At the council meeting on Wednesday, an issue of what consistency can be applied to temporary use of property was debated, particularly where it affects some of the lands zoned as part of the E3 environmentally sensitive larger holdings which ring the townships.

The contrast between the outcomes of Montrose Farm, Centennial Vineyards and Mount Ashby, were highlighted.

But it could just have easily been Wombat Hollow, or any of the other occasional use issues which have come up over the last few years.

This issue has been canvassed by a number of Letters to the Editor in the SHN which look at aspects of the temporary use policy.

Planning provisions have also proven to be contentious to residents of the shire, particularly where there is perceptions of arbitrary application.

Some of the residents of Purcell Street, for example, have been recently aggrieved.

Some residents probably purchased their property prior to their land being classified as a medium density zone.

In those instances it is understandable that they would object to a development over their back fences which, if approved, would see cars shooting up and down a gunbarrell access road, which is not strictly wide enough to let vehicles pass each other on that driveway.

Those same medium density planning provisions can see proposed developments at Martha Street, and Cliff Street, be altered so as to more fully conform to aspects of neighbour objections, in part because of visual appearance, or density, or a range of other reasons.

Some councillors who lead the charge in relation to objections to approvals, also can lead the charge in giving approvals.

Therein lies the real issue for residents.

Depending upon whether there is a full complement of councillors at the relevant meeting, or whether some rule themselves out of voting on the basis of conflict of interest, it can seem that there is an element of "fielder's choice" about whether proposals get up or get knocked back.

Equally, it should not be up to when a proposal is able to be listed on the business papers, and how many and which councillors are in attendance, which determines the outcome of a development application.

Some councillors lamented the Mount Ashby outcome, and spoke of precedent affect, and hence the temporary use Agenda Item on Wednesday, April 27.

All councillors should abhor being seen to be part of any system which seems to achieve arbitrary outcomes.

Planning laws either matter, or they don't.

- Mark Sainsbury, Bowral