Council & Business
27 February, 2026
Central Goldfields Shire Council narrowly votes against community housing plan
Central Goldfields Shire Council have narrowly refused a community housing development proposed for the edge of town in a vote that divided councillors.
A controversial community housing development in Maryborough has been refused by Central Goldfields Shire Council in a vote that couldn’t have been closer.
The proposed development for Sebastopol Road divided the councillors, as it did the community, on whether it should be approved at Wednesday night’s council meeting.
The owner and developer Justin Crameri, director of JCP Property Pty Ltd, sought planning approval for a 34 dwelling community housing development.
The proposal was targeted at those with low to moderate incomes managed by YWCA — providers of low cost subsidised rental accommodation for women and gender diverse people and their families.
The surrounding neighbourhood, however, broadly opposed the proposal across 33 submissions to council and a community-led petition with 390 signatures.
Their concerns, which included density and evacuation, were considered by council officers who recommended a planning permit be granted with 73 conditions.
Councillors Liesbeth Long, Jake Meyer, and Gerard Murphy voted in favour of the recommendation while Grace La Vella, Geoff Bartlett and Ben Green were against.
Councillor Anna De Villiers was not present due to a conflict of interest.
While the vote ended in a tie, Cr Green had the decisive vote as mayor.
The report said the proposal largely met the relevant standards of Clause 55, which was the primary assessment tool, and when not could be addressed through targeted permit conditions.
Cr Green disagreed.
“I do not agree the proposal meets all of the objectives of the planning scheme,” he said.
He specifically cited clauses surrounding street setback, access, and the size of functional areas such as bedrooms.
In contrast, the report found that street setback satisfied the standards objective, that access was compliant in amended plans, and permit conditions would require amendments to internal layouts.
Similarly, Cr La Vella recognised the officer’s findings but believed a councillor’s role is more than to “tick a regulatory box”.
“Our responsibility is not mere compliance it is to prioritise human life, it is to safeguard community wellbeing, and to uphold the confidence placed in us,” she said.
“Our council plan speaks of community wellbeing, safety, transparency, and confidence. Those are not hollow words.”
The site was previously approved for a 21-lot subdivision last year, which received no lasting objections, but was put on hold pending the more recent application.
Cr La Vella questioned why the developer applied for a “materially different proposal” following changes to Victoria’s planning laws last year.
“Yet [for] too many residents this feels opportunistic, driven by regulatory change rather than neighbourhood character and community expectation,” she said.
Unlike the 21-lot subdivision, which would be individually titled, the later proposal would have been a blanket title under centralised management.
“I remain hopeful the developer will reflect on the previously approved 21 individually titled homes, a proposal supported by officers and broadly accepted by the community, and work with us toward an outcome that restores confidence and ensures safety,” she said.
Cr Long spoke in favour of the proposal, recognising a “rental crisis” locally, and vulnerable women’s need for housing the YWCA aims to provide.
“The rate of homelessness in regional and rural LGAs remains significant with limited social housing supply increasing pressure on vulnerable older residents,” she said.
“Many older women experiencing homelessness are not visibly sleeping rough but they are in fact living in insecure and temporary arrangements such as couch surfing, over-crowded housing, and short-term stays meaning this issue is often under recognised.
“I will be voting for this development to go ahead as it will address a massive rental shortage in Maryborough.”
Cr La Vella said she supported community housing but questioned how it was being proposed in this case.
“This is not about opposing housing, it is not about the community opposing housing, it is about scale, safety, and confidence,” she said.
Cr Bartlett commended the community for making themselves heard.
“The community have spoken and have made themselves heard loud and clear. Community angst is what I’m hearing,” he said.
“A fire has now been lit and the ratepayers have been awakened by this issue and want to be heard, and deserve to be heard, it’s what social democracy is all about.”
While council refused the 34 dwelling proposal, the developer is still approved for a 21-lot subdivision on the site.
Councillors unanimously voted to refer the petition to the council’s CEO for consideration in a separate motion.