Residents have every right to expect that information provided in council reports is accurate, comprehensive, and not a misrepresentation of the facts – or worse, ‘likely to deceive and mislead’. This is not the first time that we find VCAT reports presented to Council which do not adhere to these basic principles. We believe that the reason(s) for such doctored reports are:
- To disguise inadequacies in council’s planning scheme
- To disguise inadequacies in council’s presentations at vcat and planning officer decisions
- To deflect criticism onto VCAT itself, rather than the shortcomings of Council
We illustrate the above with the recent VCAT decision on 14 Holloway Rd., Ormond. Council states:
|
ADDRESS
|
44 Holloway Rd., Ormond
|
| Proposal |
Construction of 2 double storey attached dwellings |
| Council Decision |
Refusal (DPC) |
| VCAT Decision |
Permit |
| APPELLANT |
Furman Constructions (Applicant) |
The land is zoned Residential 1 and is located within a Minimal Change Area.
The application was refused by the DPC as the development of the land would result in the removal of a mature Golden Elm located in the front setback of the site.
Although the Tribunal recognised the Minimal Change Area Policy did support the retention of existing trees, the Tribunal considered that the tree had outgrown its setting and would be more appropriate if it was replaced with another tree after the land was developed.
As a result of finding the tree could be removed, the Tribunal determined to direct a planning permit be granted.
Reading this, most people would simply think that the only sticking point was about a tree that ‘had outgrown’ its setting and that the Delegated Planning Committee was terribly concerned about maintaining the greenness of Glen Eira. The truth of the matter however reveals a totally different story and factors. We cite directly from the judgement which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/309.html
“The planning scheme’s policies (clause 22.08, Minimal Change Area Policy) seek to retain the garden character of Glen Eira, which includes landscaping and trees as a major element in the appearance and character of its residential areas. Specific policy requires the retention of existing healthy and valued vegetation.
The Ormond precinct’s prevailing character elements include “well-established domestic gardens containing low and medium scale planting.”
7. The permit applicant provided Council with an independent arborist’s report, prepared by Mr David Sampson of P. S. Tree Care. Mr Bowden did not call Mr Sampson to give expert evidence. Mr Sampson has concluded that the Elm had been in decline for some years, that its vigour is diminished, it lacks sufficient vitality to maintain itself, has a poor structure and is prone to wood decay due to various surface lesions. He concluded that the tree should be removed and, further, that its removal “would not impact on the streetscape or any form of green infrastructure within the immediate area”.
8. Council’s Landscape Officer reviewed the P. S. Tree Care report, accepted its conclusions and agreed “that retention of the large Elm sited within the front setback is problematic” and had no objection to the tree’s removal.
In finding that the tree can be removed, I note the following points. Firstly, the tree has reached a size which in my view is quite out of scale with either the existing dwelling or the proposed new dwellings. The tree is unreasonably large for either its existing or intended setting and is of a scale that would be more appropriate to a park-like setting. Secondly, the dominant vegetation in the street is created by the reasonably sized, evergreen street trees. These are so dense that the Elm cannot be readily seen at close quarters, only in more distant views. Thirdly, I accept the view expressed by Mr Sampson and not contested by Council’s Landscape Officer that the tree is in somewhat poor condition and, by clear implication, has a somewhat reduced life expectancy.
I therefore find that there are overall advantages in relation to the longer-term neighbourhood and streetscape character in replacing the Elm with a more appropriately scaled, canopy-forming tree. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for such a tree to be planted in a semi-mature form. That is a requirement that can be identified as part of the landscape plan”.
Council’s other contention (which is not mentioned in the VCAT report they produced) is “Council’s Delegated Planning Committee had concluded that … the proposed development will generally complement the neighbourhood character and will integrate well with the street, subject to the separation of the first floors (i.e. – providing a gap) to lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street) and to the adjoining property to the east.” The member’s conclusions on this are also worthy of citing –
“Council’s intention was that an observer should see that the two structures were clearly separated at first-floor level.
Mr Bowden submitted a plan that illustrated a 2-metre gap between the dwellings’ first floor levels, overlaid over the proposed 1.5 metre deep recess. He thereby sought to demonstrate that the visual break of the 2 metre, full-depth gap would, as seen from the street, be so little different to the proposed deep recess as to not justify the inconvenience that would be caused to the internal room layouts.
18. I accept Mr Bowden’s submission on this point. A 2-metre gap would only be discernible as such from within a very short length of Parker Street, immediately adjoining. I find that the presumed benefits of the proposed gap in terms of the perceived scale of the whole building mass, as compared to the effect of the proposed deep recess, would be marginal at best. In effect, I find that Council’s that a full-depth, 2-metre wide gap would not “lessen visual bulk and mass impacts to the street (Parker Street)” to any significant or useful degree.
With respect to the proposal’s southern interface, the boundary setbacks of the southern two-story wall vary between about 2.2 and 2.3 metres. Mr Bowden submitted, and Mr Bromley did not dispute, that the setbacks more than satisfy Standard B17 of clause 55.04 – 1 of the planning scheme and therefore the related objective.
I accept Mr Bowden’s submission and find that council’s contentions cannot be supported in relation to the provision of the gap between the first-floor sections. Likewise, if the building’s setback from the southern boundary meets the relevant objective of clause 55, then there is no justification for requiring additional setback”.
COMMENTS
Once again, it appears that instead of honest and full reporting to councillors and community, we are subjected to nothing more than public relations exercises determined to either disguise the inadequacy of council’s policies, planning officer recommendations, and/or performance at VCAT. In itself, this one instance may be viewed as relatively minor. However, when it happens time and time again, then it is definitely not a ‘clerical error’ but a deliberate campaign of subterfuge and obfuscation to the detriment of open and accountable government.
