Tyabb Airport.
Dear Colleen [aka Thorn Bird], you confuse privatised airports with this privately owned airfield. It appears no plan was ever produced at Tyabb and under the state Local Government Act it is required...
Whether or not it is required by law, the Club agreed to certain obligations, as did Council.
While not in any way on the side of Council, it does appear that - just maybe - the Club Committee has had its collective head in the sand (or up its own fundamental) and not until now acknowledged the threat, nor made any early efforts to mitigate it.
While not in any way on the side of Council, it does appear that - just maybe - the Club Committee has had its collective head in the sand (or up its own fundamental) and not until now acknowledged the threat, nor made any early efforts to mitigate it.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach - Earlier posts #33 & #36 by OZBUSDRIVER would suggest that the master plan was pretty much ready to go, but couldn't be finalised until the (council commissioned) noise report was completed. I'm starting to suspect there's more to this than just the council reacting to the complaints of a few disgruntled neighbours. Could it be that these people are just being used as 'patsies' for something more sinister, as others have already suggested..?
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the bet the grubby corrupt council have other cunning plans in place long tern which don't involve an airfield? This is just the tip of the iceberg! Time will tell but there's a lot more to this than some 'lost' paperwork!
Developers & councils have been in bed with each other since Noah bought Mt Ararat!
Developers & councils have been in bed with each other since Noah bought Mt Ararat!
Folks,
I say again: "Follow the money".
Somebody needs to do some serious homework, serious digging.
The facts, just the facts, emotion will get headlines, but doesn't rate versus $$$.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Thorn Bird ain't no colleen. Lots of things, but not that!! Absolutely not that!!
I say again: "Follow the money".
Somebody needs to do some serious homework, serious digging.
The facts, just the facts, emotion will get headlines, but doesn't rate versus $$$.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Thorn Bird ain't no colleen. Lots of things, but not that!! Absolutely not that!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Jun 2019 at 08:03. Reason: typo
Something tells me I do not think so. The mayor is an idealist. His idea about development is to put the entire peninsula in a fish bowl. Everything about this guy screams nimby environmentalist.
Further, reportedly, The OAC has not received a letter. Could it be the hangar lies on commercial land? Operating under a separate permit structure to the aerodrome? Could it also be put? The aerodrome is privately owned, just like a tilt slab industrial complex. These complexes do not need prior approval from council provide they meet the complex council permit. The aerodrome is permitted for aerodrome related industry....therefore, any industry renting or strata titled on aerodrome land is permitted to operate as per permit.
The shire council attacked a retirment home complex near the racecourse complex in mornington...not in keeping with horse training and green wedge...they are hard to understand where they will flip.
Mornington Retirment VillageRESIDENTS opposed to a proposed $50 million “retirement village” in Roberts Road, Mornington, say it will look like a “trailer park”.
The land is in a recognised horse precinct with easy access to Mornington racecourse.
“According to the developers’ plans, the 371 two-and-three bedroom dwellings will be constructed of Colorbond and timber. That’s similar to caravan park units. Their design will devalue properties in the area,” nearby resident and spokesperson Christine Pingiaro said.
“There will be loss of native habitat, potentially massive impact on the Balcombe Creek catchment, and encroachment on conservation reserves. There is no plan about what vegetation will be removed.”
The residents rallied on the gated road last week to protest Steller Estates’ proposal for a 20 hectare development at the Mornington-Tyabb Road end.
Many have lodged Statements of Grounds opposing the proposal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Marty Lenard, of Tanti Creek Friends, also lodged a statement of grounds to the tribunal.
Mornington Peninsula Shire’s executive manager planning services David Bergin said the shire “moved quickly to reject the proposal” but did not see the need to advertise it.
“The applicant did not use the shire’s pre-application service for a preliminary discussion prior to lodging its application. Reviewing the application, it was clear that the proposal was not sympathetic to the low scale character of the area between Mornington and the green wedge.,” Mr Bergin said
“It was inconsistent with local planning policies and could impact the neighbouring conservation reserve and racecourse. The shire moved quickly to reject the proposal to ensure the unique character of the peninsula was looked after.”
About 20 residents gathered at the site last week to voice their opposition to the proposal which Steller says presents a “rare opportunity to provide retirement accommodation close to an existing town centre”.
The developer’s documentation to council says the project “responds to the evident need for affordable retirement living on the Mornington Peninsula as Victoria’s population ages and housing pressure extends to the peninsula”.
“The subject site … is well located, being within one of the largest settlements on the peninsula with main road access into the centre of the township,” Steller said.
“[It] responds positively to its context, retaining significant vegetation and achieving the setbacks required by the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme to maintain and enhance the character elements that contribute positively to the amenity of Mornington.
“[The] submission demonstrates a well-considered and site-responsive proposal that has strong policy support at all levels of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and is therefore worthy of support.”
If the village goes ahead the owner of 58 Roberts Road, who refused to sell to the developer, will be surrounded by access ways and buildings.
Ten years ago the state coroner ordered that gates be erected at the road’s intersections with Mornington-Tyabb Rd and Bungower Rd, after a racehorse escaped and collided with a vehicle on Nepean Highway, killing a tradesman driving to work.
The gates restrict and slow traffic to provide a safer environment for livestock, workers, residents and visitors. They act as a deterrent to traffic.
Ms Pingiaro said the influx of an additional potential 700 residents, as well as visitors and tradespeople, will see this safety measure eroded.
First published in the Mornington News – 13 February 2018
The land is in a recognised horse precinct with easy access to Mornington racecourse.
“According to the developers’ plans, the 371 two-and-three bedroom dwellings will be constructed of Colorbond and timber. That’s similar to caravan park units. Their design will devalue properties in the area,” nearby resident and spokesperson Christine Pingiaro said.
“There will be loss of native habitat, potentially massive impact on the Balcombe Creek catchment, and encroachment on conservation reserves. There is no plan about what vegetation will be removed.”
The residents rallied on the gated road last week to protest Steller Estates’ proposal for a 20 hectare development at the Mornington-Tyabb Road end.
Many have lodged Statements of Grounds opposing the proposal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Marty Lenard, of Tanti Creek Friends, also lodged a statement of grounds to the tribunal.
Mornington Peninsula Shire’s executive manager planning services David Bergin said the shire “moved quickly to reject the proposal” but did not see the need to advertise it.
“The applicant did not use the shire’s pre-application service for a preliminary discussion prior to lodging its application. Reviewing the application, it was clear that the proposal was not sympathetic to the low scale character of the area between Mornington and the green wedge.,” Mr Bergin said
“It was inconsistent with local planning policies and could impact the neighbouring conservation reserve and racecourse. The shire moved quickly to reject the proposal to ensure the unique character of the peninsula was looked after.”
About 20 residents gathered at the site last week to voice their opposition to the proposal which Steller says presents a “rare opportunity to provide retirement accommodation close to an existing town centre”.
The developer’s documentation to council says the project “responds to the evident need for affordable retirement living on the Mornington Peninsula as Victoria’s population ages and housing pressure extends to the peninsula”.
“The subject site … is well located, being within one of the largest settlements on the peninsula with main road access into the centre of the township,” Steller said.
“[It] responds positively to its context, retaining significant vegetation and achieving the setbacks required by the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme to maintain and enhance the character elements that contribute positively to the amenity of Mornington.
“[The] submission demonstrates a well-considered and site-responsive proposal that has strong policy support at all levels of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and is therefore worthy of support.”
If the village goes ahead the owner of 58 Roberts Road, who refused to sell to the developer, will be surrounded by access ways and buildings.
Ten years ago the state coroner ordered that gates be erected at the road’s intersections with Mornington-Tyabb Rd and Bungower Rd, after a racehorse escaped and collided with a vehicle on Nepean Highway, killing a tradesman driving to work.
The gates restrict and slow traffic to provide a safer environment for livestock, workers, residents and visitors. They act as a deterrent to traffic.
Ms Pingiaro said the influx of an additional potential 700 residents, as well as visitors and tradespeople, will see this safety measure eroded.
First published in the Mornington News – 13 February 2018
Related Posts
Fatal two car collision in Flinders...
June 26, 2019
Airfield reopens after permit talks...
June 25, 2019
Roadside floods ‘bad for business’...
June 24, 2019
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: perth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have infill happening in our suburb - the householders don't want it, push the Council to make a decision but they say their hands are tied by the Government of the day. In the end, if the Mornington Council is the only hurdle, then the situation for the PAC may be winnable. However, if there are other bodies like in our state - WA Planning Commission and State Administrative Tribunal, then all is lost. They will over rule the Councils with the drop of a hat.
Airport deal to remain secret
THE “full legal review” into planning permits involving Tyabb airfield and businesses operating there will not be released to the public. Mornington Peninsula Shire has decided to extend the deadline for the review by a Queen’s Counsel beyond 30 June and at some stage release “a document consolidating the conditions of all current planning permits that currently apply to the Tyabb airfield”. The motion agreeing to the deadline change and to keeping the review secret appears to conflict with council’s decision on 26 March for “the outcome of the legal review … be brought back to council by the end of the financial year, for a council briefing, prior to the findings being publicly released”.
Both the initial call for the legal review and last week’s deadline extension were contained in notices of motion put by Cr Julie Morris and adopted unanimously by council.
Hmmm..non-existant permits suddenly re-appear?
THE “full legal review” into planning permits involving Tyabb airfield and businesses operating there will not be released to the public. Mornington Peninsula Shire has decided to extend the deadline for the review by a Queen’s Counsel beyond 30 June and at some stage release “a document consolidating the conditions of all current planning permits that currently apply to the Tyabb airfield”. The motion agreeing to the deadline change and to keeping the review secret appears to conflict with council’s decision on 26 March for “the outcome of the legal review … be brought back to council by the end of the financial year, for a council briefing, prior to the findings being publicly released”.
Both the initial call for the legal review and last week’s deadline extension were contained in notices of motion put by Cr Julie Morris and adopted unanimously by council.
Hmmm..non-existant permits suddenly re-appear?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 17th Jul 2019 at 05:30.
Shire to back airshow if permit sought
MORNINGTON Peninsula Shire’s requirement that Peninsula Aero Club conform to planning rules could jeopardise the staging of next year’s air show at Tyabb airfield. Club president Jack Vevers sees the shire’s insistence that the club seek a planning permit – as normally required for big events – as “blackmail”. The mayor, Cr David Gill, says the club and businesses associated with the airfield should conform to planning regulations. Mr Vevers on Sunday issued a news release claiming the shire had told the club it “will not be supporting a permit application to run the air show in 2020”. Not so, said Cr Gill: “[They] should just put in a permit application and stop misleading people. “We will work with them to make sure they get a permit for the air show. “We agree the air show is good for the peninsula, but they should stop this nonsense.”
Mr Vevers said he had been told the shire “would not accept a secondary consent application as they have always done previously”. “We normally just write to the council and fill in a form which gives us a period to vary our permit so we can run the air show – say, seven days. It’s never been an issue before. “Now they have told me they want a full planning application before they will even consider it, but that would open up our permits so that they [can] get full control of the airfield. “They have a win at any cost attitude. They are using the issue as blackmail.” Cr Gill has rejected suggestions that the council is trying to shut down Tyabb airfield or businesses operating there. He said the shire wants to “work out the permit and zoning concerns”. “There has been a lot of misleading publicity about the airfield and it is now time that our community know the facts,” Cr Gill said. “The council has been trying to resolve the issues including lack of permits, the need for a masterplan and a noise abatement plan, possible rezoning requirements and simply a club willingness to work with neighbours via the existing community reference group.” Under the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 businesses can be fined $1087 for operating without permits.
Cr Gill’s statement follows council’s receipt of a report by a Queen’s Counsel that reportedly showed some businesses associated with the airfield were operating without the required permits. The News has asked for a copy of the ratepayer-funded report. Cr Gill said other businesses “must be a little perplexed that they are required to hang their permits on their walls and abide by conditions while at least some private airfield businesses aim to self-regulate within a largely residential area”. “For decades now the substitute for the rational resolution of problems has been to ramp up the rhetoric and create an ‘us against them’ scenario while clouding the real issues,” he said. “This leaves me wondering how this is going to help the workers and businesses involved. “The reality is that complex town planning matters will only be resolved by negotiation and applying standard regulations, not by any amount of abusive or disingenuous campaigning.”
Cr Gill said that contrary to a report in The News (“Airfield reopens after permit talks” 25/6/19) he was “warmly welcomed” to an open day last month at the airfield. “It was surprising and untrue to read that I wasn’t welcome and didn’t know what I was talking about. There were, though, some who were only prepared to argue and make statements in order to gather support to put pressure on any council decisions,” he said. “The shire has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars assisting the airfield in the past and I hope continues to help ensure the viability of the businesses involved. “I listen to all, but that doesn’t mean just agreeing, no matter how influential one group may be. Our community would expect nothing less.”
With Stephen Taylor
MORNINGTON Peninsula Shire’s requirement that Peninsula Aero Club conform to planning rules could jeopardise the staging of next year’s air show at Tyabb airfield. Club president Jack Vevers sees the shire’s insistence that the club seek a planning permit – as normally required for big events – as “blackmail”. The mayor, Cr David Gill, says the club and businesses associated with the airfield should conform to planning regulations. Mr Vevers on Sunday issued a news release claiming the shire had told the club it “will not be supporting a permit application to run the air show in 2020”. Not so, said Cr Gill: “[They] should just put in a permit application and stop misleading people. “We will work with them to make sure they get a permit for the air show. “We agree the air show is good for the peninsula, but they should stop this nonsense.”
Mr Vevers said he had been told the shire “would not accept a secondary consent application as they have always done previously”. “We normally just write to the council and fill in a form which gives us a period to vary our permit so we can run the air show – say, seven days. It’s never been an issue before. “Now they have told me they want a full planning application before they will even consider it, but that would open up our permits so that they [can] get full control of the airfield. “They have a win at any cost attitude. They are using the issue as blackmail.” Cr Gill has rejected suggestions that the council is trying to shut down Tyabb airfield or businesses operating there. He said the shire wants to “work out the permit and zoning concerns”. “There has been a lot of misleading publicity about the airfield and it is now time that our community know the facts,” Cr Gill said. “The council has been trying to resolve the issues including lack of permits, the need for a masterplan and a noise abatement plan, possible rezoning requirements and simply a club willingness to work with neighbours via the existing community reference group.” Under the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 businesses can be fined $1087 for operating without permits.
Cr Gill’s statement follows council’s receipt of a report by a Queen’s Counsel that reportedly showed some businesses associated with the airfield were operating without the required permits. The News has asked for a copy of the ratepayer-funded report. Cr Gill said other businesses “must be a little perplexed that they are required to hang their permits on their walls and abide by conditions while at least some private airfield businesses aim to self-regulate within a largely residential area”. “For decades now the substitute for the rational resolution of problems has been to ramp up the rhetoric and create an ‘us against them’ scenario while clouding the real issues,” he said. “This leaves me wondering how this is going to help the workers and businesses involved. “The reality is that complex town planning matters will only be resolved by negotiation and applying standard regulations, not by any amount of abusive or disingenuous campaigning.”
Cr Gill said that contrary to a report in The News (“Airfield reopens after permit talks” 25/6/19) he was “warmly welcomed” to an open day last month at the airfield. “It was surprising and untrue to read that I wasn’t welcome and didn’t know what I was talking about. There were, though, some who were only prepared to argue and make statements in order to gather support to put pressure on any council decisions,” he said. “The shire has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars assisting the airfield in the past and I hope continues to help ensure the viability of the businesses involved. “I listen to all, but that doesn’t mean just agreeing, no matter how influential one group may be. Our community would expect nothing less.”
With Stephen Taylor
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 17th Jul 2019 at 04:57.
To put my last two posts in context..The later appeared on the 4th of this month, the former is today. Hence, take note the local news wanted a copy of the report to which the local Tyabb councillor has voted to keep secret. The Mayor should be in politics the way he winds his words together to make out the aerodrome is at fault. Note this! In the original permit, one of the original four items is to run an airshow to which the Shire receives a part of the profits. This is the reason, I would bet that only a secondary application is required. Reading the news feed of the local rag, this council is hell bent on stopping any industry Even to the point of taxing EVERY tourist that has the temerity to drive into the peninsula during and for holidays. (EDIT, A local councillor aspirant plans to do this) The council is against an LNG hub in a major shipping port of Hastings...Esso BHP has been operating a gas plant, stripping natural gas, Propane and Butane off the oil line from Bass strait for over fifty years...right next door to the AGL plan. They haven't said anything about a Chinese company wanting to build 17 huge windmills on French's Island..YET..Seeing as Bob Brown is now against them, one wonders if the woke community of Red Hill will also be against the French's Island plan.
The bottom line is the Shire, under Cr Gill, wants to control the aerodrome out of existence. PPR will be eventually care of the Shire office!
EDIT...On consideration, maybe that permit was the second one where the airshow was one of the twelve...
The bottom line is the Shire, under Cr Gill, wants to control the aerodrome out of existence. PPR will be eventually care of the Shire office!
EDIT...On consideration, maybe that permit was the second one where the airshow was one of the twelve...
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 17th Jul 2019 at 05:43.