Frankston Council calls for an overhaul of VCAT’s planning powers

A MELBOURNE council is calling for an overhaul of VCAT’s “overbearing intrusion” into town planning matters, arguing the process makes it too easy for developers to get inappropriate plans approved. Do you agree?

MELBOURNE councils have taken aim at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for overturning their planning decisions, saying local and elected officials are best placed to approve developments.

But Victoria’s Planning Minister has defended the tribunal, citing the importance of third-party appeal rights.

In a motion before the October 19 Municipal Association of Victoria State Council meeting, Frankston Council complained about the “continued encroachment of unelected bureaucratic bodies on local government in Victoria”, singling out VCAT and the Essential Services Commission.

BOX HILL TO GET ANOTHER 30-STOREY TOWER AFTER VCAT DISPUTE

CLAWS OUT AS CAT SCRAP GOES TO VCAT

VERMONT SOUTH APARTMENT BLOCK APPROVED

The council wants an overhaul of the “overbearing intrusion” of VCAT in determining planning applications and said the process allowed developers to “game the system” and reserve information from councils.

“Instead of considering the material placed before council by applicants, and reviewing the council’s resulting decision, VCAT goes significantly further and often invites and entertains entirely new development proposals of the subject site with material supplied by the applicant that was never seen by council,” Frankston Council’s motion states.

VCAT set aside 824 responsible authority decisions the past financial year, out of 2281 determinations.

A residential development has been given the green light by VCAT for 96 houses to be built on the former site of Clayton West Primary School in Oakleigh South, overruling Monash Council.

Leader polled 22 councils about the issue before the State Council motions were published.

While many of them said they respected VCAT’s role in the planning and appeals process, more than half said councils had a better understanding of appropriate development in their neighbourhoods.

Boroondara Mayor Jim Parke went a step further and said VCAT allowed plans to be changed “on the run”.

“(It) intrudes in the decision-making role, which should remain with elected representatives who are at least accountable for the decisions they make,” Cr Parke said.

Cr Parke cited one example where VCAT’s decision resulted in the demolition of a significant heritage building at 1045 Burke Rd, Camberwell, and replaced it with an apartment building, despite significant concerns from the council and community.

Darebin Council city sustainability and strategy general manager Rachel Ollivier said the council had spent about $1 million on staff and legal costs associated with VCAT appeals over the past two financial years.

Meanwhile Monash Mayor Paul Klisaris said a third party, such as VCAT, was important in the planning process but added the council was concerned some decisions made by the tribunal did not have “significant regard” for the community’s expectations about what should be developed in their neighbourhoods.

Fairy Hills Residential Group opposed plans for a building on Upper Heidelberg Rd, Ivanhoe. (Left to right) Robyn Roberts, Pippa Griffith, Julia Stafford, Helen Mavrokefalos (front) and Kristiana, 5. Picture: Josie Hayden

Developers SB&G successfully appealed to VCAT to set aside a Banyule Council decision refusing — due to height limits and community opposition — a development proposed for 40 Upper Heidelberg Rd, Ivanhoe.

The tribunal granted a permit for the site after SB&G amended the plans for the initially planned 36m tall building to a 19m one.

“It should be noted that many of these larger applications usually involve a mediation process and often amended plans are submitted, which address many of the initial objector and council concerns,” Banyule Mayor Paul Di Pasquale said.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne said he did not accept the notion that VCAT allowed plans to be changed “on the run”.

“All parties are required to submit their documentation in advance of any hearing so that there are no surprises when a matter is brought on for consideration,” Mr Wynne said.

He said Victoria had some of the strongest three-party appeal rights of any jurisdiction in Australia and that the State Labor Government would protect those rights.

“VCAT is a planning body that offers an opportunity for both applicants and community members to have matters heard in a less judicial forum and VCAT will always look towards what are the underlying frameworks put in place by a council in informing its decision-making,” Mr Wynne said.

Council representatives will vote on Frankston Council’s motion, and others, on October 19 to decide whether the MAV should adopt this as its official position.

A similar motion put forward by the council at the previous meeting was not carried.

A VCAT-approved development in Yolande Court, Templestowe, upset residents who said its location near an existing primary school would cause a range of issues. Picture: Stuart Milligan

Council examples of developments that VCAT granted planning permits following appeals:

— A 14-storey, 242 apartment development for the old Red Rooster site at 1233-1237 Nepean Highway, Highett drew more than 300 objections and was refused by Kingston Council. It was approved by VCAT following amendments to the number of dwellings and height.

— An application refused by Darebin Council for a four-storey apartment block with 21 dwellings at 40 Showers St, Preston, which had drawn 24 objections. A planning permit was issued by VCAT after an appeal to the council’s decision was lodged.

— Knox Council refused plans for a seven-dwelling development at 36-28 Cavendish Ave, Wantirna, which drew 82 objections. The decision was set aside by VCAT.

MORE NEWS

CONTINENTAL HOTEL UPGRADE SET TO BOOST LOCAL ECONOMY

THUG JAILED AFTER TERRIFYING EXTORTION OF TRADESMAN

DOG STABBED ON GRAND FINAL DAY ON ROAD TO RECOVERY