Once again the ineptitude of this planning department and councillors is writ large in another VCAT judgement. Councillors grandstand by refusing applications when the number of objectors is large and then wash their hands of the matter. They can then continue to pretend that nothing is their fault but all blame needs to be sheeted home to VCAT – instead of doing what they are supposed to. That is, ensuring that the Planning Scheme is up to date, and all loopholes are closed off. In other words, reviewing the scheme and introducing appropriate amendments and incorporated documents where necessary.
Nor can the planning department escape public criticism. We’ve already had decision after decision where the VCAT member points out that a policy expired in 2007 and has never been renewed. Yet officers, or well paid ‘consultants’, front up to VCAT and argue on the basis of a non-existent clause! Ratepayers of course fork out tens of thousands in defending cases that have not a hope in hell of getting up due mainly to the outdated and woeful planning scheme.
So here is another example of this total indifference and incompetence from all concerned. It involves Heritage (low on council’s priority list!) where an application came in to demolish and rebuild over two sites. Note that we are not arguing for or against the development but merely pointing out what should have been done eons ago, but hasn’t. Here is some of what the member had to say –
It is noted that the application had planning officer support and heritage officer support, however with a large number of objections from adjoining property owners and others in the wider area, Council refused both applications on a range of identical grounds. These included that there would be unreasonable impact on the heritage precinct if the buildings were demolished and that the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.
The two dwellings are in one building form and I note that neither dwelling was identified as being ‘contributory’ to the area in the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan (1996) prepared by Andrew Ward – architectural historian. I do note however, the dwelling at number 3 Beatty Crescent was identified as ‘contributory’ in the July 2002 Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines. This document has not been incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, despite it being an upgrade of the earlier document and itself now over 10 years old, so I can give it little or no weight other than for general background information.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/365.html
Whilst it may legitimately be argued that the member should have taken into account the 2002 ‘guidelines’, the fact remains that 14 years later Council has not lifted a finger. Nor have they reacted to years and years of VCAT permits by analysing each decision and coming up with solutions that would give residents greater confidence that going to VCAT is not an absolute waste of time and money. Continually blaming VCAT, as is the want of Lipshutz, Hyams and Magee in particular, does not solve anything – especially when Council has not done a single thing to help its cause. Instead all council has done is seek extension after extension so that it does not have to review its planning scheme via a public submission process and with full community consultation.
The lamentable excuse used has been that the State Government is reviewing the zones. Well and good – but this certainly has not stopped other councils from undertaking a full planning scheme review post zones introduction. Here is the list of councils and the respective dates (which are still ongoing for many dated 2015) –
Ballarat (2015)
Bass Coast (2014)
Bayside (2015)
Boroondara (2015)
Campaspe (2014)
Colac (2015)
Darebin (2014)
Frankston (2014)
Grampians (2014)
Hobson’s Bay (2015)
Knox (2015)
Latrobe (2014)
Monash (2015)
Moira (2015)
Moonee valley (2014)
Moreland (2015 via Amendment C152)
Mornington Peninsula (2014)
Mount Alexander (2014)
Pyrenees (2015)
Queenscliff (2014)
Surf Coast (2014)
Swan Hill (2015)
Warnambool (2015)
Whitehorse (2014)
Whittlesea (2013)
Wodonga (2014)
Yarra (2014)
PS: it should be pointed out that the above Beatty Crescent application was refused unanimously by councillors – including that self-proclaimed ‘expert’ on Heritage – Lipshutz. There were also 39 objections to the application!
March 13, 2016 at 9:01 PM
Heritage doesn’t mean a thing in Glen Eira. If it comes to developers up against heritage then developers win hands down.
March 13, 2016 at 9:17 PM
yes, I remember Esacoff and her attempt to overturn the heritage overlay on one of her properties. When it comes down to it, none of our councillor have the bottle to stand up to the officers and recommend changes.
albert Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I wonder if he had Glen Eira in mind
March 13, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Anyone else noticed a decided downward change in the performance of the Planning Department since Akehurst departed? Akehurst is singularly responsible for the shit planning scheme but he at least made sure that his planning staff performed according to the scheme. Since his departure, GE Planning is unraveling big time, no changes to the scheme and planners can’t even get the zones right when presenting to VCAT.
Akehurst left well before Newton, so although the Newton related chasms are showing, they have yet to reach maturity levels attained by the planning department. Nevertheless, the full extent of the dysfunctionality of Glen Eira Council is yet to be revealed as both the Admin and Councillors are struggling to cope with not being told which line to tow. Before they both reach the conclusion that they should be performing in accordance with good governance practice, a major stoush (currently brewing) will occur within the next few months.
Councillors will blame the Admin for producing substandard, one sided reports and info (despite the fact that ensuring adequate and appropriate information is provided to enable Councillors to make an informed decision is a fundamental Councillor role requirement). The Admin will blame Councillors for failing to provide proper requirements (despite the fact that a key function of the Admin Officers roles is to provide an objective and detailed analysis of all aspects of an issue, to Council, to enable/ensure informed decision making). Basically it boils to a pointless, resource consuming, argument of whose sloth came first (the sloth of one party encourages sloth in the other party hence, determining the original sloth source becomes more important than the overall sloth consequences).
End result will be a significant no. of departing Admin staff (at all levels) and ideally current Councillors will be not be re-elected. Given Councillors record since 2012, on a myriad of significant issues, the benefits of retaining past Councillor experience amounts to a negative. The magnitude of the change required is new CEO and new Councillors.
March 14, 2016 at 9:57 AM
You have totally nailed it. The whole process is a farce and an absolute waste of time and resident’s rates. I recently s
Went to VCAT re the proposdd 9 storey development in Centre rd on the d broDbent’s site opposite Aldi in Centre Rd. still waiting on the decision. In this instance despite 165 residents objections coucil didnt comply by replying within the 60 days. Still they went to VCAT to object. Watch this space for the result. By the way the developer is sending the bill to GE council because of their non compliance!
March 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM
A perceptive comment Anon. Of course, there is another ‘fault line’ that can be made into a scapegoat routine. Glen Eira Libs do not have a Mayor this year. They did not have one since November 2013, when Cr Pilling was chosen to be a Mayor. So, Libs can blame the others for all that is wrong since that time. After all it was ‘hunky-dory’ when Libs wore mayoral robes.
March 15, 2016 at 9:07 AM
you can pick the suburb. I wonder where the 600 apartments for Monash are going. Would it be the rail maintenance place ?
http://forecast.id.com.au/glen-eira/residential-development?WebID=140
March 15, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Forecast by profile.id were always much more conservative than the reality afterwards. Reaso as it is shown on the diagram, they are based on the known planning applications, which ‘peter out’ after few years. A much closer to reality is a simple projection or extrapolation. For example, Glen Eira population was to be 140,000 by 2020. Well, it is 147,000 already. By 2036 the population is forecast to be 178,000. In reality it is likely to be close to 200,000. The population density is between 32/ha to 59/ha. But it is growing to be between 40/ha and 84/ha. This is still called medium density area. The traffic will be horrific.