We have repeatedly stated that VCAT is no angel and that its powers are extraordinary. However, this does not excuse council from repeatedly passing the buck as the above media release obviously intends to do. Reform starts at home – with the planning scheme and with the quality of Glen Eira’s representation at VCAT hearings and the substantiated grounds for their refusals.
Below we feature some extracts from recent VCAT hearings. Readers should note the lamentable performances of council at these hearings – ie ill considered conditions that fly in the face of the current planning scheme; statistics that are not corroborated with clear and decisive evidence, etc. etc. If VCAT has in fact granted all these permits then residents should start asking if they are getting value for money in both the council representations at VCAT, and why councillors do nothing to change the Planning Scheme that provides developers with an open invitation to continue their onslaught.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/938.html
6 Prince Edward Avenue, McKinnon – Council originally refused a permit for 2 storey building with 6 apartments. An amended plan was submitted. The site is zoned GRZ1 and land size is 724.6 square metres.
The decision –
In principle, I consider that the zone, the absence of overlays, the consideration of relevant planning policies and the locational attributes all lend support to a more intensive development on the review site. Although residents may prefer medium density developments of not more than two or three double storey townhouses, that intensity of development is inconsistent with the extent of built form expected within a neighbourhood centre and in a housing diversity area.
State and local policy, the zone and the absence of overlays together with a location accessible to a range of services and facilities supports increased dwelling density and housing diversity on the review site. Anticipation of change to neighbourhood character is acknowledged in local policy for this area by its inclusion in a ‘housing diversity area’ where there is no preferred neighbourhood character identified.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/959.html
At the hearing there was some dispute over the proposed site coverage. The plans indicate 50%, though Mr Clarke for the Applicant acknowledges that this does not include the roofed areas to the two alfresco areas, which he offers to have removed by permit condition. The Council’s delegate report refers to a 54% site coverage, including the roof alfresco areas. However at the hearing Mr Henderson for the Council alleged the site coverage is 58%, although I was not provided with any detail of the calculations used to arrive at this figure.
- In its submissions the Council placed great reliance on the proposed site coverage, and how this varied from the site coverage found on the surrounding properties. Mr Henderson even submitted a cadastral plan where he had calculated the site coverage of surrounding and nearby properties. With respect, I consider that this analysis misses an important point. The review site is proposed to be subject to a medium density development. While the site falls within a Minimal Change Area and is covered by a Neighbourhood Residential Zone, medium density development of two dwellings on a lot is possible, and one might say encouraged by the broader urban consolidation policies found at a State level.
- In is inevitable that any proposal for medium density development will invoke some differences compared to a single detached dwelling. One of those changes in an increase in site coverage, which must increase as a result of having two dwellings on a comparable site to surrounding single dwellings. It is not relevant for a party to identify that the site coverage of proposed medium density housing is not in the range of site coverage found on surrounding single dwelling sites, and then present this as some form of evidence that the proposal stands in contrast on neighbourhood character terms. Such a submission demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of what is meant by ‘respect for neighbourhood character’ and the extent to which two dwelling developments should integrate into Minimal Change Areas. For these reasons I am not persuaded by the Council’s submissions on this matter.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/992.html
It is relevant that in applying the policy, the condition in dispute, as proposed by the Council, allows the upper floor level of both dwellings to extend well past the rear of the single storey dwellings on the two adjoining properties. However, in imposing the condition, the Council has come to the view that the setback should be increased by about 1.8 metres. How the Council came up with this figure is unclear and somewhat vague. From the submissions presented, the setback required by the condition is not based on any standard. The requirement is not based on any specific policy requirement. Nor are the increased setbacks required to achieve the improvement of amenity of neighbouring properties with respect to matters such as daylight or shadows. At best, the additional setback required by the Council seems arbitrary.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 14, 2015 at 5:05 PM
Officers make their decisions then roll up to vcat with ill prepared arguments. Part of me feels sorry for the poor buggers. They don’t have the time to do their jobs properly – maybe. Then again, maybe they don’t give a stuff. It isn’t their houses that will be overshadowed and ruined.Going through the motions then they leave and set up their own private practice working for developers with all the lovely contacts they’ve got at council intact. Incestuous, and I wonder how above board all this is.
July 14, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Ok I accept that vcat is a ratbag body and is most of the time on the side of developers. Council isn’t helping anybody if they come up with this kind of tripe as a defence. It is pretty easy to knock back applications and then cry that all the blame should be put on vcat for handing out permits like lollies. Council can and must do a lot more than send off ill prepared officers that haven’t got a chance to win because of what the planning scheme says.
July 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM
I accept VCAT is not lilly white but is that any reason for Council to aid and abet.
Council’s lack of success at VCAT is principally related to a crap planning scheme (that was inadequate even when the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity Areas were introduced in 2003). Since then, Council has done very little or nothing to implement the changes it recognised as being required in 2003 (eg. Structure plans, neighbourhood character and design development overlays, parking precinct plans, traffic management, open space acquisition, tree protection, drainage improvements and many many other things) with the end result that the planning scheme has not kept pace with changes and is now crap.
That Council, despite the passing of significant time, rather than changing the planning scheme further saves $ by relying on planning officers (usually the one that recommended the proposal in the first place) to represent it at VCAT only adds further crap to the pile. Just take a look at the second VCAT decision mentioned above for 35 Murray Road, Ormond (shame the moderators didn’t use a subheading).
35 Murray Road, Ormond is a zoned NRZ1 – as per the spin for Council’s flawed zone implementation, the certainty for the NRZ1 are the limitations of only two dwellings per lot and a maximum two storey height limit.
Judge the quality of the officers arguments – the plan was for 2 two storey dwellings,
. the officer argued
.. this differed from surrounding residences (single, one storey residences) – neither the planning scheme or zone definition provides an except when clause, ie. except when none of the surrounding properties have 2 dwellings per original lot. The plan complied with what is permitted.
. . that two dwellings increased site coverage – duh – as pointed out by VCAT of course it will and the plan complies with the permeable surface requirements of the NRZ .
. VCAT conclusion
.. the property is in a NRZ1 which provides for two dwellings on a lot and ergo increased site coverage. Rejecting the application on the a grounds presented “demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of what is meant by ‘respect for neighbourhood character’ and the extent to which two dwelling developments should integrate into Minimal Change Areas.”
Quite seriously, the proposal should not have been rejected by Council and Council should not have presented arguments for rejection that are not supported by it’s planning scheme – it makes you question the competency of Council. It is also adds substantial fuel to frequently levelled charge that Council is playing the blame game – ie. using VCAT decisions to cover the planning schemes inadequacies. The above is not an isolated incident .
Council has been blaming VCAT for years, while at the same time doing nothing about the planning scheme. Both the Administration and Councillor’s should take note of residents increasing awareness of just how flawed the planning scheme is and how questionable (quality and cost) their representation is.
Yeah, VCAT ain’t lilly white but neither is Council. This should never have gone to VCAT – the appropriate solution is, and has been since 2003, to fix the planning scheme.
July 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM
GECC has engaged Nationwide Market Research to conduct a survey. Although Virginia Park Estate and Amendment C126 aren’t mentioned, the questions are slanted to build support for it. Need a supermarket? Need more retail shops? Should GECC do more to support local employment? Should new housing go in existing residential areas, or former industrial land? Should planning matters be decided by Council with expert advice, or council alone? Responses categorised by sex and age bracket.
July 15, 2015 at 9:49 AM
The claim made in the phone call was that the survey is on behalf (and therefore commissioned) by council. Two possibilities – either this is correct, or the company is misrepresenting itself and its client.