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

86 Did the council have appropriate management arrangements for the delivery of its planning services?
CASE STUDY 12: AMENDMENT C4 – continued
After receiving this advice, the minister’s delegate advised the council that the
“adopted amendment” submitted for approval was void and could not be decided
on by the minister.
Amendment C4 lapsed in September 2004. Council did not request an extension of
time for the amendment to enable it to address the issues raised by the Victorian
Government Solicitor and resubmit it to the minister for approval.
Source: Information provided by Glenelg Shire Council and the Department of Sustainability
and Environment.
Similar problems of process have affected Amendment C5. In May 2002, a
few months after the proposed amendment was publicly exhibited, 7
objections to the proposed changes were received. Council adopted the part
of the amendment without submissions, however the remaining part of the
amendment was not acted on, and has since lapsed.
We were advised by council staff that the amendment was not progressed
due to the reluctance of the planning contractor to provide a briefing to the
panel without receiving additional payment. The provision of this briefing
appeared to be a requirement of the contract with the planning contractor.
Where a proposed amendment is abandoned, the minister is required to be
advised. This has not been done.
Role of the planning contractor
The planning services contract between the planning contractor and the
council (1998-2004) required the contractor to assist the council to meet its
strategic planning requirements. As a key part of this role, the contractor was
to initiate and prepare all relevant documentation on routine amendments to
the planning scheme (that is, documents for council’s consideration, public
exhibition, adoption and ministerial approval).
There was evidence that the planning contractor raised issues with the
council that needed amendments to the planning scheme to be resolved.
However, we found very little evidence of work to assist the council in
amending its planning scheme and finalising its strategic statement.
Discussions with the planning contractor indicated that while he was willing
to undertake this work, he did not believe it was covered by his contract, and
the council was unwilling to pay for the additional work.