Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 41
CASE STUDY 2: FAST FOOD STORE IN PORTLAND – continued
The council also determined that:
as the property was not included in the schedule to the heritage overlay, the
requirements of the overlay did not apply to this property (despite the
property being situated in an area designated as HO on the planning scheme
map)
the existing buildings had no statutory heritage significance and the proposal
was sympathetic to the existing streetscape.
A local heritage committee disputed the validity of the permit at VCAT.
Specifically, they argued that:
the council, by not notifying owners of adjoining properties and its own
heritage advisor of the application, had not followed due process required
under the Act
the corporate signage allowed for in the permit would dominate and adversely
affect the significance, character and appearance of the streetscape.
The day before the VCAT hearing in August 2002, the applicant decided not to
exercise their option to buy the property and did not attend the hearing. Despite
this, the local heritage committee asked that the matter be referred to mediation
as the permit remained in force.
The VCAT directions hearing was adjourned. On 27 September 2002, the council
bought the property. Further hearings and mediation followed over the next 5
months in relation to both the permit and signage.
On 27 February 2003, the local heritage committee withdrew its application to
have the permit amended, following the applicant agreeing to change the
proposed signage specified in their development plans.
In February 2004, the applicant applied for and was successful in having the
expiry date of the planning permit extended for a further 2 years to May 2006.
We consider that the council erred in not notifying adjoining landholders of the
proposed development. We also consider that the council did not adequately
consider the impact of the development (particularly the signage) on the heritage
value of the surrounding area.
Had these actions been taken, this matter could have been resolved without the
financial cost and loss of time associated with having the issue reviewed by
VCAT21 .
Source: Glenelg Shire Council, Application no. 116/02, 55 Percy Street, Portland.
21 Costs incurred by the council associated with VCAT’s review of this application amounted to
$10 200.