VCAT Hearings and How to Lodge an Appeal

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is an independent body responsible for hearing any appeal relating to planning permits and the enforcement of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme (eg enforcement orders). Hearings are listed under the Planning and Environment section of VCAT. The State Government appoints VCAT members to hear appeals, who are qualified planners and specialists in related fields.

Anyone involved in a permit application, including the applicant and objectors, can lodge an application to VCAT if they are unhappy with our decision. Such applications are referred to as an "Application for Review". A fee is payable when an application is lodged.

Lodging an appeal is a very serious matter that must be considered carefully as it involves a lot of time and expense on behalf of all other parties involved in the application or case. Once an application has been made to VCAT for review, it can only withdrawn in agreement with VCAT.

What happens at an appeal hearing?

All VCAT hearings are open to the public and are held at 55 King Street, Melbourne. All of the parties involved in the application or enforcement issue make a verbal and written submission to the Tribunal. It is common for people to make their own presentation to the Tribunal.

Lawyers or consultants are often hired to act on behalf of various parties, particularly if the matter is a complex one. Sometimes other experts are also hired as witnesses to provide specialist input, for example a heritage specialist or a landscape architect. During the hearing other parties can choose to cross examin those have made a verbal submission.

Once hearing all of the submissions the Tribunal then adjourns to consider the information put to it. Usually the member(s) also visit the site. A written decision is then issued, which is based on the proposal's planning merits. As part of the decision, the Tribunal will direct Council to take a certain course of action. Council must implement this action.

Below is the recommendation of Shire Officers with regards to this development:

RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision for the approval of Planning Application

YR-2011/647–1529,1529A, 1531 and 1533 Burwood Highway, Tecoma for buildings and

works associated with a convenience restaurant, including acoustic boundary fence,

creation and removal of easements, variation to existing easements, erection of associated

signage including internally illuminated signage and removal of vegetation subject to the

following conditions ...

Council went against its own Officer Recemmendation on this Development.

I guessed this would of happened in an earlier post on this topic.

No wonder the development was approved by the State on appeal.

It is interest to not that a Supermarket was earlier approved on this site by Council but the approval was revoked by VCAT on appeal.

This be worth a read http://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/files/c8e337f0-4784-4925-a2f4-9f7201122ce3/11-10-11Item8-1.pdf

and

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1539.html

See my responses above.

I would say the people who have formed into a collective are the small people, the ones who really feel powerless in the face of state laws passed to bypass such numbers of locals wishes.

... its a bit like the law in the United States, where they have the right to bear arms, cast into their constitution.. that is LAW as well, & the Arms Bearers don't want to see the better community way.

So your on the side of money & I'm on the side of Love. & of the communities welfare.

so be it.

.

VCAT Hearings and How to Lodge an Appeal

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is an independent body responsible for hearing any appeal relating to planning permits and the enforcement of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme (eg enforcement orders). Hearings are listed under the Planning and Environment section of VCAT. The State Government appoints VCAT members to hear appeals, who are qualified planners and specialists in related fields.

Anyone involved in a permit application, including the applicant and objectors, can lodge an application to VCAT if they are unhappy with our decision. Such applications are referred to as an "Application for Review". A fee is payable when an application is lodged.

Lodging an appeal is a very serious matter that must be considered carefully as it involves a lot of time and expense on behalf of all other parties involved in the application or case. Once an application has been made to VCAT for review, it can only withdrawn in agreement with VCAT.

What happens at an appeal hearing?

All VCAT hearings are open to the public and are held at 55 King Street, Melbourne. All of the parties involved in the application or enforcement issue make a verbal and written submission to the Tribunal. It is common for people to make their own presentation to the Tribunal.

Lawyers or consultants are often hired to act on behalf of various parties, particularly if the matter is a complex one. Sometimes other experts are also hired as witnesses to provide specialist input, for example a heritage specialist or a landscape architect. During the hearing other parties can choose to cross examin those have made a verbal submission.

Once hearing all of the submissions the Tribunal then adjourns to consider the information put to it. Usually the member(s) also visit the site. A written decision is then issued, which is based on the proposal's planning merits. As part of the decision, the Tribunal will direct Council to take a certain course of action. Council must implement this action.

You just keep talking like the LAW is right, & thats the end of it, but LAWS are only right for those who it best serves. quite often they are wrong, yet still get upheld.

what is the point of laws allowing foreigners to buy our farms, & could hypothetically take all the produce offshore, while we starve?

laws are temporary & are put in place usually to represent the current powers thinking. currently the west is in the midst of a major materialism.

I would say the people who have formed into a collective are the small people, the ones who really feel powerless in the face of state laws passed to bypass such numbers of locals wishes.

... its a bit like the law in the United States, where they have the right to bear arms, cast into their constitution.. that is LAW as well, & the Arms Bearers don't want to see the better community way.

So your on the side of money & I'm on the side of Love. & of the communities welfare.

so be it.

.

No not at all.

IMO its the process that is important part of this issue.

I really don't care if this particular development goes ahead or not. But I also can not sit back and let clearly bias and unworkable planning systems go unchallenged.

Planning and Development can't simple be approved or rejected by having a popularity contest as this system simple will not be workable for obvious reasons.

There needs to be a fair and equitable system for all parties which includes the land owner and local community.

In this particular case if the community which includes people who pass though the area, truely do not support this development then the store will have very few customers and be forced to close.

IMO there is a small group which is well organised leading this protest which is there right. However once the legal process are completed which happened when the VCAT made its decision this groups actions become harrassment and bullying which IMO is unacceptable.

The simple fact is the community has had the opportunity for input in this process via the development and amendment of their local Town Planning Scheme etc and also when the Development application was considered by their Council. They also gave a presentation to the VCAT to present their case for rejecting the development. Just because the outcome was not in their favour does not mean the local community did not have a voice in this process.

I don't know if you noticed but the local Shire did not even send someone to the VCAT to defend their Council's decision. IMO this is because they know their Council's decision was not based of the fact or acceptable planning consideration so their decision was also going to be over turned on appeal and they know it. Therefore you can not blame VCAT for doing their job of independantly assessing the decision of the Council and find that an approval should have been issued, thereby making a ruling to over turned the Council's decision.

The comments about loss small family businesses may or may not be correct. But a development of this nature will draw more people to the community which the local businesses would have an opportunity to take advantage of and therefore actual make more money. Only a fast food business or coffee shop would be at risk from this development but if they focus on customer service and making their business better the MacDonald's shop they too can prosper. If however the local business people just want the easy dollar without providing a good product or level of service then they may well be forced to close their doors.

You are as always, entitled to your opinions and so am I, so lets agree to disagree on this one.

Go the Dees!

No not at all.

IMO its the process that is important part of this issue.

I really don't care if this particular development goes ahead or not. But I also can not sit back and let clearly bias and unworkable planning systems go unchallenged.

Planning and Development can't simple be approved or rejected by having a popularity contest as this system simple will not be workable for obvious reasons.

There needs to be a fair and equitable system for all parties which includes the land owner and local community.

In this particular case if the community which includes people who pass though the area, truely do not support this development then the store will have very few customers and be forced to close.

IMO there is a small group which is well organised leading this protest which is there right. However once the legal process are completed which happened when the VCAT made its decision this groups actions become harrassment and bullying which IMO is unacceptable.

The simple fact is the community has had the opportunity for input in this process via the development and amendment of their local Town Planning Scheme etc and also when the Development application was considered by their Council. They also gave a presentation to the VCAT to present their case for rejecting the development. Just because the outcome was not in their favour does not mean the local community did not have a voice in this process.

I don't know if you noticed but the local Shire did not even send someone to the VCAT to defend their Council's decision. IMO this is because they know their Council's decision was not based of the fact or acceptable planning consideration so their decision was also going to be over turned on appeal and they know it. Therefore you can not blame VCAT for doing their job of independantly assessing the decision of the Council and find that an approval should have been issued, thereby making a ruling to over turned the Council's decision.

The comments about loss small family businesses may or may not be correct. But a development of this nature will draw more people to the community which the local businesses would have an opportunity to take advantage of and therefore actual make more money. Only a fast food business or coffee shop would be at risk from this development but if they focus on customer service and making their business better the MacDonald's shop they too can prosper. If however the local business people just want the easy dollar without providing a good product or level of service then they may well be forced to close their doors.

You are as always, entitled to your opinions and so am I, so lets agree to disagree on this one.

Go the Dees!

its the bias here that is in question in my mind... the past recent state governments have put the power into the hands of the wealthy, over the communities.

IMO it should be 60/40 biased in the communities favour.

its the bias here that is in question in my mind... the past recent state governments have put the power into the hands of the wealthy, over the communities.

IMO it should be 60/40 biased in the communities favour.

What has your State done?

And how do you see a fairer system working?

What has your State done?

And how do you see a fairer system working?

there should be more power in the democratic numbers of a community, over & above the law of Vcat. the power of Veto, if say 40% of a community are steadfastly against a development, then the community should be able to Veto the proposal.

Vcat should stay, but there should be a power of Veto if there is more than 40% publicly & openly against any proposal or Vcat judgement.

...... this would then put the ball back into the developers hands to either quit, or come back to the community with suitable arrangements.

any proposal that isn't openly welcomed by a vast majority of a community (village) or town,,, then the proposal should not proceed. this would make developments more community sympathetic, & the communities more harmonious with people feeling more empowered in their home towns.

I don't know how this may work in the suburbs? where so much amenity is already degraded. & not user friendly.

there should be more power in the democratic numbers of a community, over & above the law of Vcat. the power of Veto, if say 40% of a community are steadfastly against a development, then the community should be able to Veto the proposal.

Vcat should stay, but there should be a power of Veto if there is more than 40% publicly & openly against any proposal or Vcat judgement.

...... this would then put the ball back into the developers hands to either quit, or come back to the community with suitable arrangements.

any proposal that isn't openly welcomed by a vast majority of a community (village) or town,,, then the proposal should not proceed. this would make developments more community sympathetic, & the communities more harmonious with people feeling more empowered in their home towns.

I don't know how this may work in the suburbs? where so much amenity is already degraded. & not user friendly.

There would be a number of practical issues with this type of arrangement.

First if a land owner is unable to develop their property due to a veto system and the development would have been otherwise acceptable, then they would be due compensation.

Who would then be required to pay the compensation? Would it be the State, Local Government or the local community who Vetoed the development.

A system like this could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to run.

You need to remember the land owner has a legal right to compensation if the State or Local Government changed the zoning or land usage requirements which results in a property valuation decrease.

Another is could be the anti completive nature of such legislation. Would a Hungry Jacks Store be more acceptable than a MacDonald's store? If so, I could see business using this legislation to stop competition in their area. I would assume this would not be your intention with this legislation.

Also development could be approved or stopped if certain bribes are or are not paid to officials or influential community members. IMO people can be stirred up to support causes that they otherwise may not support if fair, honest and reasonable discussions take place first. So this could easily happen.

Who is the community that has a Veto rights and how many votes does someone get? Does some with a number of properties get to vote more then once, Do you need to be next door to the development to vote or hundreds of km away?

I understand what you want to achieve but trust me or that will happen is less development in country areas due to increase in costs and red tape.

TBH a system that has a Veto in it scares me due to the obvious flaws it would have.

It much better to have people participate in the current system then to not get involved but later complain that someone is doing something they don't like , at a later date.

I did not a mistake earlier in one of my comments above, the developer was/is MacDonald's.

Also it should be stated that development like this one actually increase economic activity in the area, so the comments of loss of business is not actually true,

I live near Tecoma. Most people are dead against the maccas across the road from a school. And Rory Sloane tweeted support earlier in the year for the protest.

I live near Tecoma. Most people are dead against the maccas across the road from a school. And Rory Sloane tweeted support earlier in the year for the protest.

So I assume their concerns are health based then?

That the town like? Does it have a number of shops?

Would a Maccs.s store look out of place there?

I live near Tecoma. Most people are dead against the maccas across the road from a school. And Rory Sloane tweeted support earlier in the year for the protest.

lol norm - everything in the town of tecoma is "across the road" including the fish'n'chips shop

lol norm - everything in the town of tecoma is "across the road" including the fish'n'chips shop

So it can not be about health issues then?

It is surprising that a Maccas would be opened in a community of only 2,000. There must be alot of passing traffic

there is a lot of passing traffic

it is a tourist area

there are a lot of other communities (villages) nearby

You have to be kidding me!

I see the orange coloured Fish and Chips Shop which also sells Suchi, coffee and steak sandwiches.

Which is not far from the Mini Mart that sells beer, cigarettes and tobacco, sweets etc.

Many of the building don't look that old and appear to be built in the 80's

So let me see if I got this right its okay for the children to drink beer, smoke cigarettes. eat fish and chips. But they are not allowed to eat Macca's.

Love the fact the Macca's store is planned to be next to a major road. Not sure if the locals think this development will down grade the vision of the road. Or could it be that attractive car wash the so want to protect?

The Victorian Police Force should raid this Town as the residents must be on more drugs than a WCE ice party.

These protestors are complaining about a shop that going to sell similar foods to what can already be purchased from business in the street.

You have to be kidding me!

I see the orange coloured Fish and Chips Shop which also sells Suchi, coffee and steak sandwiches.

Which is not far from the Mini Mart that sells beer, cigarettes and tobacco, sweets etc.

Many of the building don't look that old and appear to be built in the 80's

So let me see if I got this right its okay for the children to drink beer, smoke cigarettes. eat fish and chips. But they are not allowed to eat Macca's.

Love the fact the Macca's store is planned to be next to a major road. Not sure if the locals think this development will down grade the vision of the road. Or could it be that attractive car wash the so want to protect?

The Victorian Police Force should raid this Town as the residents must be on more drugs than a WCE ice party.

These protestors are complaining about a shop that going to sell similar foods to what can already be purchased from business in the street.

frog do you hear yourself?

your implying that the people suck eggs, that because they don't won't a multi-national org coming in a soaking up most of revenues from local family businesses, spread take away wrappers thru out the region & have the advertising dominate the streetscape & values, let alone the poor health regime advertised directly at children & adolescents, that they should just bow down to the cyurrenyt law of the time..

the LAW is God.

but the laws are supposed to represent the people, but somehow the people bow to the law?

frog do you hear yourself?

your implying that the people suck eggs, that because they don't won't a multi-national org coming in a soaking up most of revenues from local family businesses, spread take away wrappers thru out the region & have the advertising dominate the streetscape & values, let alone the poor health regime advertised directly at children & adolescents, that they should just bow down to the cyurrenyt law of the time..

the LAW is God.

but the laws are supposed to represent the people, but somehow the people bow to the law?

so if they don't soak up any revenue, sell goods without wrappers and don't advertise they would be ok in tecoma in a business zoned part of town

sounds more like just an anti maccas campaign to me and nothing to do with zoning regulations

(and i don't eat maccas because i can exercise my right to choice)

frog do you hear yourself?

your implying that the people suck eggs, that because they don't won't a multi-national org coming in a soaking up most of revenues from local family businesses, spread take away wrappers thru out the region & have the advertising dominate the streetscape & values, let alone the poor health regime advertised directly at children & adolescents, that they should just bow down to the cyurrenyt law of the time..

the LAW is God.

but the laws are supposed to represent the people, but somehow the people bow to the law?

But the Maccas store is owned and operated by a Local Businessman, so it is a local business.

As the Town Planner at work told me the other day business like this actual create more economic activity in the area. So the truth is local business will actual prosper from such a development. But it is true some may be disadvantaged but overall there will be more employment and profits for the local community.

I did look yesterday on Google Maps to see what the Town actually looked like, just to see if the Store would impact on heritage of ecstatics etc. IMO that not an issue at all the store would be suitable in the location proposed.

There also would be no major impact on the Townscape of the area when this development takes place as there are a number of tacky looking buildings and structures already there. After seeing the actual town IMO there is no rational reason not to let this development go ahead subject to certain conditions etc. Clearly people are running with their own personal agendas here!

However I always suspected the objects was based on self interest and the bias of a small group that actually convinced the majority to support their view. Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if its based on such views.

Based on the Local Governments own zoning and Town Planning Scheme this legal right to reject it. Therefore VCAT was only enforcing the Councils own planning laws. This is hardly the State imposing its views on a small local community.

The Town planning can be changed to stop future development but this may require the local Council to compensate affected land owners which could cost millions.

A system of Veto will not work and IMO cause 1000 times more issues/problems then this one.

Having worked in a number of country Local Governments around WA I feel I have a good understanding of local issues.

IMO there is two group types of people trying to stop this development. One trying to protect their own businesses and the other who may have left bigger towns/cities to have a quieter lifestyle. This second group IMO would have moved to the area within the last 5 to 10 years.

As previously stated I have no interest if the Maccas store is opened or not. This could have been an issue of a person being allowed to build a shed or wanting to open a private cemetery.

The rule of the Mob (Majority) can be a very dangerous thing.

It is easy to create an issue with lies, half truths etc. Look at what Hitler did in the 1930's and 40's or G W Bush Jnr did in his reign of Terror.

It can be so easy to get peoples passions running overtime on issues which can have major consequences. For example G W Bush using the 911 incident to invade Iraq which killed millions.

Imagine being accused of a crime and having to face everyone in the community who will determine your fate. This clearly would not be a fair trial.

If the court disregards the Law and convicts you simply because they think you are guilty and did not care if this could be proved or not. Then you would want a process of appeal / review.

The Law is what protects us in a society without it, the Law of the jungle would reign. The strong dominate the week etc.

Personally I want a system that is fair and equitable. Communities should have the opportunity to have a say, but if they don't, then they can only blame themselves if things happen that they do not like.

I found it interesting to read about Athens when every freeman could vote and have a say. Under that system it was only four years that they were not at war with some other people. Two Athenian Admirals was convicted by a mob and sentenced to death because some accrued them of letting some sailors drown. The accuser convinced others of their guilt.

You may say this will never happen but Mob mentality is unpredictable.

so if they don't soak up any revenue, sell goods without wrappers and don't advertise they would be ok in tecoma in a business zoned part of town

sounds more like just an anti maccas campaign to me and nothing to do with zoning regulations

(and i don't eat maccas because i can exercise my right to choice)

you see your all biased against communities. putting exploitation ahead of peoples lives, locals lives, & their right to decide their local environment. I would like to see someone try to open a backyard tattoo parlour across the road from your home.

the current balance of power is for exploitation, & its poisoned you minds. greed

you just don't dare think that money can't buy all.

money-power is your God.

But the Maccas store is owned and operated by a Local Businessman, so it is a local business.

As the Town Planner at work told me the other day business like this actual create more economic activity in the area. So the truth is local business will actual prosper from such a development. But it is true some may be disadvantaged but overall there will be more employment and profits for the local community.

I did look yesterday on Google Maps to see what the Town actually looked like, just to see if the Store would impact on heritage of ecstatics etc. IMO that not an issue at all the store would be suitable in the location proposed.

There also would be no major impact on the Townscape of the area when this development takes place as there are a number of tacky looking buildings and structures already there. After seeing the actual town IMO there is no rational reason not to let this development go ahead subject to certain conditions etc. Clearly people are running with their own personal agendas here!

However I always suspected the objects was based on self interest and the bias of a small group that actually convinced the majority to support their view. Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if its based on such views.

Based on the Local Governments own zoning and Town Planning Scheme this legal right to reject it. Therefore VCAT was only enforcing the Councils own planning laws. This is hardly the State imposing its views on a small local community.

The Town planning can be changed to stop future development but this may require the local Council to compensate affected land owners which could cost millions.

A system of Veto will not work and IMO cause 1000 times more issues/problems then this one.

Having worked in a number of country Local Governments around WA I feel I have a good understanding of local issues.

IMO there is two group types of people trying to stop this development. One trying to protect their own businesses and the other who may have left bigger towns/cities to have a quieter lifestyle. This second group IMO would have moved to the area within the last 5 to 10 years.

As previously stated I have no interest if the Maccas store is opened or not. This could have been an issue of a person being allowed to build a shed or wanting to open a private cemetery.

local, local he has 2 other maccas out of tecoma.

where does he live frog?

The rule of the Mob (Majority) can be a very dangerous thing.

It is easy to create an issue with lies, half truths etc. Look at what Hitler did in the 1930's and 40's or G W Bush Jnr did in his reign of Terror.

It can be so easy to get peoples passions running overtime on issues which can have major consequences. For example G W Bush using the 911 incident to invade Iraq which killed millions.

Imagine being accused of a crime and having to face everyone in the community who will determine your fate. This clearly would not be a fair trial.

If the court disregards the Law and convicts you simply because they think you are guilty and did not care if this could be proved or not. Then you would want a process of appeal / review.

The Law is what protects us in a society without it, the Law of the jungle would reign. The strong dominate the week etc.

Personally I want a system that is fair and equitable. Communities should have the opportunity to have a say, but if they don't, then they can only blame themselves if things happen that they do not like.

I found it interesting to read about Athens when every freeman could vote and have a say. Under that system it was only four years that they were not at war with some other people. Two Athenian Admirals was convicted by a mob and sentenced to death because some accrued them of letting some sailors drown. The accuser convinced others of their guilt.

You may say this will never happen but Mob mentality is unpredictable.

mob,,,,, the residents are now a mob! sheep, to be sean, to be sean

anything against financial development is a danger, & the homeowners should just shutup & sit down.... & let the clever people exploit everyone for all they're collective 'goods'. (pardon the pun) its intentional.

you see your all biased against communities. putting exploitation ahead of peoples lives, locals lives, & their right to decide their local environment. I would like to see someone try to open a backyard tattoo parlour across the road from your home.

the current balance of power is for exploitation, & its poisoned you minds. greed

you just don't dare think that money can't buy all.

money-power is your God.

nice try d-l but i live in a residential zoned area

and btw 1km away is a business zoned area which indeed does have a tattoo parlour

if i didn't see the sign on the shop door i wouldn't know it was there

do you want to see all the other tecoma fast food shops closed down too?

i really struggle to see your point

you see your all biased against communities. putting exploitation ahead of peoples lives, locals lives, & their right to decide their local environment. I would like to see someone try to open a backyard tattoo parlour across the road from your home.

the current balance of power is for exploitation, & its poisoned you minds. greed

you just don't dare think that money can't buy all.

money-power is your God.

No I support communities.

Its unfortunate but it appears you have completely missed the point of what I been trying to say here. As I live in a residential area therefore a Tattoo Parlour is not allowed to open up next door to me. That what zonings and Town Planning schemes are all about as they are designed to protect communities by allow appropriate developments/activities in specific areas only. Communities need residential, commercial, industrial , cultural, civic etc. areas set aside.

In this case however part of the community is the land owner who has a legal right to develop his land as long as its consistent with the zoning in which it is sited.

The community had an opportunity to have input into setting the Town Planning Scheme which included the zones etc.

It clearly that the community did not object to the zoning in this case as there appears to be a number of businesses offering similar foods for sale and no one objected to these stores operating in this area.

I even taken the time to look at the street and surrounding areas via Goog Maps. IMO a Maccas store would not be inconsistent with the other commercial buildings already there. In fact I would think it would improve the standards in the area by having a modern building there.

I believe in fairness to all and that would not happen if it was left to a majority vote with regards to this or any other development. As your are actually advocating to remove the land owners rights to use his own property without any compensation.

It appears to me most if not all the agreements against this development are based on BS (Made up issues or ones that can be managed).

How would you like it if you wanted to build a shed in your back yard which is a similar shed to every other property in the street but your neighbours hate you so they all object to you having this shed?

Another example is you wanted to start a fish and chip shop next door to another fish and chip shop, but the owner of that other store objected to your business, as they did not want the competition and the other owner is more popular in town.

No, my mind is clear here as I am well aware of this issues your system of popular vote on development issue will cause the communities etc.

They can be times when decisions have to be made for the good of the wider community e.g. where should potential offensive industries such as egg farms be located. Under your system they would likely not be allowed anywhere.

For the third or fourth time I must state this is not about the money or even if the Maccas store actually opens up. To me its about having a fair and equitable system for development.