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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

46 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? The resulting report (May 2000) recommended that: no further land subdivision or development occur as “… any disturbance of the ground would be highly likely to impact upon Aboriginal archaeological sites” and be “… unsympathetic to the historical and cultural values in the area” the council amend its planning scheme to clearly record the site and its significance to the state so that the property could be conserved and future planning decisions informed. The report also stressed that any disturbing, destruction, interference or endangerment of an Aboriginal place or archaeological site required written consent of the relevant local Aboriginal community or the minister under Commonwealth legislation. This requirement was reiterated in letters to the council from AAV in December 2000, January 2001 and February 2003. In its letter of 15 January 2001, AAV reminded the council that the Convincing Ground was registered as an Aboriginal place and protected under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The council responded to AAV in February 2001, indicating that it did not wish to adopt the report’s recommendations, but that its planning officer would evaluate any proposed developments in light of the report and its recommendations. The council also indicated that it would make any applicants for developments in this area aware that the area is a registered Aboriginal heritage place.
Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 47 Aboriginal cultural heritage: Case study 4 The following case study shows the council’s poor management of cultural heritage issues as part of the assessment process. CASE STUDY 4: APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE FARMLAND WITHIN CONVINCING GROUND AREA On 18 June 2003, the council received a planning permit application to subdivide farmland in the Rural Living Zone and within the area known as the Convincing Ground. The application was referred to Telstra, Powercor and Portland Coast Water, and notification provided to 4 other organisations including the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). On 4 July 2003, DSE wrote to the council objecting to the proposal on the grounds that: part of the land was Crown land administered by DSE it promoted linear development along the coastal frontage, contrary to the objectives of the Victorian Coastal Strategy it is located in a very vulnerable area, at high risk of coastal recession. Following receipt of this letter and an objection from the Department for Victorian Communities, the council had discussions with the applicant and the application was subsequently withdrawn. On 17 November 2003, a new application was submitted with the proposed residential blocks moved back from the coast so that they were no longer located on Crown land. The application was assessed and a permit issued on the same day it was received. The application was neither advertised nor referred to relevant agencies, as it was considered a continuation of the previous application. Under the scheme, the council is required to identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural development from inappropriate development. Such places are defined in the scheme and include “Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, including historical and archaeological sites”.
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 47: 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 99 and 100:
98 Did the council have appropriate
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?