Quarry to get the go-ahead
Update: Councillors reject quarry application 4 votes to 2 ~ see new report @ foot of post
The proposed quarry site is alongside the pristine Buckland River and is located just 400 metres north (downstream) of a residential area.
Council report dismisses 22 objectors & ‘Significant Landscape’ overlay
Alpine council planning staff have recommended approval of a controversial proposal to develop an extractive industry over a 5 hectare site bordering the Buckland River. The site is near the popular Sinclair’s swimming hole and just a few hundred metres from a residential area. It is also part of a Significant Landscape Overlay and is subject to flooding from the nearby river.
The development is to be an open quarry for the purposes of extracting cobbles and pebbles to a maximum depth of 2m. The extraction will be carried out by a garden supplies firm that will be selling the stones from their Melbourne suburban outlet.
The full report can be read here on the agenda for the council meeting. The report recommending approval was presented to the Alpine councillors at a special council meeting last Tuesday 22 December. I’m not sure how the vote went but I presume it was passed. If anyone knows could you please confirm.
If our councillors have approved this I think they are reckless & irresponsible. Have a look at this close up below – the site is almost right by the river. And, as you can see in the main picture above, it is also quite close to residents’ homes. What is the possible benefit the development will bring to this area? I can’t think of one.
Employment? Well, no, I understand that the quarry will employ only one or two people. When you think of all the negatives and what even the report itself says in the following conclusion ….
CONCLUSION
The objections lodged with Council raise some very valid concerns in relation to the establishment and management of the proposed extractive industry. It is evident that the local community in the Buckland Valley are passionate about the environmental, cultural and landscape contribution that this valley makes to the Shire and more particularly their living amenity.However in considering the concerns raised and the provisions of the Alpine Planning Scheme there are few grounds for refusing this application. The use will also be subject to a Work Authority issued by the Department of Primary Industries and none of the other specialist agencies have objected to the proposal. In addition, the concerns raised by objectors not covered by the DPI Work Authority can be managed via permit conditions. On balance this application should be supported.
… you have to wonder why the council would simply not use those “few grounds” to issue a refusal. Or do they just not care?
Yeah, a Merry Xmas to the residents living near a quarry, courtesy of the Alpine council.
Update: Councillors reject quarry
According to a report in Saturday’s Border Mail (*) the Alpine council has rejected a report recommending approval and by a vote of 4 to 2 has rejected the planning application on the grounds of “community sentiment”. The application might be appealed to VCAT where the decision may well be overturned, but at least the councillors have stood up for the residents and credit must be given where credit is due – it was the right decision, well done.
(* The only disappointing part is that we had to wait 4 days to find this out. Surely an important decision like this one should have been put up on the council’s website)
Promoting 'Beautiful Bright'.
Click 
Ray,what else can you expect when the Council is bound by the blanket planning provisions developed by the DSE in Melbourne and with a metropolitan “one size fits all” bias, and then applied to all the municipalities and shires in Victoria? The only option the Council has is in determining the particular zoning for an area. Check out just what is allowed under the latest version of “Township Zone” – almost anything goes and on the last revision the basis for objecting regarding “altering the amenity and character of the area” was deleted. Perhaps Zuvele would like to comment on how her friends in Melbourne impact upon our rural lifestyle. Maybe this is what a planned society is all about? This “development” basically “sucks” and should never have been allowed but in their own words the Council bureaucracy have almost no grounds upon which to reject it under the current regulations.
Herb, I agree that the council is somewhat hamstrung by State planning laws but, in their own words, “there are few grounds for refusing this application”, meaning there were some grounds for saying “no”.
It looks to me like they just caved in without a fight, and that’s good enough. In cases like this one I believe Councillors should err in favour of the residents, but they didn’t do that (by the look of it).
I would agree in this case with that assumption. A happy Christmas to you and yours.
Cheers Herb, same to you.
People are a force in numbers – I congratulate you in doing what you believe is the best for your town and for its future, the town and ‘its childrens future’. Councilors must be made aware of the negative impact from certain developments (residents should be made fully aware too).
Please don’t leave it to councilors (benefits) beliefs for this development, councilors can ruin residential health and environment and this has happened, I don’t blame your concerns – All the best.
Cheers Roman, and happy Christmas.
Am not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of this, as I haven’t read the report.
Herb, this quarry is not in a township zone. It is in a rural zone. It is thus an appropriate zoning (not talking about whether it’s an appropriate site) for a quarry.
I’ve been lobbying the State goverment, through the policy process, for a review of the planning laws applying to townships to more properly reflect rural lifestyles for several years now – it is actually ALP policy as a result.
Changed planning laws were just being proposed when I left council, which would have given councils far more flexibility in the way they could apply planning laws. I’m not sure where they’re up to now, but once introduced they will allow councils to vary planning laws for the circumstances of their towns.
However, this is one of those cases where a rural zone is close to housing, which is a different problem to what’s appropriate to the zone. I can’t see where else you could have a quarry other than in a rural zone.
So it’s not a zoning problem, it’s a problem of two zones being in close proximity to each other, which always creates difficulties.
We all know the (dubious) history of the Wallace Ave development too, Zuvele. I believe it was developed back in the 1980s by the then council engineer. Apparently a report from the Water Authority advising it was in a flood plain and unsuitable for housing was lost in the 1983 fire that burnt down the old shire offices (twice). The street has had two major floods, in 1993 & 1998, when up to a metre of water swept through the houses.
Getting back to the quarry though, I think the environmental concerns are enough to rule it out.
I’d tend to agree Ray, but would point out that gravel and rocks have been being removed from the river for many years by the DSE, using exactly the same kind of equipment and I think there are a couple of similar operations which have been on the river for some years.
I know that until recent years (as in it may be still happening, but I’m not certain) removal of gravel from the Ovens was seen as necessary for flood mitigation.
Well, we have to have quarries but it’s just that this would be in a concentrated and sensitive area, in my opinion.
The ones I’m talking about are IN the river. Can’t get more concentrated and sensitive than that!!
Ray, According to this weeks Bright Observer it would appear this has now been voted down by the councillors!!!
Yes, I noted that in the update above, Herb.