Banyule Estate Subdivision Affair of 1958 Part 2
Article 2 - The newspaper clipping for the next article did not specify from which newspaper it came, but was dated 29/7/1958.
HEIDELBERG COUNCIL TOLD: "Housing Scheme Could Wreck Plan for Future"
A deputation of ratepayers last night told Heidelberg council that if they allowed Stanhill Pty. Ltd. to build inside the green belt, they would "put the seal of doom on orderly planning" in Melbourne.
Two weeks ago the council approved of a plan for Stanhill to develop the £3 million Banyule Estate, a rural area classified under Melbourne's master plan as a green belt area.
The company wants to built a 650-house estate on the area.
One member from East Heidelberg Progress Association, Mr. F. Bucknell, said his association was most conscious of the probable repercussions of the final decision council might make.
"We urge you to realise this is no mere parochial affair," Mr Bucknell said.
"Should the Stanhill application be approved, what attitude is to be adopted to the next application, and the next, and the flood of others which would most surely follow?"
Mr. Bucknell said hundreds of similar applications by men of limited resources, had been refused.
"Now we have an organisation talking in terms of £3 million and its request is approved," he said.
Two Attitudes
"Is there to be one attitude for the poor and another for the rich?" he asked.
Speaking about the green belt, Mr. Bucknell added, "Surely we are all grateful for our inheritance, let us nurture the gifts from the past, and, by being men of vision, pass on to those who follow us a rare gift, which one false act could now utterly destroy."
Article 3 - Published in The Herald 21-10-1958
Firm may need £250,000 for Banyule go ahead
Herald Staff Reporter
Stanhill Pty. Ltd. may have to put up cash bonds amounting to £250,000 before Heidelberg Council will finally approve the Banyule subdivision.
And the figure could be much higher - in the vicinity of £450,000 - if the Council and the Board of Works insisted that all services on the estate be covered by bonds.
Last night the council decided by nine votes to seven that cash bonds and detailed agreements for construction of various services be sought from Stanhill before it finally approved the 264-acre subdivision.
Councillors rejected recommendations that the subdivision plan be sealed.
Several said they considered that by sealing the plan they would forfeit their bargaining power and enable Stanhill to make a big profit with no benefit to the council.
VICTORY
The council decision was a major victory for opponents of the Banyule subdivision and a committee of investigation embracing members of the East Ward Protest Committee and Macleod Progress Association.
The committee had asked the council to insist on bonds and safeguards before allowing Stanhill to go ahead.
The acting secretary of the investigation committee, Mr H. E. Pottage, said today that if bonds were sought for each of the various services the figure would be about £450,000.
The committee's estimates were that streets and footpaths would cost £150,000; approach roads to the estate, £80,000; electricity, £60,000; and sewerage and reticulation, £220,000.
Mr Pottage added: "We think it is prudent that bonds amounting to £150,000 to cover the full cost of street and footpath construction be put up to ensure that the entire area will be developed.
"It could happen that without such bonds, the work could be started and the company might be unable to complete the work.
"The council could then be faced with the cost of finishing the estate."
His committee had made no decision about whether the company should put up bonds for each of the other services, but there was a general feeling that bonds amounting to £100,000 would be enough to cover the rest.
Stanhill, which stand to make a profit of about £750,000, has stated it would supply all these services and there would be no strain put on the council's finances.