Whatever the outcome of Mr Wylie’s Supreme Court Challenge, the issues are crucial in terms of the planning system itself, and especially how the planning department at Glen Eira Council operates. Part of Mr Wylie’s concerns appear to be the lack of sufficient notification to residents that an application has been submitted to council. According to the legislation, it is council which has the power to decide who and how many properties will be alerted to the fact that an application has come in. Hence, if only a handful of notification letters are sent out, then it is not surprising that there are none, or very few objections. Mr Wylie claims that in his case, only those adjoining sites zoned Commercial 1 were notified and that neighbouring residents were left in the dark – hence the claim that there were zero objections in this matter. It is very plausible to suggest that had neighbours living in surrounding NRZ zoned sites been aware, then the chances of objections to a 5 storey development would have brought in at least a few objections.
But that’s only part of the problem. Not so long ago, officer reports in Glen Eira regularly noted the number of notifications sent out, and the number of ensuing objections. For the past few years this has now ceased. We have absolutely no idea as to how many letters council ordered the developer to send out, nor to which properties. Nor do we know where the objectors lived. Other councils such as Boroondara, feature maps of where the letters went and where objectors lived in relation to the application. (See image below). Other councils (Monash, Port Phillip to name a few) also include maps showing the number of objectors and their residences. In Glen Eira we are left in the dark on both of these important matters.

Also of major concern is the secrecy surrounding council’s DPC (delegated planning committee). We have commented numerous times over the years that this committee lacks all transparency and accountability. Meetings are held during the day, where both the developer and objectors can appear to state their views. The three officers then leave the room and come back in about 20 minutes with their decision to grant, refuse, or impose conditions. No agendas are ever published and certainly no minutes. Hence, residents have no idea why a permit may have been granted or refused. Plus, for years our council operated under Section 86 of the legislation meaning that agendas, and minutes, had to be published. An ombudsman’s report in 2016 cited us, and forced Glen Eira to amend its delegation so that it no longer was constituted under the Special Committee requirements. The committee still operates as before – no councillors present, no agendas, no minutes, and no accountability!
Making matters even worse, is that in December 2018, councillors voted to change the delegation authority for this committee. There now has to be at least 16 objections before an application can be brought to council. Anything less becomes the purview of this committee.
We are not suggesting that there is no place for such a committee. Clearly councillors can’t be expected to ‘adjudicate’ on all planning applications. What we do expect, is that there be far more transparency and accountability when it comes to planning. Other councils have ALL councillors as part of their planning committees – whether or not these are seen as Special Committees. In Glen Eira, councillors are, we believe seen as nothing more than unnecessary appendages that will only hinder the work of the bureaucrats, so let’s sideline them as much as possible. Such an ethos is the antithesis of good planning and full transparency and accountability.
June 22, 2021 at 6:29 PM
We had this situation 2 years ago. Nobody sent us a letter that a 3 story was going up behind us. First we knew was the noise from the bulldozers moving in and ripping out trees. We rang council and asked when the permit was granted and they said 8 months previous. We also asked why we weren’t told and they claimed they sent out letters to neighbours. They wouldn’t say whether they had sent one to us. Properties backing on to these developments should be informed as should those close by and on the other sides of the streets. We would have objected if we knew. Now we’ve got shadows and no backyard privacy.
June 22, 2021 at 10:03 PM
What if you can’t make it during the day. Taking a day off work is a n imposition for a lot of people especially if you stand to lose pay.
June 22, 2021 at 11:05 PM
How about the cunning developer in Murrumbeena that went around to his three rear boundary neighbours on the street behind his proposed development and offered them really attractive prices to sell their properties so her could build a massive development after he finished this one. They all agreed to sell, so none of the 3 neighbours put in a challenge when the yellow notice went up. When the application time lapsed, he withdrew his offers.
And the developer in Glen Huntly, who behaved like a thuggish stand-over-man harassing the neighbour trying to get him to sell, saying when his 4 story block was built next door, his property would be stuffed and worth a pittance, and made like half-price offers on his home and land.
Such a happy land is the city of Glen Eira. I’m guessing no one so far has met the fate of Juanita Nielsen in Sydney as yet, but then I don’t know everything, do I.
June 23, 2021 at 1:08 PM
Going back to the Deed of Delegation, for S.61(1) it lists a bunch of circumstances required to be met before a decision can be made under delegation. Unfortunately it has been sloppily written, as circumstance (a) doesn’t have “; and” at the end. If instead it can be read as “; or” then if you don’t get more than 5 objections it can be decided under delegation.
However, if it is intended to read as “; and” like the rest of the cirumstances then you would also have to satisfy the “generally in compliance with existing policy or guidelines” test. My view is that the 590-596 Glen Huntly Rd application failed this requirement because existing policy sought only 2 storeys.
The “generally” bit is a hideous weasel word. It is encouraging applicants not to comply and to allow noncompliance to be waived through. Little wonder people are complaining about breaches of amenity standards–without scrutiny, dodgy planning decisions are being made by the development industry (in this case those members of Council’s planning staff whose remuneration is linked to development activity).
June 23, 2021 at 1:09 PM
Hope he is successful as if he wins then a precedent will be sent and we can refer to it if we ever feel like spending our fortunes at VCAT. The lack of information to the neighbours concerning the C60 some years ago was very obvious when many of the hundred letters which the MRC developers claimed they sent were to residents in rental flats to the south of the racecourse and not the adjoining streets like Newington Grove, Redan and Eskdale Roads, Paine and Hudson Streets… all privately owner/occupier permanent homes. Rhe solution for flat dwellers is to just move on. The council accepted these 500 or so notifications as relevant and sufficient but did not care about the omissions as mentioned.
June 23, 2021 at 1:54 PM
FYI – there was within the last week a compulsory acquisition gazetted for 4 properties opposite the racecourse. These included 12-16 Queens Avenue. The land will presumably be used to dump machinery and possibly dirt once the digging starts for the Glen Huntly rail project. We can only hope that the residents of these homes are compensated fully and that due notice/discussions was provided. Many questions of course abound: why these particular properties given that there exists a Neighbourhood Character Overlay on much of this street as well as a DDO.