Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Jim Child comments on UGB

Cr Cox's UGB Motion Gets Up - Council Divided!

That Council:

1. Supports the retention of the Urban Growth Boundary without amendment.

2. Authorises officers to write to the Minister for Planning and all submitters advising them of this position.

Division Called:

For the motion: Crs Cox, Cliff, McRae, Dunn & Heenan.

Against the Motion: Crs Templer, Avery, Higgins & Warren.

My Comment:

What surprised me tonight was that not one person from the gallery spoke for or against the motion. In particular there was no representation from Coldstream 2020, in the past an outspoken group in support of extending the UGB.

From the division called it can clearly be seen that the Council is divided on this issue.

I don't believe this issue is settled, the Minister can ask Council again to submit to change the UGB in the future. A change in the 'Green' composition of Council at the next election (Oct' 2012) could see the UGB issue revisited.

No comments: