By Catherine Watson
RESIDENTS of the Albert Ruttle estate west of Inverloch are waiting for the next move in the long-running battle to preserve their wetlands.
The 8ha Albert Ruttle Wetlands Reserve is an important biodiversity site, popular with birdwatchers and walkers from the estate and also the wider Inverloch community, and part of the Inverloch-Wonthaggi biolink,
The development of the wetlands, which featured in marketing of the estate, was a condition of the original planning agreement for the Albert Ruttle subdivision back in 1993.
Or so residents of the estate believed. In 2017 a real estate agent informed them that the heavily wooded reserve was being sold as two housing blocks.
RESIDENTS of the Albert Ruttle estate west of Inverloch are waiting for the next move in the long-running battle to preserve their wetlands.
The 8ha Albert Ruttle Wetlands Reserve is an important biodiversity site, popular with birdwatchers and walkers from the estate and also the wider Inverloch community, and part of the Inverloch-Wonthaggi biolink,
The development of the wetlands, which featured in marketing of the estate, was a condition of the original planning agreement for the Albert Ruttle subdivision back in 1993.
Or so residents of the estate believed. In 2017 a real estate agent informed them that the heavily wooded reserve was being sold as two housing blocks.
The original marketing for the estate showed the wetlands reserve and bird hide. Residents formed a Friends group, presented to the council and organised a petition, but were unable to stop the eventual sale. The two blocks were later on-sold.
This year the owner of one of the blocks applied to the council to subdivide the block and remove the Section 173 agreement on the block (which allowed other residents to walk on the lot) so he could build.
The application to subdivide the block was quickly rejected by Bass Coast planners as it clearly violated the Development Plan Overlay (DPO).
The application to remove the 173 agreement attracted 20 objections and two supporting submissions. It was listed for a decision by councillors at Wednesday’s meeting but the applicant withdrew after the agenda was released last Friday showing a planning officer’s report recommending that the application be refused as it also violated the DPO.
Resident Peter Ghys said he was relieved by the result and pleased the council appeared set to uphold the controls.
“The potential loss of access to and the inevitable disturbance to the wildlife has been avoided, at least for the time being. The story is not yet finished but for now this part at least is back on hold. The DPO applies equally to the other block in the Reserve, and hence we would expect it also to be protected from development.”
The South Gippsland Conservation Society (SGCS) was involved in the original discussions in the 1990s around the establishment of the estate. They were able to come up with the original paperwork showing the obligations for maintaining the lots as a reserve were passed to subsequent purchasers.
SGCS member John Cuttriss recalls the estate was only allowed to be established outside the town boundaries because of the conditions put on it.
The Section 173 Agreement was to ensure that the wetlands were developed in lieu
of a Public Open Space Contribution to the council. The agreement required the owner of the lot to allow access to residents of the estate, to do ongoing maintenance, protection of the space and wetlands, and to maintain public liability insurance.
In its objection to the most recent application, the conservation society wrote: “SGCS finds it unusual that someone would purchase a property with these conditions other than someone who has a great respect for Trust for Nature covenants.
“We assume as part of due diligence prior to a decision to purchase, a title search would have been undertaken which would have revealed the covenant, the section 173 and its management requirements to the reserve lots.”
More information: https://www.ruttlewetlands.org/
This year the owner of one of the blocks applied to the council to subdivide the block and remove the Section 173 agreement on the block (which allowed other residents to walk on the lot) so he could build.
The application to subdivide the block was quickly rejected by Bass Coast planners as it clearly violated the Development Plan Overlay (DPO).
The application to remove the 173 agreement attracted 20 objections and two supporting submissions. It was listed for a decision by councillors at Wednesday’s meeting but the applicant withdrew after the agenda was released last Friday showing a planning officer’s report recommending that the application be refused as it also violated the DPO.
Resident Peter Ghys said he was relieved by the result and pleased the council appeared set to uphold the controls.
“The potential loss of access to and the inevitable disturbance to the wildlife has been avoided, at least for the time being. The story is not yet finished but for now this part at least is back on hold. The DPO applies equally to the other block in the Reserve, and hence we would expect it also to be protected from development.”
The South Gippsland Conservation Society (SGCS) was involved in the original discussions in the 1990s around the establishment of the estate. They were able to come up with the original paperwork showing the obligations for maintaining the lots as a reserve were passed to subsequent purchasers.
SGCS member John Cuttriss recalls the estate was only allowed to be established outside the town boundaries because of the conditions put on it.
The Section 173 Agreement was to ensure that the wetlands were developed in lieu
of a Public Open Space Contribution to the council. The agreement required the owner of the lot to allow access to residents of the estate, to do ongoing maintenance, protection of the space and wetlands, and to maintain public liability insurance.
In its objection to the most recent application, the conservation society wrote: “SGCS finds it unusual that someone would purchase a property with these conditions other than someone who has a great respect for Trust for Nature covenants.
“We assume as part of due diligence prior to a decision to purchase, a title search would have been undertaken which would have revealed the covenant, the section 173 and its management requirements to the reserve lots.”
More information: https://www.ruttlewetlands.org/