In an extraordinary VCAT Watch report Councillors have been severely wrapped over the knuckles and by implication, from the unelected bureaucracy. In short, the message appears to be – DON’T VOTE AGAINST WHAT OFFICERS RECOMMEND!
The issue concerns the VCAT permit granted for a 6 storey development in McKinnon Road. We have repeatedly , and over several years, highlighted the fact that councillors consistently lop off a storey or two, plus some apartments from applications and in the end, VCAT always grants the developer exactly what he wants. Our criticism isn’t solely that councillors have been grandstanding to the gallery, or being ‘populist’. It’s that this tactic has never worked and that councillor energies should have been directed at ‘reforming’ the planning scheme. Not continually knocking off a floor or two only to have VCAT grant the permit. The ‘fault’ as always has been with the planning scheme and VCAT itself. Councillors of course ignored this fundamental aspect of their decision making or simply didn’t have the balls, or the will, to initiate major changes in the planning scheme.
Having said all that, in a democracy, which we’re supposed to be living in, councillors have a duty to represent their constituents. It is these 9 men and women who set policy, direction, expenditure, and who are supposed to listen and act in accordance with the majority of residents’ views. It is NOT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO determine how councillors should vote. Their role is to provide the information, make recommendations and then leave it to the good sense (hopefully) of councillors.
The officer report represents a new line in the sand, and a public one at that, between councillors and administration. The tone is uncompromising and in fact quite insulting in our view. Here are some examples and our interpretation of the ‘message’ –
The officer recommendation was to approve the development at six storeys, however the Council decision was to delete the upper two storeys
COMMENT – laying the blame!
In reaching the decision the VCAT member was quite critical of Council’s approach in seeking a development of 4 storeys……..The Member agreed with the position of the planning officer and the expert evidence of the application
COMMENT – to the best of our knowledge, no report has ever contained this unequivocal support for the ‘planning officer’ and the explicit ‘criticism’ of Council – ie councillors!
The best bit however relates to car parking:
The decision places the onus on Council to fulfill its responsibility to undertake the required analysis of car parking requirements based on the planning scheme provisions and not apply a blanket approach in requiring the statutory provision of car parking.
COMMENT- There’s a wonderful irony here. Council does NOT undertake its own ‘analysis’ of car parking. Most of the time it blithely accepts the developer’s data without blinking an eye. Secondly, the ‘planning scheme provisions’ are there for a purpose aren’t they? So how can we have in the same sentence a reference to the planning scheme and then dismissing its ‘standards’ by stating that a ‘blanket approach’ on the statutary requirements is not on? This is nothing more than another below the belt attack on those few councillors who repeatedly vote for the required number of visitor car parking in permits.
We definitely live in interesting times when the tail continues to wag the dog! Whether our councillors will now have the balls to assert their rightful authority is open to question. They haven’t thus far!
Glen Eira Debates 
April 8, 2018 at 12:54 PM
VCAT always give much more weight to Officer’s reports than Councillors. It’s difficult to argue against that stance. Unfortunately the problems in Glen Eira start with the Officers
April 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM
The whole process is a farce. Councillors do not have the knowledge to challenge planning decisions so they don’t. It would be good if they took the time to get informed so they can make an informed decision.
April 8, 2018 at 2:27 PM
Not surprised Council reduced the height of the building since the information supplied to them fails to show shadow diagrams. All they get is an unsubstantiated claim from the officer that there are no standards that it must comply with. The officer doesn’t mention whether there are standards that it *should* comply with [eg Apartment Developments Standards].
Council always has the right to refuse a Permit on any grounds that it sees fit. If they’re not satisfied on the basis of substandard information supplied that a development provides reasonable amenity and meets all standards, then either reduction of size or refusal is appropriate.
As things stand, nobody knows whether equitable development potential and solar access can be provided to the area. The development relies on borrowed light and there may not be much of that if buildings of similar size and limited setbacks surround it. As a rough guide, if a building’s envelope is more vertical than 53 degrees it causes problems for its neighbours.
The obvious thing Council should be demanding is a document providing a checklist of all relevant standards and decision guidelines to be assessed against. No more of this “emerging character” crap. Let the CEO point to the section in the planning scheme that mentions “emerging character” as a decision guideline if she really believes it exists.
April 8, 2018 at 3:18 PM
Council has never defined “emerging character”. They’ve left it in the hands of developers which was always the intention. I’d like to know if over the years one single councillor has questioned any report written by officers and demanded that it go back to the beginning and provide the necessary facts that are supposed to support any recommendation. My guess would be that none of them even know what questions to ask.
April 9, 2018 at 6:32 AM
Councillors need to get on with the job of directing officers to update the planning scheme including controls in McKinnon. Enough of the VCAT games which are just a waste of time and money.
April 9, 2018 at 9:22 PM
Shame, shame ,shame its pathetic that councillors get elected and then vote in secret. Its not the councillors fault for not knowing what they should do but pathetic that they think that they represent what people voted for. Councillors should be paid more and voice what their constituent’s instruct rather than what their party demands. Councillors are supposed to set the agenda for the CEO but no she sets the agenda for the councillors. Stop playing part time politics and deliver what the public have asked you to deliver!!! or risk being irrelevant and a nobody?