Division remains within Greater Shepparton City Council around the merits of a masterplan for land in Kialla, a week before submissions are heard on the matter at an independent planning panel.
Some councillors continued to harbour concerns about the Valley Harness and Greyhound Racing Precinct feasibility study and masterplan at this week’s council meeting.
Others stressed Tuesday night’s meeting was not the time and place to debate the merits of the plan, just to note council’s position on the matter heading into the panel.
The motion to note the council’s position provoked further disagreement around whether the council’s resolution made any difference at all.
Councillors Les Oroszvary, Shelley Sutton and Fern Summer voted against noting the position, with remaining councillors voting for the position and Cr Chris Hazelman declaring a conflict of interest, opting out of discussion.
With regard to submissions received for an amendment to the planning scheme, councillors ultimately voted to note officers’ response for referral and presentation to the panel and to note officers may exercise discretion to best achieve the general position council adopted.
At this week’s meeting, Cr Dennis Patterson hoped the panel’s findings would give the council ‘‘good direction’’.
Speaking against the motion, Cr Summer said she had ‘‘lost a lot of confidence in this project’’, while Cr Oroszvary stressed the panel only made recommendations, not the final decision on the matter.
Mayor Dinny Adem described the motion being considered as irrelevant, before chief executive Peter Harriott clarified.
‘‘It is relevant to the point that the independent panel will wonder where officers are coming from.’’
Wrapping up, Cr Patterson said the motion being considered was to ‘‘note the officers’ response’’.
‘‘We’ve gone from noting their response to full stage war,’’ he said.
A September resolution had directed officers to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment, seeking to implement findings of the master plan.
Fifteen of 21 submissions received had objected or requested changes to the proposed amendment and remain unresolved, some relating to flood modelling and concerns around land use.
‘‘As such, all submissions have been referred to an Independent Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning for consideration,’’ the report read.
Council officers’ position at the panel hearing argues the proposal is consistent with council’s adopted policies and strategies and no changes to the flood controls or flood mapping are proposed as part of the planning scheme amendment.
The officers’ report estimates the cost of the independent planning panel for this amendment at about $10000.
‘‘Additional costs will be incurred if legal representation and/or expert witnesses are required. This may cost approximately $30000,’’ the report said.
By Thomas Moir