We’re highlighting one particular decision from last night’s council meeting because we believe it exemplifies practically everything that is amiss in planning decisions by this council and especially the role that councillors should play.
To state the obvious, applications are meant to be judged according to the standards prescribed by the Planning Scheme. It is Council’s responsibility to enforce those standards. Full stop! The granting of a permit should never be decided on the basis of what councillors think might happen at VCAT if objections crop up and the case is taken to this body. Time and time again the arguments that issue from certain councillors is that VCAT is ‘arbitrary’, ‘inconsistent’ and that it all boils down to the individual member. So, if this is indeed the case, then how can Lipshutz state, as he did last night, that ‘I know VCAT will approve’ and hence the permit was granted. It is even worse when Sounness, who moved the motion to grant the permit, also argued on these same lines – ie. that he couldn’t see how Council could mount a ‘defence’ in VCAT and the best option is to ‘apply conditions’. Hence, a permit was granted. Whether or not some of the ‘fault’ lies with the Planning Scheme itself, has never of course been broached by any councillor. Nor has the question of how well Council actually defends its decisions at VCAT.
As for the regular VCAT Decisions report, Hyams together with Lipshutz again implied that resident objectors would be better off if they refrained from objecting. According to Hyams, one decision handed down was a ‘salutary lesson’ for objectors since they were now ‘worse off’ in going to VCAT because the developer got more than Council had granted in their original permit. In other words, DON’T OBJECT and leave everything to us, the ‘experts’.
We’ve know of no other Council, where such disdain for the rights of citizens is so frequently featured. Nor do we know of any other Council where arrogance is so prevalent. If Council’s record at VCAT is so wonderful due to this ‘expertise’ then they need to explain why the vast majority of their decisions in the past year have either been overturned completely or the conditions varied considerably. And scattered throughout the hearings there are occasions when resident objectors (that ignorant lot) were successful in completely overturning Council’s decision to grant a permit.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 13, 2014 at 5:28 PM
As a past objector to a development next door to me I resent these comments strongly. It wasn’t my fault that the developer got what he wanted and there was no help coming from council at all. The officer who attended the case and was supposed to present the objectors point of view was totally ineffectual. He didn’t cover all the grounds of our objections and didn’t even challenge anything said by the developer’s experts. He was going through the motions and that was all.
August 14, 2014 at 7:57 AM
I fought against a development at 98-100 Truganini Road, Carnegie. What happened in this case was that the development was so substandard that the planning officer refused the permit and the development went straight to VCAT – residents didn’t know a thing about it until the VCAT hearing approached. Well aware that going to VCAT removed Council from the approval process, we (the residents) tried to work with Council in preparing our grounds for objection. The planning officers were difficult to deal with, to the point of being obstructive and Councillors (Esakoff and Pilling) were utterly useless – why, because when it goes to VCAT the onus is on the developer, not Council, to provide the info.
7 calendar days (the minimum legally prescribed time for notification) before the VCAT hearing, we received a letter from Council stating that subsequent negotiations for changes with the developer had resulted in Council recommending rather than opposing the development. Residents had no idea these negotiations were occurring nor did we have any input – Councils response was that legally “they didn’t have to tell us” and it didn’t impact our rights to object since we could do so at VCAT.
What did Council (Planning Officer Andrew Bromley) say at VCAT – he recognised that 25% of the 30 dwellings had compromised amenity (“compromised” being the wording of the written documentation, “substandard” being the verbal description used at the hearing) via bedroom access to natural light and ventilation or limited private open space (only 30% of that prescribed in the planning scheme). Of course the developer got his approval – pretty much a foregone conclusion since Council basically approved the application – with only some minor modifications (screenings) won by us.
I tell this story (which can be corroborated with documentation)
. to illustrate just how duplicitous and skillful Council is in playing the VCAT card to justify breaches of its planning scheme and its own lamentable actions when it comes to dealing with residents or considering impacts on residential amenity (current and future)
. blaming VCAT for either definiciencies in the planning scheme (which still exist under the new zones) or Council’s own failure to enforce its planning scheme.
.
Oh, and by the way, Council’s justification for approving developments with 25% compromised internal amenity
. these are one bedroom apartments (and have a windowed opening to the living room) therefore it’s “considered acceptable”. Council didn’t provide any info justifying why access to natural light and ventilation can be sacrificed for 1 br units – probably because there isn’t any.
. that’s what VCAT does.
August 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM
Okay. It’s got to the stage where both internal and external amenity is sacrificed depending where you live. Carnegie is gone and next will be Murrumbeena and Bentleigh. HIgh rise one bedroom everywhere and councillors don’t give a stuff. If they did, then they would do something about it.
August 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Developers lodge VCAT appeals against conditions applied to permits all the time. With developers winning more often than not.
The most recently publicised appeal against conditions being that lodged by the MRC’s C60 development partner. In this case, the MRC’s partner believes the conditions are insignificant yet they are off to VCAT!!!!
The Planning Scheme is the main deciding factor, the conditions are incidental.
Crs. Lipshutz and Souness should be asked to substantiate their statements.
August 14, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Why do the planners of this state/municipality bother to have recommended statute for minimum car parking requirements and always receive the “golden waiver” or even more surprising as in the case of C60 have 160 plus street car parking spaces granted to MRC along with the approval to construct thousands of units and many metres of retail areas which willsurely attract thousands per day.