PASSIONATE Pyalong residents have gathered to try and prevent a planning permit application for a subdivision along Eades Way, with 18 objections out of 19 submissions presented at Council’s Community Questions and Hearings Committee last Monday night.
While residents who presented to Council aren’t against the land being subdivided, there is a belief that 10 lots are too many for the patch of land just off the Northern Highway.
Pyalong resident Tess Zoch was the first to express her concerns at Monday night’s hearing.
“I would like to make it very clear that I do not object to the land being subdivided per se, but I do object to the current version of it based on how many blocks are proposed for the site and the average size of each block,” she said.
When questioned by Councillor Claudia James, Ms Zoch said she would like to see bigger blocks in the sub division.
“If they just nudge the block sizes into more like 1200 to 1500 square metre blocks, I understand you would lose a couple of parcels of land, but I wonder if they would fit better within the township,” she said.
When pressed by Councillor Riley Evans on what the distinction was, Ms Zoch said the short runoff from the Northern Highway to what was seen as the only entrance to town was a key factor.
“We all don’t get our mail delivered, everyone has to go to the shop. On any given day, before school drop off, before school pickup, when the high school buses come, the intersection is pretty busy. You can enter the town from the exit off the Northern Highway, but you can’t get onto the Northern Highway any other way apart from Eades Way,” she said.
Two letters were then read by resident Linda Barrow, one on behalf of Charleen Warburton, and another from herself.
Ms Barrow expressed concern on behalf of Ms Warburton about the sewerage system’s capacity as part of six key points in each of the proposed lots, as well as the concerns about Colorbond fencing.
“The proposed allotments of approximately 1000 square metres each are simply not suitable for rural living, especially in an area where the homes are not connected to main sewerage,” she said.
“These lots are far too small to accommodate on-site wastewater treatment system in accordance with our current regulations. In fact, the existing properties adjacent to this site, although similarly sized, were created long before septic requirements were properly considered.
“To manage the wastewater from these systems, the homes discharge along boundaries with adjoining paddocks, something no longer appropriate under these standards.
In Ms Barrow’s submission, she believed the strain from 10 additional houses would be too much for the town.
“Our community already struggles with drought and limited town water, and ten additional houses would put too much strain on our resources,” she said.
“Adding more homes would only add to more strain.
“The current intersection of High Street is already quite confusing, with multiple roads converging at one junction. I had previously expressed my concern with Council about the moving of the school bus stops to this intersection due to the problems I see it causing, and I believe that adding more cars converging near that same point will add to the problem.”
When asked by Councillor Andrea Pace, Ms Barrow agreed that 10 lots, in her eyes, was too many.
“I think you have to go by half. Ten is a bit unreasonable. If you want to keep the aesthetic of the town, keep the farm fencing and that openness that we enjoy at the moment, five is probably what I would consider a good amount. If you think of 10, say every household has two cars. That’s 20 cars going in and out of that small area into Eades Way,” she said.
Mayor Councillor John Dougall saw both sides of the equation before asking Ms Barrow whether Pyalong should grow.
“Reasonably, yes. I would like to see that Pyalong grows in its nature, in the way it has already established itself with bigger blocks, more land around people and to keep that small community feel,” Ms Barrow responded.
“We haven’t got the infrastructure in place to support multi-storeys, multi-developments or anything like that, I don’t think that Pyalong is the area for that anyway. I feel that what we’ve got going on at the moment with the bigger lots is really quite a privy and special place, and we definitely want more people in town, it’s exactly what we want, but we want to be able to keep that feel, keep the cute little school that has less than 100 students and those sort of things.”
Applicant Joe Fisher was then given the right of reply.
“We do note there are larger lots in the area, but as several have noted, particularly along High Street, there are smaller allotments, and there are no applicable lot sizes or guidance of what should be acceptable in the planning scheme, so we do take cues from what the closest properties are, and that includes the smaller ones along High Street,” he said.
“Importantly, both Council’s environmental health and Goulburn Valley Water have supported the wastewater proposal that we have submitted.
“We’ve provided a landscaping offer along that frontage to prevent anyone putting any eyesore barrier or anything that would detract from that streetscape, forcing anything to be behind that and allowing for landscaping to be provided between the edge of the road reserve and any barrier.”
When questioned by Cr James if he would consider reducing the amount of lots, Mr Fisher said he was comfortable with where the planning scheme sat.
“Ultimately, we’re comfortable it fits with the planning scheme and it’s requirements. Our client has purchased it on the basis that the planning scheme allows for, as far as the density, and so ultimately, we would expect that there shouldn’t be a need to do it, given we believe it responds to a servicing in character appropriately well,” he said.
However, Mr Fisher admitted there can be discussions when pressed by Cr Evans on whether a middle ground can be found.
“It’s something we can discuss. I think we need to be conscious that the land owners will want to make sure we inhibit their right to enjoy their property, as everyone else does, and that includes, in some areas, they will probably want opportunities to have solid fencing, their privacy in some places, but we can do landscaping in others,” he said.
“I think it’s a bit of a conversation about where we need to protect those views, and that’s where we’ve focused on, that external appearance of providing that landscape strip along the highway frontage as the most prominent view, and perhaps maybe we can address that corner a little bit more with that as well.”
The decision to discuss the submissions and questions for a future Council meeting was then carried unanimously.
