Councillor's last-ditch bid to save 'decrepit' cottage from demolition fails
By Bailey Forbes Updated July 9 2026 - 6:07pm, first published 5:00pm
A councillor has failed in his bid to save a decrepit 1920s cottage from demolition, with another councillor saying the saga had gone on far too long.
62 Gorge Road, Trevallyn. Picture by Paul Scambler
The comments followed probing by Councillor Tim Walker into why the demolition cost of the heritage-listed cottage had blown out to $80,000. [INDEED why has the cost of demolition blown out and why demolish in any event or not at a different time. INDEED on what expert advice were the Councillors relying and was it reliable and if so based on what evidence]
Councillors originally voted to demolish the black mould-filled house at 62 Gorge Road, Trevallyn, in March 2026. [AND on what expert advice moreover not having engaged with the Community of Ownership & Interest (link) and the various layers of interest to determine what value/s the community had invested in THIS PLACE – as a place ... NB Public Skills Australia has released the Local Government Skills Audit and Review of the Uptake and Utility of the LGA Local Government In summary, the report draws on survey responses and workshops involving 280 councils nationwide, representing more than half of all Australian councils. ... A key finding is that workforce pressures remain significant, with 83% of councils reporting occupational shortages. The report also highlights increasing turnover, shorter employee tenure and an ageing workforce, placing additional pressure on councils' ability to attract, retain and develop talent... BY EXTENSION The elected representatives arguably need to seek their own independent advice in circumstance such as this]
Cr Walker had previously tabled a motion to open an expression-of-interest (EOI) period, offering to give the home away for free, provided the recipient paid to relocate the cottage.
Councillors then voted to extend the EOI period in April 2026 after no one applied.
Council agenda papers said because of this delay, the demolition cost increased by $14,000 to adjust for traffic management, as the demolition work was pushed into the school holidays.
A move to halt demolition
Cr Walker questioned the price tag, asking why it was so high and whether the demolition schedule could be delayed to reduce the cost.
While most of his questions were taken on notice, council chief executive Sam Johnson noted that whether the demolition could be moved depended entirely on the contractor's availability.
Cr Walker then moved a motion for the council to indefinitely delay the demolition and explore whether they could use the projected demolition costs to incentivise someone to relocate the home instead.
Councillor Alan Harris pointed out that the council could not make a decision requiring professional legal advice without a formal report from the general manager.
In response, Cr Walker told Cr Harris he had to either ask a question or be quiet.
Saga 'has gone on too long"
Councillor Alex Britton argued that the matter had dragged on for far too long and insisted the cottage needed to be torn down. [WHY when ALL the alternatives have not been explored]
"This is a decrepit house that someone was paid to leave. The council has given a report. It shouldn't be there," he said. [WHY is it decrepit and who gets to decide]
"We have put it out to tender. Nobody wanted to come and get it.
"I don't think this is a difficult decision. I think we should just pull the building down and move on with everything else the council has to do." [AND who is the Councillor taliking about when he says 'WE' ... the elected 12, Council's Executive management, the Community that has not been consulted or considerede in a meaningful way??]
Cr Walker and councillors Joe Pentridge and Susie Cai voted in favour of the motion. All other councillors voted against it, and Cr Walker's motion failed.[WHY did it fail and on what grounds]
Cr Walker previously stated he did not regret trying to save the heritage cottage, maintaining that the current demolition cost was a waste of public money. [Without meaningful community engagement, arguably this has brought the community to the point that they will bear the cost of the demolition AND the lost of a valuable community owned asset]
THE QUESTION HANGING HERE:
Which Councillors proactively engaged with their constituency seeking advice on their aspirations and concerns!!??
No comments:
Post a Comment