PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT (RECOGNISING OBJECTORS) BILL 2015
Introduction and first reading
MrWYNNE (Minister for Planning) introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and responsible authorities to have regard to the number of objectors to permit applications in considering whether a proposed use or development may have a significant social effect and for other purposes.
Read first time.
PS: The ‘content’ of the proposed new bill has just been published on the parliamentary website and is UPLOADED HERE. We fear that the bill will simply be a tinkering at the edges since it is replete with such phrases as ‘where appropriate’. Of course, deciding what, where, and when something is ‘appropriate’ will still be left up to councils and VCAT!
++++++++
++++++
Glen Eira Debates 
May 27, 2015 at 10:54 AM
How “progressive” the planning bill is, remains to be seen via its wording. If it directs that vcat and councils only “consider” objections, then it will change nothing.
Ms Martin’s letter makes some good points I think. Playing surfaces are more important than anything else to do with the current overdevelopment. On the height of the speed humps there is no explanation offered by Burke on why the height isn’t consistent along the entire hump. It’s not unusual for cars to go along the edges, especially if there are cars parked on the opposite side. Whoever was contracted to put in the humps didn’t do it properly. That is the bottom line.
May 27, 2015 at 11:07 AM
Paul Burke appears to be confirming the allegation that speed humps in Wheatley Rd don’t comply with the relevant Australian Standard. When somebody makes a specific claim that a part of one the humps has been measured to be 140mm high and doesn’t comply with the Standards, I expect Council to do several things:
• State what their standards are;
• Publish the measurements they took, along with the tolerance or error margin of their measurements;
• Identify the publication, source, or methodology they are relying upon when claiming something is safe or poses “little risk” to demonstrate the risk has been competently assessed;
• Avoid misleading the public by pretending something complies when it doesn’t.
May 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM
The bill does nothing for objectors. Window dressing by the Labs and won’t put a dent into the incompetent and autocratic Glen Eira planning department.
May 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM
Totally agree. A useless piece of legislation – particularly pleasing for the development advocates in council.
May 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM
No government – libs or labs – is willing to offend hot shot developers or curtail the powers of vcat and yes minister councils such as Glen Eira.
May 27, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Good letter from a reader re Council negligence re planning except it’s got the time frame wrong. As claimed by Council, the new zones are a direct and neutral translation of the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas introduced in 2002, hence the new zones are an extension of policy introduced 13 years ago. The major difference being the introduction of the two planning changes is that the 2002 policy introduction was accompanied by promises of use of various planning tools (eg. structure plans, overlays, traffic management and parking, drainage etc.) whereas the 2013 introduction was not. Of course, while the fact that the 2002 policy accompanying promises were subsequently ignored renders this point of difference somewhat moot, it does point to long term past planning negligence.
Combine this past negligence with the outcries that have occurred since 2013 and the recent decision to adopt a “wait and see” approach and it says all that can be said quality of representation provided by all current Councillors.
May 27, 2015 at 3:26 PM
We objected to a development application and it was passed by council. The bill as far as I can tell does not change a single thing. There are so many non defined concepts that it was obviously written to provide plenty of wriggle room for councils, vcat and those wanting to make a lot of money. After all the promises from Labor, and giving the community a voice, this represents the biggest backdown and sell out possible.
May 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM
Here comes the spin – http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/locals-deserve-a-voice-in-the-planning-process
May 27, 2015 at 5:37 PM
What a load of rubbish. VCAT can simply dismiss all objectors’ views as not appropriate, or attach zero weight to the matters they raise. There is still no enforceable mechanism for ensuring VCAT actually considers all objections, and no requirement for VCAT to consider the longterm and cumulative impact of their decisions, and no requirement for VCAT to pay for the consequences of its decisions such as for infrastructure, and no definition of “planning merit”, and no mechanism by which either council or VCAT can be compelled to be transparent and accountable for their decisions, and no review mechanism to assure quality in decision-making.
May 28, 2015 at 7:45 AM
If Matthew Guy and the Liberal Party hadn’t been blind to public opinion they too could have implemented this achieve nothing, election sound bite grabbing legislation and, what’s more, had it in place prior to the election.
Giving consideration to community views only when the adjudicating bodies think it appropriate, without clear guidelines or standards, is hardly a step forward since those adjudicating bodies long ago decided that “giving consideration to community views” meant let them formally speak but don’t attach any weight to their arguments. Rather than changing this prevailing culture this legislation merely re-inforces it – all it will achieve is increased use of the word “inappropriate” by adjudicating bodies.,
Yep, if this is any indicator, Labour;s planning reform election promises amount to squat. The writings on the wall – don’t hold your breath for Labors changes to the planning zones.
Glen Eira’s “wait and see” Council is loving it!!!!!