Planning application refusal - in shock

Yes and 12 objections, got it over the line eventually

Whatever you do try to avoid VCAT, costly and perhaps 9 months waiting list

Tips, need a gun townplanner to negotiate with council

Same @Be Developer his Bentleigh project we used same townplanner avoided VCAT

 

It must be in the breed, i have yet to meet one who thinks "normally" inverted oomma"

 

To be fair to the town planner, they were just following the rules. The real issue in my case was that the rules are idiosyncratic and a strict application of the rules leads to illogical outcomes. I was arguing for the logical outcome of the application of the rules and the planner was arguing for a strict application of the rules. I can't really resent them for that but it does make it difficult.

 

If the Council decision has been made, and the application refused, that is the end of the process. Mediation MAY occur after an appeal to VCAT has been lodged (if may not - it is up to VCAT to decide if this will be the case). Negotiation with the Council now (prior to VCAT) can only result in an agreed potion requiring either a fresh application to be lodged, or if an appeal has been lodged, a request for Consent Orders (ie VCAT decision without a hearing and consent of all parties). Don't forget there is also an objector in the mix, so an agreement with the Council, will be only one part of the jigsaw puzzle.
Q - why did your planner not know about the 'flood issue"?

 

Thanks for the tips.
The overlays do not have flood in my area, i gather its pretty new. But hmmm i guess a good planning mob would have been aware of it coming into play. The mob i used have a new planner as the other planner has left for ‘whatever valid’ reason. Although i’m a little suss considering that planner was confident we didn’t need a pre application sit down with Council, and with this flood mitigation catching us out....
Council also referencing visual bulk, neighborhood character etc which is all within guidelines but i hear council have ‘under counter guidelines which enable them to stretch out their creative licence so to speak.... hence my issues
So I’m sitting down with my mob ‘new replaced inhouse planner to discuss where too from here with vcat etc’ kinda have mixed feelings of how much obligation they should except and how much they should b charging me from here on to get this resolved...

 

I think one issue here is when the "new" flood overlay came into play. Was it on public record/available for viewing, when the application was made? It would seem unfair if that knowledge was only given out at a pre-DA meeting.........

 

We are constantly in the Planning and Environment Court. Mostly Brisbane City Council on the otherside.

We avoid going to the committee dispute resolution process up here. They just advertised new positions and the chair gets $650 per appeal (based on 8 hours work). That would be an ok wage on a full time basis for the experience required but on a piecemal basis......

Interesting how Vic runs it as part of QCAT, our is a specialst branch of the District Court.

 

There was no pre DA meeting as the planner said it was not required - according to the OP.

I would be expecting a full explanation from the private planner in this situation if they did the wrong thing.

 

My planner advised that their reason behind not having a pre DA meeting with council is due to the fact that:
- They have been doing these for 20 yrs - a lot of them (valid)
- They may raise what we want and council may be of many other opinions
- The council planner attending the pre DA may not be the planner that ends up getting the file for the DA - ie - each planners opinions can vary widely
- It just can become messier with differences of opinions etc, ie: example given was pre evaluation of a site with comparison of the area and expectation for 12 unit site, then at pre DA - council's like nope - we would say only 6 unit site, ......... i think they ended up getting the 12 thru.

 

Pre

pre-application meetings are generally a waste of time for those reasons, HOWEVER touching base and letting a planner at the Council know what is intended early in the process is worthwhile. It's about coming from a position of strength and authority, rather than going hat in hand as asking for an opinion...at least that's what i think. There are subtleties, nuances and finessing skills that come into play

 

Yes, I tend to agree with this, which also supports the OP town planner's stance on pre- DA meetings.

Councils here is Sydney are pushing more and more for pre-lodge meetings which the skeptics would say is revenue generation and only necessary because you can no longer get free advice from council town planners.....Duty planners at council now have very limited time available to meet with the public (if at all) and of course they are so busy since council only puts on one junior staffer for that shift (maybe only 3- 4 hours)(some councils only email inquiries accepted).

Add to this mix is the fact that council are accountable to nobody and you have the perfect storm....

 

Sometimes council won't make a decision or they'll knock it back just because they don't want their name on it.

 

On one development i was involved with the council told us at pre-ap that they'd prefer two separate structures instead of one large apartment building because it would break up the buildings visual form and be better suited to the street. The street was a growth zone that consisted of mostly single level houses, most of which have since been demolished and turned into big apartment buildings.

The council also said that they'd like us to follow a more Sydney type design because eventually that is what will be in Melbourne anyway. This was about 4 or 5 years ago and we had no reason to do so.

We ticked all the boxes, had a gun town planner and architect that knew the council well, went through the process of nodding and smiling but also pushing back when needed. We got the permit, did what the rules allowed us to and got through at mediation when council realised they had no legs to stand on.

Have a plan from the beginning, go to pre-ap to test the waters and try to sell what you want to do. Some councils are open for business, others say no to everything and protect their asses because they know every 2nd house is a developer/lawyer/doctor/cashed up retiree who can afford to kick up a fuss if anyone dares to develop near them.

 

I'd like to make a point though - the comment re council not being answerable to anyone - they actually are but it's the fault of everyone who doesn't participate in local govt elections (usually over half the eligible voters).

The results of a local yovt with good, proactive councillors and mayor vs one filled with meandering buffoons is significant and planning is one of the areas most noticably affected imo

 

Pre-lodgements can occasionally be useful, where you are trying to determine a possible position/interpretation of one aspect.

The big problem is in council is that they just don't talk between sections.

We have spent the best part of 18months in DA and then P&E Court fighting over stormwater/flooding issues for a 20 odd lot land development, no issues would have even exist except council completely ignored their own plan and requirements for the neighbouring block. Our engineers had it resolved prior to lodging the application. Council at the DA stage didn't like it and we spent an enormous amount of time and money in court coming to a resolution that we didn't greatly like but was palatable enough.

NOW, my client goes to the operational works application stage to get the earthworks and drainage approved, council's operational works team then says who the hell approved this, we hate the proposals you have put forward, they are based on computer modelling but we know the area and that won't work in practice. They then propose basically the same outcome that our engineers put in with the application 18 months ago. BUT the changes require a permissible change application to be lodged in court, so we are back off there again.

How is that for a huge pointless waste of money and time.

 

That would be so infuriating it's not even funny. The incompetence of councils never fails to amaze me. I could say more but my post would be deleted then. nuff said.

 

Seen that plenty of times... Need an easement for drainage and some goose has approved the stormwater from the highest point on the site.

 

In Brisbane, the Council now routinely reject anything they don't like without any regard to the City Plan 2014, rather it is just based on the arbitrary opinion of the assessor. There does not seem to be any rhyme nor reason why some get through and others don't except for a different assessor. It seems that getting rejected and going to Court is becoming the norm and that most of the appeals are resolved at a mediation which occurs within a few months of filing. It looks like I am off to Court for the second time in a row next month. Sad but true.
RPI - that story about the stormwater is enough to make a grown man cry. Ridiculous.

 

Spot on. The other aspect is that the council seems to consider the acceptable outcomes as to be the only outcome and you can't offer a performance solution. This goes against the whole intent of the scheme.

It is so common that we do the appeals on a fixed priced basis now, at least up to end of mediation stage. Our cost and barrister cost is that predictable.

 

Yes, RPI they do not appear to appreciate that it is a performance based scheme and when they do reluctantly recognise that fact they have this idea that you only 'get' so many performance based outcomes and that you must 'pay' for them by making changes elsewhere.

I saw one the other day where they made a developer change their whole development to protect a large tree in the back yard which was in no way protected under local law and could lawfully be removed at any time.

They are a law unto themselves and really need to be reined in but, of course, the council has got no desire to be seen as friendly to developers so it is unlikely to happen any time soon.