10 Responses to “Save our Suburbs report on VCAT pro developer bias”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
Search
Profile
demolishing those who revel in demolishing
Categories
- Where I Live (13)
- My life (30)
- Making News (1)
Archives
Here we go again. It is amazing how you NIMBYs keep trotting out the same old crap. What this article doesn’t do, yet again, is provide any ‘real’ analysis!
Q - Why are Council decisions being overturned so frequently at VCAT?
A - Because their decisions are not supported by their own planning policies and planning scheme, go against the advice of their own planning officers and are made to appease vocal NIMBYs.
Q - Why are objectors appeals being overturned so frequently at VCAT?
A - Because their objections are not supported by their Council’s planning policies and planning scheme, their objections are unfounded or just plain vexatious….it is amazing how NIMBYs are happy to object to their neighbours development but when a Council wants to introduce stricter policies they are the first to complain about losing development rights!
The only thing that this report exposes is that Rémy Favre is a goose and SOS is guilty by association!
VCAT favours developers because it is developers who are able to afford expert advice. It is only the actual appearance by an expert that VCAT is legally bound to give more weight to than other evidence. Question - what resident group can afford the appearance fees of a barrister, engieers, heritage advisors? None - the VCAT scales are weighed heavily in favour of developers.
Tosser (your name, not an insult) - that is the same for any aspect of the judicial system - the best defence that money can buy!
What section of what legislation says that VCAT must give extra weight to expert witnesses.
However, why shouldn’t VCAT give an extra weight to an expert - they are an expert after all. As a society we rely on experts all the time….in fact we demand them! Why should it be any different at VCAT? Why you go to a doctor who was not an expert?
It just goes to show that many objections are unfounded and based on an little or no empirical evidence.
So often I have seen objectors complain that a single dwelling will increase traffic. Well of course it will…but will the increase be detrimental? Unlikely, but it doesn’t stop an objector from raising it. Why shouldn’t a developer be able to bring in an expert to demonstrate that it will have not impact?
Councils ask for expert reports all the time to accompany applications - in fact, objectors routinely ask for applications to provide reports by traffic, environment and all types of consultants. If it is ok to want it in the planning permit process why then can’t it be used in the VCAT process?
In this case AP - Council engineer reports recommended that the facade of CHS be maintained. The owner’s evidence was that the site was unsafe. 120 days ago VCAT approved the demolition of the site, a motion moved by Councillor Matthews-Ward and supported by the majority ALP Counil membership. To date there has been no work on this “danger to public safety”.
The very idea that VCAT has a bias towards developers is ridiculous and undermines the credibility of anyone who claims it.
I can understand why there is an urban myth out there suggesting that Councils are pro-development - you know, because they get extra rates. It’s a simple argument and simple people love using it. But on what basis would a Member of VCAT decide to have a bias towards developers? Whatever would they have to gain? Could it be that developers are bribing VCAT Members with bags full of money? You know, the ones developers used to hand Council planners ‘under the table’.
Or, could it be that certain people *cough NIMBYS cough*, simply don’t like that they live in a world that is changing? Any form of development is going to impact on somebody. And, it may even cause some detriment. The question VCAT explores is not whether there will be a change to the area, nor even if there will be detriment, but rather whether the level of detriment is considered “reasonable”.
So far nothing mentioned on this website seriously results in an unreasonable loss of amenity to you or your NIMBY neighbours.
May I suggest you take a gander at the site and consider that it has been like this for 11 years.
Peter - have you now resorted to censoring opinions different to your own? Would you prefer if the voices of reason and common sense left you alone to voice your unfounded conspiracy theories without challenge?
Que?
Peter, I left a reply here last week, and it has not been posted.
So I assume then you aren’t interested in debating matters, but merely stating your own opinion and censoring others.
Well done.
Sorry EZA - please repost - it does not seem to be here. I have no control over the posts - if it contained a potential slander the Nook administrators may have not loaded it. Have a nice day.