I really need to drop the kids off at the pool, build a log cabin, drop anchor, grow a tail, lay some cable, let the dogs out… you know, do a number  two.  

But I am not allowed. Not for six months now.  And, one day, in the near future, it just ain’t going to be pretty. I have Hepburn Shire Council to blame.  Last year I diligently jumped through hoops, made my way through obstacles and asked “how high, sir?” so HSC would allow me to turn one bit of land into two.  

One of the headscratchers was a water garden,  pictured, which was insisted on by one of the many officers who float in and out of  employment in the hallowed halls of HSC’s planning office.  

But it’s not entirely true that we had to install said water garden, we were, in fact,  given a choice. The first was to install a water garden which is a soak pit for the tank  overflow, if any.

Historically the overflow had been making its way out to large gutters  in the main street of Glenlyon for more than 150 years.  

The second was to put $5000 into the council coffers. I kid you not. The garden  was obviously the cheaper option but even if it wasn’t I would have rather paid  $10,000 for the garden than donated to the council’s Christmas party.  

But back to my toilet tantrum.  Part of the deal was to close off my septic pit, one that never gave any trouble and  was in perfect working order. But I am for tweaking things especially when it comes  to environmental issues.  

So, I dropped a further $14,000 on a new fandangled septic system in September  last year which the good people from Ballan Plumbing installed in a day with little  interruption.

The paperwork was quickly expedited to the body that made me install  the thing in the first place, yes, HSC, along with a command that we don’t use the  toilet until they sign off on it.  That was in September and it is now March. A long wait for a long drop. WTF.  

Meanwhile, the latest big council news is that HSC are asking for more rate  money, in fact a 10 per cent hike from all ratepayers. But I have to pose a question – if we hand over more money to HSC will anything change?

Ten per cent is a lot of  extra money to find and I am sure they need it, but so do I.  I am not sure what the alternative is to handing over the money because I can’t  see another council absorbing our debt and issues. Who would want that? Macedon  Ranges? Mt Alexander?

So, what happens if the HSC can no longer afford to keep  the lights on and no neighbouring council wants to pick us up?

Would the state  government have to step in and find commissioners to get us back in the black?

And how did all this start? Well, it is no secret that the Inspectorate report has  been leaked all over Facebook by “Council Watch” and most of the answers are there.  

We have had it in our possession for a couple of years but given some of the  litigious players in the report and a sense of self-preservation for our small newspaper  we haven’t been able to release it into the public domain.  

As we always said it is a very interesting read. And I am sure that a lot of the  planning criteria was fast-tracked. I bet they didn’t have to install a water garden or  wait six months to go for a poo.  If you see me around, be kind and don’t give me the shits.  Won’t be pretty, rant over….  

Some changes to the way in which planning applications are dealt with in Hepburn Shire will be trialed for 18 months following a decision by the Hepburn Shire Council.

Under pre-existing arrangements planning applications had been dealt with by the council’s planning officers guided by planning frameworks and policy, but have been required to go before the council for decision where there were at least five objectors.

An officer recommendation that went before the council meeting on Tuesday December 17 sought to increase this threshold from five to 15 objectors required before an application would need to be referred to the council for decision.

The reason for seeking the change was in order to streamline and expedite the processing of applications.

However at the meeting Councillor Lesley Hewitt presented an alternative motion requiring at least 10 (rather than the recommended minimum of 15) objections be required before triggering the need for an application to go before the council.

Cr Hewitt’s new motion also differentiated between the farming and urban or residential context, proposing that the limit for triggering the need for council determination should remain fixed at the current minimum of five objectors in the case of applications relating to land zoned for farming.

“Community feedback suggests that the change from five to 15 objectors is too high,” Cr Hewitt said in moving her alternative motion.

Cr Hood seconded Cr Hewitt’s motion and it passed 5:1 with only Cr Tim Drylie voting against Cr Hewitt’s motion and instead seeking a deferral of the matter and Cr Tony Clark an apology for the meeting.

“I support going from five to 10 objectors. I think 15 was a bridge too far and I fully support (Cr Hewitt’s amended) motion,” Cr Hood said.

Also supporting the motion, Cr Shirley Cornish said “the farming zone is so very different to a residential zone”.

The officer’s original recommendation had also sought to require that planning applications of more than $5 million in value should be referred to the council – up from the $2 million threshold for a referral to council which has been in place to date.

However, Cr Hewitt’s successful motion instead dropped reference to a dollar value threshold for triggering a referral to council, instead requiring an application to be referred to council where it meets one or more of five specific criteria.

These criteria included where “the planning permit application raises significant issues of public interest” and where it would result in a use or development contrary to the adopted Future Hepburn Strategies or a proposed planning scheme amendment which is supported by council”.

Formalising an informal practice which had already been in place, Cr Hewitt’s successful motion also requires that the council’s CEO implement a process where councillors can “call in” to a councillor briefing any planning permit if a minimum of three councillors seek such a “call-in”.

The new arrangements will now be temporarily in place for 18 months and after that time officers will present a report to the council on the outcomes and provide further recommendations on whether to continue with the changes.

During the meeting councillors heard that in the last 18 months only one planning decision made by the council had been different to the planning officer recommendation.

It also heard that over the last four year term fewer than 10 applications had involved the council making a planning determination that was different to the planning officer recommendation.

And in the 23-24 financial year of the five matters that had ended up being determined by VCAT, four of those had upheld the council’s decision while the only one that had not been supported at VCAT was one in which the councillors had overturned an officer recommendation.

Words: Eve Lamb