We have commented previously on the non appearance of a Glen Eira submission to the Ministerial Planning Scheme Review. Nothing has entered the public domain – no agenda item has listed this discussion, no draft has been made public. Our conclusion is that Glen Eira has not, and possibly will not, provide any input into the review. Since the gallery is continually assailed with attack after attack upon VCAT, then surely this is the opportunity to attempt to redress the balance and to offer considered opinion on how the laws and regulations might be improved. Council’s silence is thus extremely baffling – especially in light of the numerous and comprehensive submissions provided by other neighbouring councils.
What is also alarming is that even if a submission has been made, councillors have not been party to this submission in an open public forum – again in stark contrast to other councils. We can only hope that even if a submission has been made that it is a vast improvement on the paltry page and a half that was submitted to the VEAC inquiry.
We’ve uploaded the Stonnington submission as an example of how other councils have responded.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM
If only Glen Eira Council was as thorough and community minded as Stonnington. The Stonnington review is terrific in its recognition of the importance of community input. There’s also not one single word in there that lauds how wonderful Stonnington’s planning department is. I doubt Glen Eira’s efforts would come anywhere near this.
September 5, 2011 at 4:46 PM
I’m wondering which Councillor will raise the issue of submission or no submission at the next Council meeting?
Or will it once again be up to residents to ask a public question because Councillors have again failed to oversee the administration.
September 5, 2011 at 7:12 PM
I’m really impressed with quite a few of the suggestions made by Stonnington. These at least show us that not all councils think in the same way that Glen Eira does. I’ve copied some of what I think is important –
The system should consider height limits as adopted in Cities overseas as a way of implementing a vision for Melbourne and remove speculation on height in appropriate areas and still leave locations for landmark buildings. Codes as a measure of compliance are potentially a better tool for reforming the system than discretionary objectives.
New development at any density does not in the view of the community respect neighbourhood character. The State Government annual community survey is a clear indicator of this. “Ugly/ inappropriate/development /out of character with the area” is the consistent key reason identified by the community as to why Council needs to improve its Town planning policy and approvals. This reflects a need to make the VVP’s relevant to the problem not unenforceable local policy
An important element in the perception of inappropriate development is reducing open space and reducing landscaping around new developments. Within new developments the pressure for site maximisation includes basement car parking which will frequently cover the whole site. The impact of this is significant on landscaping, drainage and local flooding
This one in particular I like since our council has decided to drop the levy all-together and Stonnington argues that it should be more than 5% – Increasing redevelopment and residential density increases open space demand as the population increases as new development does not provide any on site and positively because of increasing participation in passive and active recreation. The cost of keeping up with this demand particularly when open space is already below accepted standards is beyond the current financial capacity of Local Government. In this context the current 5% openspace levy is below a sustainable level.
There’s plenty more but I won’t bore everyone. Definitely worth a read and then asking our councillors why they’ve done nothing about any of the issues listed by this Stonnington.
September 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM
Its hard to get enthused about yet another Review. Professional, competently run institutions should be continuously monitoring, evaluating, reviewing their performance, operations, and how they are perceived by their clients. Reviews end up obsolete before they are even published. Since Glen Eira Council has been critical of VCAT, even going so far as to write to the State Government requesting a change to PAEA and VCAT Acts to require VCAT to apply Planning Schemes rather than merely consider them, the Review is a [lost?] opportunity for Council to reinforce that message.
Council does need to be reminded that the obligations they seek for VCAT are mostly the same obligations they have themselves. There is a bunch of stuff they either “must consider” or “must have regard to”. This only applies in a weird legal sense because its unenforceable. There are other matters they “may consider”, including “significant social and economic effects”. We can’t force them though. In the end they can grant a permit, with or without conditions; or “refuse to grant a permit on any ground it thinks fit”.
If they refuse to grant a permit, then they must give notice to the applicant and objectors and “set out the specific grounds on which the application is refused”. Life is easier for them if they grant a permit, as then they only have to provide notice and the list of conditions. They cannot be forced to provide to provide a list of reasons for granting a Permit, or provide any evidence that they have considered all relevant matters as specified by PAEA.
PAEA is a planning enactment, and decisions made under it can be referred to VCAT for a Merits Review. Theoretically, “Its task is to ‘stand in the shoes’ of the original decision-maker and make the correct or preferable decision having regard to the material before the VCAT” [Pizer’s Annotated VCAT Act, 3rd Ed]. Of course, no VCAT Member is accountable to ratepayers of the municipality whose amenity their decisions affect. They don’t have to pay for their mistakes. They don’t have to audit the consequences of their decisions. Almost like Council, they don’t have to justify their decisions. While Planning Scheme Amendments get subject to considerable public scrutiny, Members are free to ignore Planning Schemes. It is sufficient for them not to like a Scheme or any policy a Scheme contains to substitute their own personal policy. In practice this means they ignore anything that might limit development, and emphasize anything that encourages development. Rescode means nothing except when they feel like it.
VCAT Act s45(1) specifies “A person who is entitled to apply to the Tribunal for review of a decision, or to have a decision referred to the Tribunal for review, may request the decision-maker to give the person a written statement of reasons for the decision”. Ha!! Because Schedule 1 to the VCAT Act or an enabling enactment may exclude or modify s45. And right on cue, s53 in Schedule 1 of the Actsays “Nothing in section 45 applies to a decision under a planning enactment”. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Objectors are obliged to give reasons just to be permitted to be a party to a Review. The one thing we do get prior to a hearing are copies of expert witness statements and documents. The rest we learn in astonishment on the day. The expert witnesses don’t have to turn up, which denies any opportunity to cross-examine them. Supposedly then their evidence doesn’t “carry the same weight”. Again Ha! Its residents/objectors that carry no weight.
Regular attendees to Council Meetings will have heard Cr Lipschutz mention VCAT repeatedly, either because of a dreadful VCAT decision in his ward (fair enough) or because he has decided to waive Council policy to support a non-compliant development having convinced himself that VCAT would grant it. Yet if Council refuses to grant a Permit and the applicant wants it reviewed by VCAT, they pay for their application. Objectors have to pay for a review of a decision to grant a permit. We get less time than developers in which to apply for a review, so we can pay, and then later have the developer request a review. In my view Cr Lipschutz is perverting the planning process if he supports a poor development because of his perception of VCAT, and its evidence he favours developers over residents.
I was very encouraged when reading through submissions by Stonnington and others, and glad they took the time and effort to raise issues that deeply concern me. Stonnington does have several DACs imposed on it by the Government, whereas Glen Eira has none. The suspicion is that Glen Eira is seen as “reliable” and can be expected to do as the Government wishes.