Peter McKenzie looks over the site designated for 93 housing blocks. By Peter McKenzie
SINCE 2016, Reed Crescent on the south side of Wonthaggi has been under threat of a totally inappropriate development of 93 new house blocks. These would be squeezed into the paddock between the cemetery and the Rifle Range wetlands, from the back of Reed Crescent properties up to and around the transfer station.
Despite very limited public information, locals found out about the project and 28 objected to it. Objections were based on a multitude of problems. The proposal was for a single access road (Dowson Drive) to the estate, leading all traffic onto Reed Crescent, a narrow road with dangerously deep drains on either side.
SINCE 2016, Reed Crescent on the south side of Wonthaggi has been under threat of a totally inappropriate development of 93 new house blocks. These would be squeezed into the paddock between the cemetery and the Rifle Range wetlands, from the back of Reed Crescent properties up to and around the transfer station.
Despite very limited public information, locals found out about the project and 28 objected to it. Objections were based on a multitude of problems. The proposal was for a single access road (Dowson Drive) to the estate, leading all traffic onto Reed Crescent, a narrow road with dangerously deep drains on either side.
There was also concern about potential damage to the revegetated Rifle Range reserve from water and pollutant runoff, invasive plants and domestic animals. Other problems include fire risk, the added load on already inadequate drains and the overall inappropriateness relative to the larger well planted existing properties in Reed Crescent.
In 2017 the applicant, Grebe Investments Pty Ltd, lodged an objection with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) stating that Bass Coast Council had delayed processing their planning application for too long. Council argued that they hadn’t received sufficient information to process the application.
All this time the objectors were trying to obtain details and analyse the reams of paper for errors and omissions and looking at the impact on the area. Seven objectors, including the South Gippsland Conservation Society, applied to be heard at VCAT. This was no small undertaking, requiring traipsing up to Melbourne for a practice day hearing day. This is a simple administrative process to see how long a case may run. It could have been handled via a few emails or a teleconference, but no, we all needed to appear for it.
Then there was the compulsory conference to see if a mutually negotiated arrangement could be made. We had already been to two of these. The applicant submitted amended plans five days prior to this hearing, putting more pressure on objectors to come to terms with substantial changes and new information.
You might expect VCAT to penalise a developer who is cynically subverting the planning system, but there was no criticism, let alone a penalty.
At the second conference VCAT found the applicant was at fault and the case was dismissed. We naively hoped this would actually end this application. Unfortunately the applicant lodged additional information with the council earlier this year and continued the process.
Now once again they have gone to VCAT claiming the council has taken too long while the council states they do not have sufficient information to proceed with the application. It seems the developer prefers to fight in VCAT rather than have council and the local community argue the merits of their plans and the impact on our town.
In late June we had a new practice day and did succeed in having another conference cancelled, since previous ones had failed. However, we are now listed for an eight-day hearing in November.
This puts a substantial strain on volunteer objectors. Basically we have to move to Melbourne for the duration of the hearing, abandoning our lives and many other commitments and community engagements.
With the majority of the interested parties based in Bass Coast, why couldn’t VCAT hold the hearing here?
It seems the whole system is designed for the convenience of developers and a gaggle of lawyers and experts all happily billing their hours and expenses. Bugger the concerned community.
We will always be disadvantaged until developers seriously commit to wide-ranging consultation and accept that the community’s views should be taken seriously.
April 19, 2018: Wonthaggi developer’s tactics under fire
October 19, 2018: Legal glitch foils Wonthaggi developer
In 2017 the applicant, Grebe Investments Pty Ltd, lodged an objection with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) stating that Bass Coast Council had delayed processing their planning application for too long. Council argued that they hadn’t received sufficient information to process the application.
All this time the objectors were trying to obtain details and analyse the reams of paper for errors and omissions and looking at the impact on the area. Seven objectors, including the South Gippsland Conservation Society, applied to be heard at VCAT. This was no small undertaking, requiring traipsing up to Melbourne for a practice day hearing day. This is a simple administrative process to see how long a case may run. It could have been handled via a few emails or a teleconference, but no, we all needed to appear for it.
Then there was the compulsory conference to see if a mutually negotiated arrangement could be made. We had already been to two of these. The applicant submitted amended plans five days prior to this hearing, putting more pressure on objectors to come to terms with substantial changes and new information.
You might expect VCAT to penalise a developer who is cynically subverting the planning system, but there was no criticism, let alone a penalty.
At the second conference VCAT found the applicant was at fault and the case was dismissed. We naively hoped this would actually end this application. Unfortunately the applicant lodged additional information with the council earlier this year and continued the process.
Now once again they have gone to VCAT claiming the council has taken too long while the council states they do not have sufficient information to proceed with the application. It seems the developer prefers to fight in VCAT rather than have council and the local community argue the merits of their plans and the impact on our town.
In late June we had a new practice day and did succeed in having another conference cancelled, since previous ones had failed. However, we are now listed for an eight-day hearing in November.
This puts a substantial strain on volunteer objectors. Basically we have to move to Melbourne for the duration of the hearing, abandoning our lives and many other commitments and community engagements.
With the majority of the interested parties based in Bass Coast, why couldn’t VCAT hold the hearing here?
It seems the whole system is designed for the convenience of developers and a gaggle of lawyers and experts all happily billing their hours and expenses. Bugger the concerned community.
We will always be disadvantaged until developers seriously commit to wide-ranging consultation and accept that the community’s views should be taken seriously.
April 19, 2018: Wonthaggi developer’s tactics under fire
October 19, 2018: Legal glitch foils Wonthaggi developer