by Sharon Webb

A REEDY Marsh landowner’s difficulties in complying with the Meander Valley Planning Scheme led to a 25 minute secret meeting outside the November council meeting.

After their October approval of a Reedy Marsh subdivision into two lots well below the recommended 15 hectare size. Councillors also appeared keen to approve a three lot subdivision application at 239 Wadleys Road in November.

Following senior planner Jo Oliver’s recommendation to refuse the application, Councillors Frank Nott and John Temple proposed disallowing division of Paul and Samantha Heathcotes’ 25.3 hectare property into three lots of 5.1, 4.7 and 15.7 hectares.

Councillor Nott said, ‘The subdivision must be consist- ent with the Meander Valley Planning Scheme.

‘While there might be some wriggle room in discretion, there must be a degree of compliance. You can’t just do what you want with your own land. There are limitations.

‘The new Tasmanian Planning Scheme states a mandatory 12 hectare lot size. So these two applications are getting in before the stable door shuts.’

But three other councillors resisted refusing the application. Well into the discussion Mayor Wayne Johnston suddenly announced a five minute meeting adjournment so that he, general manager John Jordan and Ms Oliver could discuss the matter with Mr Heathcote.

When they returned 25 minutes later it seemed that Mr Heathcote may resubmit in December and Cllrs Nott and Temple withdrew their motion. At the time of writing, the council minutes contained no information about the secret meeting in the adjournment or whether any new application would be advertised for the usual two weeks.

Ms Oliver’s recommendation to disallow the application and the objections of two Reedy Marsh residents were based on lot size and adverse impacts on natural values, the habitat of threatened species, visual character and the objectives of the Rural Living Zone at Reedy Marsh.

She said the application contravened planning scheme regulations that standing vegetation not be threatened and that house sites not be visible. In addition, denning habitat for devils and quolls would be affected.

‘The difficulty with the pro- posed Lot 1/Lot 3 boundary is that the 20 metre offset does not ensure that the threatened Eucalyptus Ovata community is protected from pressure for clearance that is inevitable when future owners wish to establish boundary fencing’, Ms Oliver wrote in her report.

‘The configuration of the subdivision for Lot 2 results in ... a highly visible dwelling site and clears a prominent hill top when viewed from Wadleys Road and some of the surrounding landscape.’

Cllr Susie Bower asked whether boundary alterations for the two smaller lots could make them compliant but Ms Oliver replied it was beyond council’s ability to put conditions on the application to achieve compliance.

‘I understand the logic of why the boundaries are drawn where they are.

‘That logic doesn’t negate compliance with the standards of the planning scheme’, she said.

Cllr Michael Kelly asked why it was important that the house not be visible, later stating that Ms Oliver was ‘looking at a different rulebook’ from him and that ‘common sense should prevail’.

‘When you look at the nature of the land it’s not as if it’s prime agricultural land or its going to contribute to the economy.

‘Increasing housing there would increase the value of the properties’, CIlr Kelly said. ‘I just have a different opinion on this.’

Ms Oliver replied, ‘There is a clear statement in the planning scheme that low visibility is a desired future character statement.’

Cllr Andrew Sherriff asked for clarification that the 2015 rules for Reedy Marsh were an ‘inhouse scheme done through Meander Valley Council’ rather than through the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

He later asked whether they needed ‘revisiting’, commenting, ‘I came to council to help the municipality develop and people who want to develop it, we’ve sort of got to help them along.’

Ms Oliver clarified the changes had been stipulated in the 2015 Rural Living Amendment: ‘one of the big- gest achieved in the State in terms of rural lifestyle blocks’ and also applying to Birralee, Davis Road and Golden Valley.

Mr Heathcote, who has owned the property for five years, told councillors the nature of the land meant he was unable to divide it into larger lots.

He assured councillors he was ‘not out to diminish the values of Reedy Marsh’, adding that the subdivision potentially would create two more ratepayers.