another ruling.