Market plans doubt

THE $15 million Dandenong Market redevelopment and ALDI supermarket are in doubt after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal requested more detailed plans from the City of Greater Dandenong.
The tribunal’s decision to defer could put the projects back until after the next elections in November, when a new council could decide to abandon the plans.
But acting CEO Mal Baker said he was confident the redevelopment would go ahead, despite the setback.
“The council’s decision on the development was clear, if not unanimous. The development is consistent with council policy, but it’s a possibility (the project won’t go ahead).”
He also said the delays could inflate the costs of the building contracts.
“The redevelopment was always going to be subject to a permit, but this will put the process back, possibly as far as Christmas.
“If it goes that far, it could cost an additional $100,000, probably more.”
The Dandenong Residents and Ratepayers Association took the council to VCAT about its market plans.
Association president Jim Houlihan said the plans were poorly considered and underconsulted.
“It came as no surprise council had failed to provide sufficient and properly prepared material to enable VCAT to reach a final decision.
“Council’s apparent inefficient bungling at the market redevelopment hearing is reminiscent of the other recent wasteful and embarrassing episode of Greater Dandenong versus the City of Casey at VCAT, in which Greater Dandenong was humiliatingly defeated.”
Mr Houlihan said VCAT’s ruling justified the association’s concerns about the market plans.
In its findings, the tribunal said the general public would benefit greatly if an overall concept plan were prepared to guide the future development of the site.
“We believe that, as a matter of municipal prudence, a plan that guides future decision making would obviate many uncertainties that otherwise are bound to occur.”
The tribunal also said its decision provided the council with an opportunity to rectify the shortcomings in the designs of the plans.
“This will enable the Tribunal to further review the proposal. It does not mean that a permit would be granted as a matter of course.”
Mr Baker said the VCAT ruling was not surprising.
“We have been asked to supply more information, which was what we expected.
“The plans for the original application lodged on 28 February were changed, which meant the application became out of date.”