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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

42 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? Heritage considerations: Case study 3 The following case study provides an example of where the council referred the planning application to other agencies for “technical advice”, but failed to take appropriate action on the advice it received. CASE STUDY 3: DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN PORTLAND At the end of February 2000, the council received an application to demolish a number of historic bluestone buildings (dating back to the 1880s) in a main street of Portland. The land was to be developed for commercial purposes. The property was zoned “Business 1” under the council’s planning scheme, and designated within the planning scheme’s heritage overlay. The council provided details of the proposal to owners of properties adjoining the site and referred the application to Heritage Victoria, the council’s Heritage Advisory Board and the council’s heritage adviser. The council’s heritage adviser was opposed to the proposed works and reported that the demolition of such historic buildings “… sets a dangerous precedent … and ultimately devalues the purpose and objectives of the Heritage Overlay of the Planning Scheme”. He recommended that the council not support the proposal and, instead, prepare a conservation management plan for the site. In March 2000, Heritage Victoria advised the council that the buildings proposed for demolition were “potential candidates” for registration under the Heritage Act and that the site was of local historic importance. Heritage Victoria also advised the council to take into account the advice of the council’s heritage adviser. Despite receiving 3 objections to the application, the council issued a notice of decision to grant a permit for the demolition/development works in May 2000. A local historic committee applied to VCAT to have the council’s decision reviewed on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment was contrary to the objectives of the State Planning Policy and the Glenelg Planning Scheme. In October 2000, VCAT determined that the council’s decision be set aside and no permit issued on the basis that: parts of the property were historically significant policies encouraging commercial development do not necessarily override the heritage or tourism policies in the planning scheme removal of buildings would be contrary to state and local heritage policies, and contrary to the purposes of the heritage overlay. VCAT was also critical of the council given that a notice to grant a permit had been issued based on documentation that “failed to meet the minimum requirements of the planning scheme”. The documentation did not consider key issues such as car parking, or the movement of pedestrians and vehicles. Moreover, the plans had no dimensions and did not relate to the actual shape of the land. Source: Glenelg Shire Council, Application no. 082/00, 98 Percy Street, Portland.
Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 43 Conclusion We are unable to say why areas were designated in the heritage overlay maps, but not included in the schedule to the overlay. It seems likely these heritage areas were not included in the schedule due to an administrative oversight. We identified instances where the council, through its inappropriate application of the heritage overlay requirements, failed to protect the shire’s heritage assets. Our view is consistent with VCAT’s 2001 decision. Failure to apply the heritage overlay controls is of particular concern where the zoning of properties (for example, as Business Zone 1) removes the need to provide details of the proposal to owners and tenants of surrounding properties, making the proposal exempt from the normal objection and appeal requirements of the Act. The absence of a heritage policy, a neighbourhood character overlay, and a design and development overlay for the Portland town centre has also impacted on the ability of the council to preserve its heritage assets. Recommendation 4. That the council: before it approves an application to change the use or to develop land within a designated heritage area, consider the potential impact of the proposal on the heritage values of the site and/or its setting and area. This is particularly so, where the zoning of properties (such as in Business Zone 1) removes the need to provide details of any proposal to owners and tenants of properties surrounding the site, making the proposal exempt from the normal objection and appeal requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 develops a heritage policy, and considers developing a neighbourhood character overlay, and a design and development overlay for the Portland town centre. RESPONSE provided by Glenelg Shire Council Recommendation agreed. Pre application meetings are held with council’s heritage advisor and all applications in heritage overlay areas are referred to the advisor. Council has completed stage 1 of the Heritage Study and is currently undertaking Stage 2. The heritage policy and design and development overlay are due for completion in October 2005. Council has assessed the neighbourhood character overlay is of a lower priority at this stage.
Page 1 and 2: PP No. 162, Session 2003-05 V I C T
Page 3 and 4: The Hon. Monica Gould MP The Hon. J
Page 5 and 6: Contents FOREWORD..................
Page 7 and 8: 1. Executive summary 1
Page 9 and 10: 4 Executive summary 1.2 Overall aud
Page 11 and 12: 6 Executive summary 3. That the cou
Page 13 and 14: 8 Executive summary attempt to res
Page 15 and 16: 10 Executive summary RESPONSE provi
Page 17 and 18: 2.1 Victoria’s planning system Vi
Page 19 and 20: Reform of the planning system Victo
Page 21 and 22: 2.2.1 Council’s planning services
Page 23 and 24: 2.3.1 Conduct of the audit Victoria
Page 25 and 26: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 43: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 79 and 80: 4. Did the council have appropriate
Page 81 and 82: 80 Did the council have appropriate
Page 95 and 96:
94 Did the council have appropriate
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
5. Did the council effectively mana
Page 103 and 104:
104 Did the council effectively man
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix A. Performance improvement
Page 119 and 120:
122 Appendix A. Performance improve
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B. Contract for town plann
Page 123 and 124:
128 Appendix B. Contract for town p
Page 125 and 126:
FIGURE C1: AUDIT CASE STUDIES INDEX
Page 127:
Availability of reports Copies of a
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?