At Tuesday night’s council meeting Magee, with righteous indignation, declared in relation to the application at 848 Centre Road – ‘a terrible decision, so VCAT shame on you’!! (Council’s version of events is printed in the minutes). So once again, VCAT becomes the culprit bringing down decisions that councillors bemoan and residents suffer from.
Let us state quite clearly that we do not endorse, condone, or in anyway support VCAT’s decisions. Nor do we blithely accept council’s version of events! It is exceedingly easy, and politically savvy, to throw up one’s hands and to lay ALL the blame at the feet of VCAT and the State government as this council has repeatedly done. Yet, when one looks closely at the various judgements a different picture emerges. Listed below are extracts from the Centre Rd judgement. We especially wish to highlight:
- The member’s repeated remarks about council’s failure to provide ‘evidence’ and,
- The ‘failure’ of council to get its act together
- Questions as to the ‘preparedness’ of council in presenting cases
We cite directly from the judgement:
“Neither the Council’s Traffic Engineers or VicRoads raised any concerns regarding the likely traffic generation or any potential safety issues at the intersection. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that removal of the four dwellings is justified on traffic safety grounds.
The Council submitted that the areas should be increased in size to 60m² in order to accommodate sufficient landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. This view, however, is not supported by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who, in their referral comments, raised no concerns regarding the opportunities for landscaping throughout the site.
I also note that the Standard relates to the following Objective: To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.
- 20. Further, the associated decision guidelines refer to the useability of the open space area, its orientation to the street and the sun, and the availability or access to public/communal open space. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, there is no mention of landscaping in either the Objective or decision guidelines.
- The Council quite fairly conceded that the proposed courtyard areas are adequate for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, and I agree. I can find no support in Clause 55.05-4 for an increase in the courtyard sizes. In my opinion, the proposed open space areas are of dimension and area that are appropriate to this development. I agree with the comments of the earlier Tribunal that some flexibility can be exercised in assessing the open space provision against the Standard, given the apartment style of the development.
- The courtyard spaces are able to accommodate landscaping, including appropriately sized canopy trees. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that areas of at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of approximately 5.0 metres are unable to support adequate planting to enhance the amenity of the development and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.
- 30. From my reading of the documents provided by the Council, notably the referral comments of the Traffic Engineer, it is evident that the 6 metre width reflects a desired outcome – rather than one which is necessary to ensure that the driveway can function in an acceptable manner. I note the Council’s submission that the increased width is required to comply with an Objective of Clause 55.03-9. I was not provided with any evidence to the effect that compliance with Standard B14, and with the requirements of VicRoads, would not allow this Objective to be met.
- 31. I consider that a fair and objective assessment of this issue, based on the information before me, must lead to the conclusion that the proposed 5 metre width is acceptable. Had I been presented with evidence which demonstrated the width to be inadequate to allow for the passing of vehicles, then I may have formed a different view.
Conclusion:
- What do such decisions reveal about the current planning scheme and its inadequacies?
- What do such decisions reveal about the adequacy of council’s presentations at VCAT?
- What does all this say about adequately protecting residents?
- What does all this say about the recent planning scheme review?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Planning in Glen Eira is a mess. Senior Council officers
disagree, as reflected in the recent review of the Glen Eira
Planning System. Note that there were no recommendations in the
review to change anything in MSS or elsewhere in the document.
Councillors accepted the report.
Actually the report did canvas some of the issues that I and
many other residents have been raising, but reached no
conclusions. Instead the report argued for these changes to be
considered away from public scrutiny, that is, to be done
internally by Council Officers.
I can’t comment specifically on 846 Centre Road as the VCAT
decision appears not to have been published on Austlii website.
[Yesterday a VCAT member indicated that a decision only gets
published if the decision has reasons associated with it. Based
on what is reported, it appears that VCAT does have reasons,
however spurious, for their decision re 846 Centre Road.]
The Planning Scheme has been undermined by both Council and
VCAT’s preparedness to waive standards compliance, with
developer profit being the justification. This is unacceptable
to me. These standards are designed to protect residential
amenity. Each time Council waives them, they are directly
attacking our amenity. It is little wonder that VCAT also waives
them, leaving Council somewhat miffed on the rare occasions that
Council chose to apply them only to have them waived by VCAT.
The rest of us just watch in astonishment at the mental
gymnastics required by the decision-makers involved.
I have also had the unpleasant experience of witnessing a
contract lawyer present a Council case at VCAT. They were
clearly under-prepared and didn’t know the area. Fortunately
resident objectors were on hand and at least secured some
concessions. I believe the situation has improved now that
Council has some full-time officers who represent them at the
bulk of VCAT hearings. Things would be better still if Council
was transparent in its decision-making.
Council should indeed be concerned about any VCAT decision that
vary Council’s own decision. What I don’t see though is any
recommendations for improving the Planning Scheme stemming from
the analysis of VCAT’s decisions. If Cr Magee is truly
indignant, then it should be demonstrated by requesting draft
amendments to the Planning Scheme that would make Council’s
policy and intentions clearer. At all times it should be
remembered though that VCAT can and does ignore Council policy
when it suits them. There should however be no doubt left in
that circumstance that it was VCAT [an undemocratic institution]
substituting their own policy for Council’s.
I will reiterate my view that there isn’t, as such, a “Glen Eira
Council”. We have Senior Officers mostly making decisions with
delegated powers, with few checks and balances to ensure their
decisions reflect the decisions that Councillors would make
given the same information. I remain especially concerned about
the Director of City Development, and the tirade he recently
delivered to resident objectors over their concerns about
traffic. His personal views about what he hopes Melbourne will
be like in 20 years are not relevant. I wish he would expend
more energy doing basic research to quantify the extravagant
claims GEPS makes concerning the benefits of high density
living. Attempting to intimidate residents into silence through
his undoubted position of power should not be acceptable to
Councillors.
October 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Reprobate, the VCAT decision on Centre Rd is available online. You’ll find it at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1504.html
To all readers – VCAT decisions are FREE and available within weeks sometimes. You can check all kinds of decisions by searching the Austlii databases.
October 17, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Reprobate you have got to be joking. Council introduced stupid unenforceable ammendments to Officers Recommendations, forcing Officers to defend the undefencable.This is not the Officers fault but the 9 Councillors fault. It is about time they took responsibility for their decisions.