Sides square up for land fight

By Nicole Williams
A COUNCILLOR is refusing to back down from a fight with Bangholme residents who are fighting against having their land rezoned.
The three square kilometre parcel of land in Bangholme, bounded by Eumemmerring Creek, Frankston-Dandenong Road, Eastlink and Harwood Road, was included in a council submission to Planning Minister Matthew Guy to fix Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) anomalies.
The land was included after Councillor Peter Brown moved a motion at the council meeting on 14 November by arguing that the green wedge land should be moved into the UGB because it was surrounded on three sides by industrial land.
Since the decision, Bangholme Rural Landowners Association president Alan Hood has condemned the move on behalf of Bangholme residents and called for the submission to be revoked.
Mr Hood said residents were not consulted and did not have an opportunity to reject the proposal.
“In putting that motion up on the night we weren’t able to explain the area is flood prone and we only have two access roads on the site,” he said.
“We’re living in a farming environment which would suddenly be carrying masses of trucks and commercial vehicles.”
Mr Hood, whose property bounds the site, said any change in zoning would have a huge impact on those who live within or nearby the precinct, including the 600 people who live at the Willow Lodge Retirement Village.
Even after the community backlash, Cr Brown stood by his controversial decision at Monday night’s council meeting.
“My view of the site remains unchanged,” he said.
“It is a significant anomaly.”
Cr Brown said the community consultation that took place in 2003 was still relevant to the current submission.
“The passage of time hasn’t changed the assessment,” he said.
“A change of ownership of property doesn’t act as a trigger for further consultation.”
Greens MP Greg Barber also supports Mr Hood’s call for the submission to be rejected.
In Parliament last week, Mr Barber said the submission it did not meet Mr Guy’s process, which intended to fix small anomalies to the UGB but the large parcel of land did not meet the criteria.
“He (Mr Guy) initiated the process and now he’s got a proposal from council that clearly doesn’t fit what he intended and for that reason, he should reject it up front,” Mr Barber told the Star last week.
“Any rezoning of this size would normally go through a full-blown consultation process and this process hasn’t allowed for that.”
A spokesman for Mr Guy said the submission made by the council is a matter for council alone.