Lethbridge VIC coffee stop

[Jerry_Atrick]

Thanks Turbs for explaining.. I didn't realise the airfield was closing down..

[Flightrite]

The airfield's not closing down (lots of development going on there as an air park)but we are talking about corrupt inefficient councils who are obstructive at every turn! It's Australia remember, a convoluted corrupt mess when it comes to Govt's etc!

Edited August 25, 2021 by Flightrite

[Jerry_Atrick]

OK.. So I am lost again.. The airfield's not closing; presumably the coffee shop has permission to operate at the airfield; and the council is not allowing the coffee chop to attract passers-by for their custom?

 

I have to admit, I don't know that area too much, but looking at it on Google Maps, it isn't a small grass farm strip and has a warbirds business and a school by the looks of it.

 

Why would a council not want a business to attract custom? It's not like it is competing with anyone. Also, isn't the government hot on road safety, one of the things being take a break to stop fatigue? Surely a convenient stop at a coffee shop would provide weary drivers one more option?

 

Sheesh, Every time I try to finalise plans to return, someone finds something that makes me think twice!

 

 

[red750]

Effecively, what the council is saying, is that if you are driving down the road and see a petrol station with a cafe attached, if you pull in there, unless you buy petrol, you are not permitted to purchase anything at the cafe. The purpose of the service station is to provide petrol, so they cannot sell you a Coke unless you have bought petrol. What a load of codswallop.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Effecively, what the council is saying, is that if you are driving down the road and see a petrol station with a cafe attached, if you pull in there, unless you buy petrol, you are not permitted to purchase anything at the cafe. The purpose of the service station is to provide petrol, so they cannot sell you a Coke unless you have bought petrol. What a load of codswallop.

Clearly we haven't been told the correct story, so I suspect that isn't the case Red.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

OK.. So I am lost again.. The airfield's not closing; presumably the coffee shop has permission to operate at the airfield; and the council is not allowing the coffee chop to attract passers-by for their custom?

 

I have to admit, I don't know that area too much, but looking at it on Google Maps, it isn't a small grass farm strip and has a warbirds business and a school by the looks of it.

 

Why would a council not want a business to attract custom? It's not like it is competing with anyone. Also, isn't the government hot on road safety, one of the things being take a break to stop fatigue? Surely a convenient stop at a coffee shop would provide weary drivers one more option?

 

Sheesh, Every time I try to finalise plans to return, someone finds something that makes me think twice!

 

 

The Google Earth shot was taken 28/1/19 and doesn't appear to show the coffee shop and house depicted in the earlier photo above.

It isn't unusual to spin your wheels for a few hours on a Planning matter, but pretty pointless if you can't get the correct data.

It could be as simple as someone put a coffee shop on site without a permit, someone else in Lethbridge saw it as competition, went to Council and Council C&E officers checked it out and closed it down.

[octave]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

It could be as simple as someone put a coffee shop on site without a permit, someone else in Lethbridge saw it as competition, went to Council and Council C&E officers checked it out and closed it down.

 

I suspect this may be the case.

[aro]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

be careful to protect everything that makes up an airfield

Sounds like there was too much protection. According to the post, the airfield is zoned Specific Use - Aviation, and the coffee shop is not considered an Aviation use when it is accepting passing (i.e. non-aviation) visitors.

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, aro said:

Sounds like there was too much protection. According to the post, the airfield is zoned Specific Use - Aviation, and the coffee shop is not considered an Aviation use when it is accepting passing (i.e. non-aviation) visitors.

 

3429 Midland Highway, Lethbridge

According to the attached planning Scheme map the whole property is Zoned SUZ3, Special Use Zone- Schedule 3

 

We don't need to know the story:

Section 1 Uses (No permit required) - Does not include Coffee Shop

 

Section 2 Uses (Subject to Planning Permit Application) - Retail Premises; Must strictly relate to the Use of the land for aviation purposes.

 

Section 3 Uses:  Any other Use prohibited.

 

So retail trade with passing highway traffic would breach any Planning Permit due to the words "Must" and "Strictly"

 

 

 

 

[440032]

As far as I understand it, the cafe was set up for and council approved for Airside access, only. (with visions of expanding to public access for passing traffic, of which there is a lot).

It became apparent, apparently, that public access was never going to get approved by council. Dunno why. Other than supposedly, they didn't want the public wandering Airside. Well we all know that's a no brainer to solve.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, 440032 said:

As far as I understand it, the cafe was set up for and council approved for Airside access, only. (with visions of expanding to public access for passing traffic, of which there is a lot).

It became apparent, apparently, that public access was never going to get approved by council. Dunno why. Other than supposedly, they didn't want the public wandering Airside. Well we all know that's a no brainer to solve.

We posted about the same time. What I posted above is the address, the Zoning of the address and the Section 1,2,3 Uses.

The Council is obligated to work to the State Planning Schemes, so there was never an option for any retail premises serving highway traffic; the Council didn't have the power to contravene the Planning Scheme. There didn't have to be any reason.

 

Even is someone had tried taking it to VCAT, The Member has an obligation to assess the submission against the Planning Scheme.

[red750]

How do you go about getting the planning scheme changed, Lindsay Fox and the like seem to be able to do it when they want?

 

 

 

 

Don't tell me  --  money talks.

 

 

.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Read my mind, Peter...

 

I guess the cost might be prohibitive comapred ot the returns messrs Fox et al get...

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, red750 said:

How do you go about getting the planning scheme changed, Lindsay Fox and the like seem to be able to do it when they want?

Don't tell me  --  money talks.

 

There is huge corrruption. In Victoria IBAC has been systematically surveilling the good old boys (and women), and Operation Sandon makes stunning reading with one property owner able to make a 782-fold killing on a single property, one suitcase with a $320,000 bribe in it and so on.

 

However, in answer to your question, to get the Planning Scheme changed requires an analysis by the Council Planning Officers who give the area an Amendment Number, and prepare a Request to the Minister for Planning for the proposed change, which on one occasion in my Council area was for 3.7 square kilometres, but might be to change a Road Zone to Residential Zone if the road is no longer going to be built. The Minister gives the request to the State Department for analysis, and if he receives a positive recommendation approves the Amen dment which goes back to the Council, and the changes are made to the Council planning Scheme. You can go to the Online Planning Shemes, click on your Council and find all the numbered Amendments there.

[Flightrite]

Our grubby councils are well known to knock down the little people, it's in their mantra to destroy those that rock their cushy boat & create more paperwork! Having dealt with a certain inept council during an owner builder adventure some years ago it was the worst experience I had ever come across of jobs fr the boys!

[aro]

10 hours ago, red750 said:

How do you go about getting the planning scheme changed, Lindsay Fox and the like seem to be able to do it when they want?

Presumably someone has gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that the land can't be used for non-aviation uses - which has had some side effects.

 

But isn't the usual complaint that airport land is being used for non aviation uses like retail to the public? People need to work out what they want. Would the DFOs at Essendon and Moorabbin be OK if there were gates available so you could fly in to shop? It's basically the same thing, albeit on a massively different scale.

[red750]

3 minutes ago, aro said:

 

But isn't the usual complaint that airport land is being used for non aviation uses like retail to the public?

There is  difference between setting up a coffee shop/snack bar at a small country strip for visiting aviators, which may need additional patronage from passers by who stop to show their kids a few planes landing and taking off, to remain viable, to taking great tracts of land from busy airports to sell bedsheets, electric appliances, womens shoes, etc. If encroachment airside is the concern, have they not heard of fences and gates?

[aro]

25 minutes ago, red750 said:

There is  difference between setting up a coffee shop/snack bar at a small country strip for visiting aviators, which may need additional patronage from passers by who stop to show their kids a few planes landing and taking off, to remain viable, to taking great tracts of land from busy airports to sell bedsheets, electric appliances, womens shoes, etc.

It might be difficult to legally define that difference. E.g. when does "additional patronage from passers by" become the primary purpose of the business? Is a business allowed to grow if the patronage from passers by grows? Are they allowed to refuse aviation visitors if they are booked out by passers by? The second 2 might not be an issue at this point, but it sounds like the first one was the hurdle they came up against.

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, red750 said:

There is  difference between setting up a coffee shop/snack bar at a small country strip for visiting aviators, which may need additional patronage from passers by who stop to show their kids a few planes landing and taking off, to remain viable, to taking great tracts of land from busy airports to sell bedsheets, electric appliances, womens shoes, etc. If encroachment airside is the concern, have they not heard of fences and gates?

Aro's point

Wangaratta is a good example of a good airport trashed by non-aviation Uses. Non-Aviation Uses restricting aviation would pobably be the issue that draws the biggest attention on this site.

 

Red's Questions

The big picture is what the State Government wants to happen with very small towns like Lethbridge

Power has to be supplied, sewerage has to be supplied, transport access is needed, schools and roads/streets/street lighting.

To avoid country Victoria developing like the wild west with diseases like cholera spreading some overal guidance is laid down by the State.

 

This is the Local Government Area of Golden Plains and the local Councillors also have their dreams for Lethbridge, so they take the State Planning scheme framework and create the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.

They are also concerned with things like schools, but in terms of wanting one, and making sure the small towns retain enough people to justify it etc.

 

I don't know if there's a coffee shop in the town but there might be a milk bar or coffee shop scratching for a living, and just surviving and the children might be the tree that keep the school or school bus in town.

 

So when a planning Application comes along like the one we are talking about where a coffee shop not exclusively operating for airfield purposes comes up for review, it is not going to be allowed because it doesn't meet the Planning Scheme and the Planning Scheme is ensuring the integrity of the town isn't compromised by the local town milk bar or coffee shop being sent broke.

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, aro said:

It might be difficult to legally define that difference. E.g. when does "additional patronage from passers by" become the primary purpose of the business? Is a business allowed to grow if the patronage from passers by grows? Are they allowed to refuse aviation visitors if they are booked out by passers by? The second 2 might not be an issue at this point, but it sounds like the first one was the hurdle they came up against.

More likely just the Golden Plains C&E officers driving past, or someone in the town complained to Council that business was being taken off them.

C&E is an endless job with people putting up illegal signs, setting up businesses in their garages, renting out sheds for dwellings, conducting businesses in residential areas (the ones using angle grinders being booted out first), or jamming up streets with used cars etc.

[Flightrite]

I'll guarantee they where dobbed in, seems to be the Aussie way!

[facthunter]

Glad to see the northern part of the north/ south runway is not used,.  There were some close calls with not seeing other aircraft when using it. Nev