Mitchell Shire councillors have voiced their frustration at a string of recent rulings against council by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, VCAT.
A council decision in February to refuse a planning permit for a development at 123 Rupert Street in Broadford was overturned by the tribunal in September.
Council’s decision to deny the application was based primarily on a perceived failure of the development to respond to the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
But the developer argued there was no applicable neighbourhood character policy to which the development needed to comply.
VCAT member Tracey Bilston-McGillen agreed with the developer, finding there was ‘no neighbourhood character policy within the Mitchell Planning Scheme’.
“I find the proposed layout of the proposed dwellings acceptable,” Ms Bilston-McGillen said in her ruling.
“The proposal retains two existing dwellings to Rupert Street and proposes three new dwellings to the rear. There will be little change visually to Rupert Street other than new pathways, landscaping and the new driveway.”
Cr Bill Chisholm described the finding as ‘bureaucracy gone mad’.
“I think everyone in [the council chambers] would have roughly the same estimation of what the neighbourhood character of a town like Kilmore, Broadford or Seymour is, and we would roughly come to the same conclusion,” he said.
“Apparently the VCAT members can’t work out what a neighbourhood character is and we’ve got to spend significant money to put more words into our structure plans for the various towns to stop this sort of thing from happening.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous … We’ve got to do this work and spend ratepayers’ money to keep the rural character of our towns safe from developments.”
Cr David Lowe described the result as ‘very unsatisfactory’ and said he believed there had been a breakdown in understanding between council and VCAT members.
The result came on the heels of another September VCAT ruling overturning a council decision.
Council had issued a planning permit for the development of offices, car parking and a hospitality venue at 19 High Street, Wallan, with a condition that the developer upgrade and seal more than 150 metres of Wellington Street, which runs along the rear of the property, up to its intersection with Watson Street in the north.
Council argued the condition was appropriate as the development would require the use of Wellington Street and the unsealed road would not support the anticipated increase in commercial traffic, which council estimated would be about 187 trips a day on average.
But VCAT member Jane Tait removed the condition, along with a requirement for the developer to provide a two-metre-wide drainage easement, finding the conditions too onerous.
“It will be an unreasonable burden for the applicant to upgrade the street, which will be to the benefit of other land holders that access Wellington Street,” she said.
“Options for council include allocation of future funding for the construction of the street or require a contribution from all the property owners that access the street.”
Council chief executive Brett Luxford defended council’s decision to include the condition despite VCAT’s finding.
“The permit condition requiring an upgrade to Wellington Street [was] considered appropriate given the commercial development will result in a sizable increase in traffic volume,” he said.
“The development for multiple warehouses with vehicle circulation between High Street and currently unsealed Wellington Street is expected to result in a large increase in existing traffic volumes on Wellington Street, including heavy vehicle traffic.
“The development is the first commercial development that requires access to Wellington Street and will result in traffic volumes not suitable for an unmade road, accordingly the condition was considered appropriate.”
In a VCAT win for council, its decision to refuse planning permission for a drift training facility at Glenaroua was upheld.
Council said the proposal for a motorsport training facility would result in amenity and visual impacts with no net community benefit.
“There is inadequate consideration by the applicants of the changes in the type of noise that will be predominant in the area when a drifting event is occurring,” VCAT senior member Bill Sibonis said.
“We are not convinced that the introduction of the drifting track will not result in unacceptable noise impacts on the surrounding properties.”
