We’ve been following with great interest the Orrong Rd challenge to the LendLease application. Stonnington Council appealed the planning panel’s decision to the Supreme Court which is now underway. Below are two items – the Mayor’s statement and the Orrong Group summary of the first day’s proceedings.
590 Orrong Road Update
18 Apr 2013The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents living near a controversial Armadale development site, Mayor Cr Matthew Koce says.
Council this week presented its case at the Supreme Court, arguing that an ‘error of law’ was made by VCAT in its decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for 590 Orrong Road. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
Council received more than 600 objections to the development, which proposes 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.
“Our appeal was principally based on the tribunal’s statement that the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration,” Cr Koce said.
“There is a lot of community concern over VCAT’s handling of the case to date, including whether all statements of grounds were considered by the Tribunal.
“These residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.
“We are, of course, hoping for a positive outcome from this appeal, one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere.”
Cr Koce has called on the State Government to make a timely decision on a Planning Scheme Amendment, which will place stricter planning controls on the significant Armadale block.
“We have been working on planning controls for this site since 2010, before we received a planning permit application for it,” he said.
“Most recently, the Government said it would not make a decision on the Amendment until the Supreme Court made its judgment. This made no sense, as they are totally separate matters.”
The Amendment includes
- mandatory maximum height controls of 17 metres (six storeys)
- maximum density of 50 per cent of the 2.5 hectare site to allow for open space
- a maximum site yield of 250 units
- set-backs of six metres around the entire site.
For the latest information on Planning Scheme Amendment C153, including the Panel Report, please click here.
For the latest information on Planning Application 0725/11, please click here.
+++++++++
There was a great community turn-out to the Supreme Court hearing, with “standing room” only for the first morning. More than 85 people were present to hear Stonnington Council challenge VCAT’s ruling. Even the ‘jury box’ had to be made available to accommodate the crowd.
Justice Karin Emerton presided over the hearing. Stuart Morris QC acted for Stonnington Council and Chris Canavan QC for Lend Lease and Larkfield. Both held the same positions at last year’s VCAT appeal.
Stuart Morris led the Council’s case stating that more than three quarters of the 450 submissions to VCAT from residents were “simply ignored”.
Mr Morris suggested that VCAT had diverged from “established practice” and its decision could be in breach of the Planning Act and in “breach of its own charter”. He stated that this case was important as it went towards “the administration of planning law in Victoria”.
Council argued a second important “error of law”: VCAT’s interpretation of Stonnington Council‘s “‘Large Site Policy” and whether account had been given to the need for developments to reflect the surrounding neighbourhood character.
If the Court rules that the case be referred back to VCAT, Council called for it to be heard before a newly constituted VCAT panel.
The Judge reserved her decision. We will notify you as soon as we hear, which will probably be in the next 2 to 6 weeks.
Our impression of the Supreme Court hearing is far more positive than previous planning hearings. We share the Mayor’s hopes for a positive outcome and “one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere”. He said “the residents have a right to speak up and be heard”. There is more from the Mayor on the Council web site.
We believe that this will be a test case and perhaps a ‘watershed’ case for planning law in Victoria. Listening to all the arguments and issues raised over the last two days we have a picture of a planning scheme that could be described as a minefield for the community to navigate. It should not be like this and hopefully this case will give a strong message to Government.
Source: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com
Glen Eira Debates 
April 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Wow! ya gotta luv the mayor’s statement about residents. Such words would never pass Hyams, Lipshutz’s lips. Can’t see em putting up such a fight for residents. Now if it were developers that’s a different story.
April 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM
just noticed this morning a planning permit up on the old aarfdvark trees site on neerim road for 25 apartments. land does not look that big. a few doors down a permit for 19. Wondering whether there is a health risk having so many people living next to horse stables. the smell is bad but imagine what you cant see
April 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Aren’t there 100 or so apartments already just over the road from the stables?
April 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM
only in a 3rd world country would you expect to see thousands of people living next to horse stables.
April 19, 2013 at 7:21 PM
only in a third world country would you let 1500 units be built on what is a handkerchief and not worry about drainage, open space, traffic and getting your pound of flesh from the mrc. All thanks to Newton and his arse lickers
April 19, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Please note that the application is also for a REDUCTION in visitor car parking!
April 19, 2013 at 9:09 PM
not a horse Says:
April 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM
only in a 3rd world country would you expect to see thousands of people living next to horse stables.
With respect, that wasn’t the question. Let me answer it for you. “Yes”. Now that wasn’t hard 😉
April 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM
I note that the counsel for the Stonnington Council in their Supreme Court action vs VCAT is Stuart Morris QC. I beleive that he is the same gentleman that wrote the document that was to become C60. Many of the readers will be familiar with this tome.
April 20, 2013 at 11:30 AM
If all you had to go by were the published decisions and reasons of VCAT, then most of them breach PAEA. The Supreme Court isn’t being asked to assess the planning merits of the proposal, and they probably don’t have the expertise to do so, just as VCAT doesn’t. Not that I’m a gambler, but I expect the Court will decide that considering the number of objections is not mandatory but could be considered as part of social and economic effects; that the tribunal must consider all objections; that the only evidence the tribunal did consider all objections is that they said they did; and that the tribunal misapplied the “net community benefit” test, which is only one` part of the actual test to be applied under Integrated Decision Making.
I hope the Court decision includes a discussion of what “sustainable” means, since VCAT’s use doesn’t have the ordinary meaning. I won’t hold my breath, but the Court could get stuck into the tribunal over it ignoring the “effective and efficient use of resources” part of Integrated Decision Making or most of Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Density. Attaching “little weight”, or as many of us suspect, no weight, to certain inconvenient policies is probably sufficient to meet the legally prescribed decision criteria, but failing to consider them is a clear breach of PAEA.
April 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM
I heard a rumour that at the last Lendlease Board meeting the Directors were lamenting the fact that the Orrong Road site wasn’t in Glen Eira.
Rather than Lendlease having to incur all these profit munching legal costs for a piddly little 466 units and 13 storeys they would have got 1500 units and 20 storeys for next to nothing. Rather than spending ratepayers dollars in supporting residents objections to over development, Glen Eira much prefers to spend well over a million on legal costs to stifle a Councillor.
April 25, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Congratulations to Stonnibngton Council which is performing in the interests of the current residents and not a blow in developer. SWhy does the Glen EIRA cOUNCIL always overlook the needs of the 130,000 residents?
April 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Reblogged this on kfooteblog and commented:
APRIL UPDATE