Report into Nillumbik Council’s planning policy reveals a breakdown in good governance

CULTURAL change is needed at a council in Melbourne’s north according to a report handed down by an independent investigator.

CULTURAL change is needed at Nillumbik Council according to a report by inde­pendent investigator Chris­topher Wren QC.

The experienced barrister was hand-picked to look into events surrounding the decision to implement the shire’s contentious new planning provisions, C101, last year.

The council released an executive summary to the public, but the full report remains confidential.

Mr Wren said there was a breakdown in good governance when copies of legal advice were not provided to councillors. He said staff didn’t “observe proper process” when a letter was sent to Planning Panels Victoria requesting the appointment of a panel before the council decided to do so, and public consultation was “largely in-house” with a “small number” of people.

Mr Wren also said the council’s communications stra­tegy needed review to address the level of distrust that was evident in public submissions.

“What have we learnt? Most importantly we need cultural change, not my words, Mr Wren’s words,” Nillumbik Mayor Peter Clarke said at a council meeting.

He also took a swipe at community group Friends of Nillumbik for peddling “inaccuracies” about the council. Cr Clarke reiterated former chief executive Stuart Burdack resigned “of his own volition”, interim chief executive Mark Stoermer wasn’t employed to be his “puppet” and the outcome of the internal C101 investigation “far outweighs” the cost.

“To suggest that this (investigation) was a witch hunt couldn’t be further from the truth,” Cr Clarke said.

“It’s important we learn from this process ... (and) it might be a bit disappointing it (the executive summary) hasn’t got some of the details, but it would be unfair and inappropriate to (release the full report).”

In a statement to the Diamond Valley Leader, Friends of Nillumbik president Greg Johnson said the group had the right to criticise council decisions.

“The mayor should’ve confined himself to the meeting’s agenda item,” he said.

[e-mail]