Developers favoured at VCAT, residents, ratepayers say
In two years the state planning tribunal has overturned almost 1000 decisions made by councils, who ratepayers say are “handcuffed” by a system that favours developers over residents.
Outer East
Don't miss out on the headlines from Outer East. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Victorian councils are “handcuffed” and undermined by a state planning system that favours developers over communities, resident and ratepayer groups say.
The comments come as new data reveals the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has overturned 969 and varied 646 metropolitan council decisions – out of 2605 determinations – over the past two years.
This was out of more than 60,000 council decisions made during that time.
A Leader survey also found one council spent $845,000 defending their decisions at VCAT during that time, and the process could result in delays of up to a year.
Ratepayers Victoria president Dean Hurlston said councils were often “handcuffed” into making approvals after having to weigh up how much decisions would cost them in the long run.
“Developers often factor in the cost of a VCAT challenge, as par for the course, and councils have to take that into account,” he said.
“It’s rare that we will sympathise with councils, but much more power should be given to councils and communities to decide what our suburbs will look like over the next 20 years.”
Examples where VCAT set aside council decisions included:
■ A three-storey apartment building at Grattan St, Hawthorn, knocked back by Boroondara. The council said multiple development proposals were lodged for this site over the past eight years and the most recent one garnered more than 100 objections from residents. VCAT set the council’s decision aside last year.
■ Granting a permit for a proposed development for four double-storey dwellings on a 1800sq m site at 203 Canterbury Rd, Blackburn, which infuriated residents who argued it would result in a loss of tree canopy in the leafy area.
Blackburn Village Residents Group president Michael Taafe said applicants had deeper pockets than councils or ratepayers to fight their cases at the tribunal and many objectors had to take time off work if they wanted to have their say at hearings.
“Unscrupulous developers should be prevented from lodging confusing, non-compliant or incomplete applications to avoid a council decision within the 60-day limit so they can appeal the case straight to VCAT,” he said.
WHAT THE COUNCILS SAY
While most of the councils surveyed said the tribunal played an important role in the planning process, Boroondara planning director Shiran Wickramasinghe said the chance to provide amended plans at multiple stages of a VCAT review favoured applicants.
“This can lead to VCAT determining plans substantially different to those determined by the council – which undermines the council’s role as the responsible authority on planning matters in our municipality,” he said.
Glen Eira planning and place director Ron Torres said applicants often presented much more scaled down versions of their plans to the tribunal.
Monash Council said they spent a total of $845,000 tackling 241 appeals over the past two years, of which 89 of their decisions to refuse a permit were overturned.
The Planning Permit Activity Monthly Reports revealed that, between July 2018 and March this year, VCAT overturned 61 per cent of Frankston Council decisions (40 out of 65) brought before the tribunal.
This was out of more than 1400 decisions made by the council during that time.
Darebin had 60 per cent (68 out of 113) overturned and Greater Dandenong 58 per cent (40 out of 69).
Darebin Mayor Susan Rennie said the planning system and VCAT were not aligned with the community’s progressive thinking on many social and environmental issues.
Frankston Mayor Sandra Mayer said residents were disheartened by the process as it was costly and they didn’t feel the unique characteristics of the local area were considered.
A State Government spokeswoman said VCAT was an independent arbiter and considered submissions from all parties – including local councils.
“Allowing applicants to amend plans at VCAT means they can better respond to the concerns of councils and objectors,” she said.
WHAT THE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS SAY
epc. Pacific managing director Patrick Smith said the firm generally found working with council officers and government planning bodies to be productive.
“Local politicians are typically not planning experts, however, have at times ignored the advice of the professional planning officers they employ, which creates uncertainty and confusion,” Mr Smith said.
“When individual political opinions start to influence and dictate outcomes that are not reflective of the legislated planning policy, it is critical that there is an independent expert body ensuring planning policy is being respected by all stakeholders.”
He said epc. Pacific undertook extensive community consultation for its projects, and tried to find a fair outcome for the majority of people.
MORE NEWS:
HOW COUNCILS WANT YOU TO RECOUP THEIR COVID-19 LOSSES
WHAT TO DO IF YOU GET A LOCKDOWN FINE
FILTHY RESTAURANTS OPERATED FOR YEARS BEFORE PROSECUTION
Urban Development Institute of Australia Victorian chief executive Danni Hunter challenged the view that VCAT favoured applicants, saying their ability to make judgment should not be called into question.
Master Builders Victoria chief executive Rebecca Casson said, in the current environment, it was vital the building system didn’t close down.
“We have one example of an $85m project being held up due to objections, and project funding won’t be released until planning certainty is received from VCAT,” she said.