Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

54 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements?
CASE STUDY 7: SUBDIVISION INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL’S PLANNING SCHEME
In May 2004, the council received an application for a planning permit to
subdivide a property of around 10 hectares into 5 lots with a dwelling on each. At
the time of the application, the property was used for grazing and contained a
dwelling.
Adjoining landholders were notified of the proposal and no objections were
received. On 30 July 2004, the council issued a planning permit to allow the
subdivision.
The land was zoned Environmental Rural, a zone used to indicate that the area
had a significant environmental value to the state, and which needed to be
protected. The council used this zoning to help conserve the environment,
landscape and vegetation qualities of the land, and to recognise its environmental
sensitivity and biodiversity. The property was also covered by an Environment
Significance Overlay. This overlay requires the council to consider the statement
of environmental significance and environmental objectives included in the
schedule to the overlay, prior to approving a planning permit.
The schedule to the zone separates the zone into 2 parts for the purposes of
subdivision. For the more environmentally sensitive part of the zone, land cannot
be subdivided into blocks of less than 40 hectares in size. For the remainder of the
zone, the minimum allowable size for a subdivision is 2 hectares.
Discussions with council staff indicated that there were differences of opinion
about the location of the boundary separating the 2 parts of the zone. The
planning contractor, in assessing the application, applied his own interpretation
of where he considered the boundary to be and determined the property was
located in that part of the zone allowing subdivision of lots down to 2 hectares in
size.
While there is some ambiguity regarding the location of the road which forms
part of the boundary between the 2 parts of the zone, we consider that the
property is clearly located in that part of the zone where the minimum lot sizes
could not be reduced below 40 hectares. As a result, we consider the decision to
approve the permit was inconsistent with the requirements of the planning
scheme and the purposes of the zone and the environment significance overlay.
Source: Glenelg Shire Council, Application no. 145/04, 329 Cape Nelson Road, Portland.
Conclusion
While the protection, enhancement and sustainable use of the shire’s
environmental assets was clearly a major objective of the council’s planning
scheme, this was not given adequate consideration in assessing planning
permit applications.