VCAT and clowncil
Published 8 months, 2 weeks ago in Where I Live.One issue that stood out like a sore thumb at the recent ‘community forums’ was inappropriate development. Time and again residents bemoaned what was happening to their streets and suburbs - 3 storey/8 unit developments on single blocks; lack of adequate car parking provisions within these blocks, etc. etc. etc. In response, our kingdom of Glen Eira has consistently blamed VCAT and the state government. No, nothing is ever their fault according to the spin doctors. The blame for inappropriate development is inevitably laid at the feet of others - ie. Melbourne 2030, VCAT regulations, etc. etc.
In an attempt to discover how accurate this is I’ve looked at some planning decisions as reported on the VCAT website. I want to know how much ‘blame’ can be directed towards state government policies, and how much can be directly laid at the feet of this clowncil. Below is one such example: Domus Design v Glen Eira (27th March, 2006). [See VCAT website for full decision] I now quote verbatim from the finding -
Secondly, there is no suggestion anywhere from Council as to what the character of the McKinnon shopping centre is anyway. There is no relevant study; as noted already, there is no MSS position; there is no Design and Development Overlay to refer to, and there was no attempt in either the Council report or the Council submission to define what makes up the character of this area. On the Tribunal’s observations, the centre appears as an attractive local neighbourhood centre which hosts a variety of uses and building styles with interwar double storey shops being the dominant built form. There is already evidence of change taking place with newer buildings being constructed or permitted.
But the third and more important reason is that in many cases, it will be a futile exercise to demand respect of a “character” in an area that you are hoping will change. If, as is the case here, Council is contemplating the rejuvenation of a small activity centre with shop top housing and higher density development, then of course the “character” that is there today will be different to the character that will be there if Council’s strategy comes to fruition.
Council cannot have it both ways. If they want the development, investment, employment and accommodation in their older centres requiring renewal then it must follow that existing centres will change; and so the present “character” will probably change. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is clearly part of that strategy to breathe life into many of the older strip centres. But to deny redevelopment because it offends a character that is referenced only to a point in time prior to the strategy, means that redevelopment is unlikely to be as ambitious as Council seemingly want.”
So folks, how about making up your own mind as to the ‘not my fault’ approach of this clowncil! Questions that could be asked are: have they done their job properly? how well are actual cases prepared? Your views on this issue are most welcome.
2 Responses to “VCAT and clowncil”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
Yes, Council can have it both ways canineclub because at the end of the day, the vested interests of who ever makes the decisions within Council are the only ones that get addressed.
I don’t know who these vested interests are - but at a good guess they do involve someone who operates soccer teams, and other sporting bodies - among a severely limited number of other interests.
They are not the greenies, the space savers, the passive park lovers, the dog owners, the elderly passive walker who doesn’t play a team sport, they are not the people who take an active interest in Council affairs, nor the people who question Council processes, nor the people who can’t walk vast distances to get to a decent strip shopping centre….
Our Council believes that Better is always Better! To hell with the people who have to foot it to the “Bigger the Better!” because they don’t drive and the public transport is limited except on major roads.
And they are certainly not the frustrated motorist who expect their council to advocate and agitate the Victorian State Government to seriously address the traffic jams aggravated by last century technology rail crossings.
agreed Mary. But what the above judgement would also show up is the lack of essential detail in council’s planning schemes. Sure, unexpected contingencies may arise, but this is what they’re getting paid for! If there is a ‘vision’ for various sections (ie. urban villages, residential zones) then it is vital that every t is crossed and every i dotted. The cited judgement would indicate that this has not happened. They have allowed loopholes to exist. So the question becomes: how much thought, research, and real effort went into the creation of these planning schemes? And the real question is; do we believe them when they toss their hands in the air and repeatedly tell the community that it’s not their fault. it’s always the naughty state government and its melbourne 2030 policies?