By Cam Lucadou-Wells
Greater Dandenong’s planning director says he’s puzzled by a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal member’s description of the council’s advocacy as “fairly muted”.
VCAT senior member Philip Martin had coined the term while approving a six double-storey townhouse proposal at 39 Ellt Crescent Noble Park on 9 July.
Mr Martin had waived the need for even one on-site visitor car space, noting the council was “fairly muted” on the issue.
“There was no convincing evidence put to me at the hearing that this local area is facing any particular on-street car parking pressures.”
City planning director Jody Bosman told a council meeting on 22 July that “I can’t say I agree with the Member’s turn of phrase”.
He said the council was represented by lawyers arguing “all of the grounds for refusal” including over-development, neighbourhood character and “the missing visitor car parking”.
Mr Bosman conceded the council did not present expert evidence such as from a traffic engineer.
“But it certainly formed part of our position and I believe it was argued by our lawyer.
“We still put forward the argument that this reduction would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.”
He added that he wished the council could win every case at VCAT.
“Sometimes the decisions at VCAT leave us non-plussed and sometimes the language used is equally puzzling,” Mr Bosman said.
Cr Matthew Kirwan said he found the situation “very disappointing”.
“This is a key aspect our lawyer should have argued as it was the key concern from councillors at the time.
“This development was not near Noble Park Railway Station – it is in an area with little public transport. It also had one more townhouse than what was needed to trigger a visitor car space.
“I am now concerned whether this occurs in other cases of councillors rejecting applications on the basis of visitor parking.”
In a report in September, council planners said the reduction of one visitor car space was acceptable due to five adjacent on-street car spaces.
Councillors then unanimously rejected the planners’ recommendation to approve the project.
