Caring for the Albert Ruttle Estate
HISTORY OF THE RESERVE
The Albert Ruttle Wetland Reserve is an area of unmatched beauty in Bass Coast. The wetlands were developed as a condition of allowing the subdivision to be done, and became a powerful drawcard to those buying in to the community and also for the many bird watchers, walking groups and strollers that frequented the Reserve.
The sale of the land of the Reserve and subsequent cutting off of existing access rights has distressed us inordinately. The history of this is described below.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT PURCHASING LOT 28 OR LOT 29 IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CHECK ALL THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE
Use the button above (Background Info) to find out more.
EARLY DEVELOPMENT
The Albert Ruttle Estate was a cutting edge environmental subdivision originated by Jeff and Sue Metherall, the owners of cattle farming land west of Inverloch. The planners of the subdivision were Watsons Pty Ltd.
The Overall Development Plan (ODP) was finalised in November 1993. It comprised 30 building allotments and an 8.7 ha Reserve.
The land in the Reserve was identified as Lots 28 and 29.
ACCESS SECURED FOR LOT 28
In November 1996, BCSC entered into a 173 Agreement with the developer/owner, providing 5 hectares of the 8.7 hectares Reserve area required under the ODP. The 173 Agreement requires amongst other things that the owner of Lot 28 must “continue to develop, maintain, conserve and protect the Reserve and the Wetlands…”.
BCSC did NOT secure a 173 agreement for Lot 29, possibly because it was part of the second release of blocks.
Note that the 173 Agreement was to secure the use of Lot 28, in perpetuity and irrespective of the owner, solely for the purpose of its use as a wetland reserve.
BASS COAST AND THE DEVELOPER AGREE THAT THE RESERVE IS COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE
In June 2000 BCSC agreed to allow the developer to reduce the normal public open space contribution (usually 5% of land value) to 2% since “14% of the land area is set aside as communal open space".
So in 2000, the developer AND BCSC considered the Reserve (which is 14% of the area of the subdivision) to be communal open space.
AND THEN IT WAS ON THE MARKET!
On 9 September 2017 the developer marketed both Lot 28 Albert Ruttle Drive and Lot 29 John Flagg Rise as a package. Only Lot 28 was identified as carrying a 173 Agreement. This was the first time that neighbours had any knowledge that Lots 28 and 29 were not a Reserve.
Lots 28 and 29 were sold to the current owners in early 2018. The buyer couldn't work out how to move forward, and on-sold them to two different parties in 2019 (Lot 28) and 2020 (Lot 29)
BASS COAST SHIRE COUNCIL NOT RESOLVING ISSUES
Community concern was raised with officers of BCSC as soon as the For Sale signage appeared and has continued in one form or another ever since. This has included three Community Connections presentations to Council, numerous letters and phone calls seeking clarification on contentious points.
Although some Council staff and some Councillors were approachable and helpful, significant matters remained unresolved.
We liaised at length with Council to update the Planning Scheme in order to preserve the reserve as communal land for the local community, but they never got around to doing this.
AND THEN THE LEGAL STUFF BEGAN...
Lot 28
The larger of these blocks, Lot 28, is approximately 14 acres comprising bush, some cleared patches, a flooded quarry and a wetlands lake. As explained earlier, there is a Section 173 agreement on this block (set up in 1993) that allows all residents to walk on the block between stipulated hours. In 2023 the owner of this block applied to Bass Coast Shire Council (BCSC) to carve off a portion of this block for a dwelling whilst gifting the balance (more than half) to the Council. Council rejected this proposal, and the owner took them to VCAT. Our resident's group was permitted to join the VCAT proceedings. VCAT found in favour of BCSC (and our group) and specified that the owner could not build on the block, except for a basic shed to store tools necessary to maintain the block; the full 23 page ruling is linked here.
The owner of Lot 28 has lodged plans for a large shed, which the Council, to their credit, have restricted as much as possible, but it is still planned to be much more than the basic shed that VCAT specified. In addition the owner has continued a slow but steady process of vegetation removal, again, not what he is allowed to do according to VCAT. He has even been renting sites on the block out to casual campers, which is not allowed by BCSC.
Lot 29
The smaller block, Lot 29, is approximately 9 acres again comprising bush, some cleared areas, several wetland dams and the large original farm dam. Due to an historic oversight by BCSC, presumably related to the staged development of the subdivision, the Section 173 agreement for this lot was not set up by council officers at that time (or indeed ever). On repeated occasions when we asked the Planning department to do something, the response was that there is nothing they could do until there is a planning issue to rule on.
In 2024 the owners of this block applied to BCSC to put a dwelling on the block. BCSC rejected this, saying that the block was a wetlands reserve. The owners took BCSC to VCAT to challenge this. Our residents group applied to VCAT to be joined to the case, as affected parties, but this was rejected on a legal technicality. Although not opposing our joining, BCSC did not support our request.
The case was heard in January 2025, and the 93-page judgement was issued several months later, granting the owners permission to build. The judgment included a litany of areas where the Council had failed to do things properly. The full 93 page judgement is here. There is a summary of these areas here. These items put a nonsense to Planning’s position set out in the previous paragraph about not being able to do anything. There were many things that they were supposed to do, but didn’t.
The owners of Lot 29 have subsequently commenced surveying a road and planning to build.
This also means that we no longer have the right to walk on Lot 29. This was NEVER the intention of the original development.