The community should be aware that a revised plan for a proposed unit development at 23 Rodier Street in Eureka was lodged at the City of Ballarat.
It reduced the originally planned 20 unit development by one, to 19 units.
This in no way addresses this high-density development proposed in a three listed heritage precinct environs, which bears little resemblance to any adjoining dwellings; and the like of which does not exist in this Eureka Heritage Precinct.
It is less than 70m from the boundary of the iconic Eureka rebellion historic precinct, which is on the National Estate and adjoins the Specimen Vale Creek which is part of the Creeks and River Channels Heritage Precinct which is of state level significance.
A major concern arises that this revised application is proposed to be submitted from the PD to the first meeting of the newly-elected council on November 14, for presumably their approval?
The city planning department rejected the original plans on January 19.
Consequently, the developer made application to VCAT for a hearing on the matter, which is listed for November 22.
I am concerned about the timing of the tabling of the revised plans to be considered at the first meeting of the new council.
It is my view that a newly-elected council will lack the familiarity with the intricacies of the matter.
I suggest they will not have had the benefit of enough time to properly assess the merits of this development, including enough time to have discussed the matter with all relevant parties and to visit the actual site.
This is a major development decision that needs due and careful deliberation - it should not be rushed. It has the capacity to create a precedent that potentially will affect every citizen of Ballarat.
I raised issues about the timing of certain deadlines with the original proposal which I believed was to the disadvantage of ratepayers.
For the process to be seen to be credible, I think the plans should not be tabled at this meeting.
However, if they were tabled then the PD who must be acutely aware that the revised plan does not adequately address their own reasons for rejecting it in the first place, let alone the many issues of objection raised by residents, should recommend to the council that they still reject the proposal and allow the matter to proceed to VCAT as scheduled.
Ron Marshall
Eureka