The approvals of public or prominent buildings does not seem to acknowledge that Daylesford is made popular on counts other than commercial considerations.

I believe Daylesford needs to make urgent decisions around appearance of buildings so it can retain its reputation. It could be made by a person or a committee who are visually trained and can ensure that certain basic criteria apply to maintain our strengths.

I’m not suggesting fake history or glamourised tradition. I am suggesting it is possible for people who are visually trained to calmly and purposefully establish standards that can see outcomes beyond those of individual people. Not a heritage advisor, because that is only one view, but someone or a group trained in the art of beauty, for want of a better word.

One of the issues that seems to fuel the construction of some of our uglier or inappropriate buildings is a lack of understanding about the big difference that can exist between beauty and taste. Taste is an individual preference based on many things that may have nothing to do with beauty. Beauty is a quality that can be measured to ensure that at a basic level, appearance, context, function are packaged in a way that does more than no visual harm.

The current lack of aesthetic consideration is why “ugly” is a word that we might use for several of the town entrances which set the scene.

The current approvals are not at all about small development in a residential areas. That seems counter to my understanding of planning rules. Of course, support for business in the town should always be assured, but should never include blocking the view of landscape that contributes to the characteristics that make this area famous. This is one of essentials of Daylesford, one of the main reasons people come here.

Building commercial properties around the lake’s edge so the view is for private use only would also be a decision with serious consequences for the community and visitors. Opposite the Farmers Arms is the historic house which I believe the council insisted must be maintained. And it has been. I am raising a query, though, about the issue of permission to build a motel in that area under the current residential overlay. And to be truthful, I wouldn’t mind so much if the units didn’t seem to reference the poor aesthetic of some other newer buildings in town. Whoever designed them has created buildings that have no relationship to the style of the property onto which the units are crammed.

The powers that be need to understand they have a responsibility regarding any development at the entrance of any town. Decisions that feed the profits of individual/s without considerations of the community are irresponsible, unfair and short sighted.

I am aware that the council is quite active in preserving existing trees. I would beg the council to also preserve significant views and vistas. And talking about beauty … there are rules that guarantee that beauty is built and can last. These “rules” are centuries old and include awareness of proportion, balance, texture, context, contrast etc. and are visible to even the untrained eye once they are done.

A beautiful building stands out even if you have no words to describe it. It is noticeable, valued and uplifting. It is interesting, beautiful and it does not obstruct the view of its natural surroundings.

People may say they have the right to demonstrate their own taste, which may differ from any standard at all. That’s like saying that they can choose a dodgy car mechanic and get shoddy work done, the results of which maybe a car accident. You can, but you should not.​