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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? At this same meeting, the planning contractor canvassed a proposal whereby plans submitted with permit applications could be used as a substitute for a development plan. This would avoid some of the costs associated with the council establishing a development plan. Annual budget submissions for the planning function, prepared by the planning contractor, requested additional funding for the preparation of development plans. A number of meetings between the Department of Infrastructure (when that department had responsibility for the planning function) and the council considered this issue and recommended amending the planning scheme to abolish the DPOs. The need to correct the “inadequacies in the planning scheme” with regards to development plans was raised in VCAT planning application hearings, as far back as 2001. In February 2002, the council exhibited an amendment to its planning scheme 27 that included the removal of all development plan overlays. The documentation supporting the amendment contended that the DPOs are “… an unnecessary duplication of controls contained elsewhere in the planning scheme”. As there were objections to the amendment, the council decided to split the amendment into parts – adopt one part (without submissions) and refer the submissions related to part 2 to an independent panel (appointed by the minister) for review. This is in accordance with the Act. We were advised that this review process was not undertaken. As the council had not established development plans for its DPOs, the council’s planning contractor was faced with the prospect of rejecting all planning permit applications in areas covered by the DPOs. This would have had a significant adverse impact on the shire’s development activity. In these circumstances, the planning contractor, acting as the council’s delegate, decided to use the project/site plans provided with planning applications as a substitute for a development plan. The planning contractor considered that this enabled him to continue processing and issuing planning permits in areas covered by DPOs. 27 Amendment C5 relates to errors and inconsistencies in the scheme, minor re-zoning and implementation of planning-related matters. We discuss this further in Part 4 of this report.
Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 67 Current status As indicated in case study 4, the council issued a planning permit in an area subject to a DPO, without a development plan in place. In April 2005, the local Aboriginal community and the Minister for Planning applied to VCAT to have the planning permit cancelled. Proceedings in VCAT are scheduled for December 2005. These will consider whether individual project/site plans submitted with planning applications, can be used as a substitute for a development plan for the purpose of the planning scheme. Following the appointment of an internal town planner in April 2005, the council decided not to approve any planning permit applications in areas covered by the DPO until the development plans were established. By early June 2005, the council had received, and was holding, 6 planning permit applications for land affected by DPOs. In recognition of the adverse impact this issue was having on both the shire’s development industry and the public’s confidence in the delivery of its planning services, the council asked the Minister for Planning to approve an urgent amendment to the planning scheme in May 2005. The amendment sought to: remove the requirement for development plans to be incorporated in the scheme allow the council (for a 12-month period to 31 July 2006) to issue permits in areas covered by DPOs (with the exception of the area known as the Convincing Ground), in the absence of a development plan – provided the proposal met the requirements of the planning scheme. In June 2005, the minister agreed to the council’s request to amend the planning scheme. Council is also awaiting advice, sought in May 2005, on the legality of the 330 planning permits issued by the former planning contractor without a development plan during the period 1999-2005. Conclusion Over the last 6 years, the council has approved 330 permits which are at risk of being invalid. The council’s action in issuing these permits could have a significant impact on the ability of landholders to use and develop their land. The council has been aware (since 1999) of the need to establish development plans for each of its DPOs. It should have known it could not legally issue permits in areas covered by DPOs without a development plan. Despite this, the council took no action to resolve this issue.
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 67: 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 101 and 102: 5. Did the council effectively mana
Page 103 and 104: 104 Did the council effectively man
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?