Picture of Stephen Digby
Re: Some VCAT facts
by Stephen Digby - Friday, 22 February 2008, 12:01 PM
 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/22/1203467381768.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Something smelly

I SUSPECT Mark Bartley (Letters, 22/2) is correct about VCAT. But it only goes to show how biased are the planning policies and schemes and the operational constraints on VCAT. If you have a system of planning and review that consistently finds for people who want to change our living environment for their own financial gain and against the people who live in that environment, then the stench is considerable.  Christopher Monie, Ballarat

VCAT facts, mark II

MARK Bartley of Glen Iris responded (Letters, 21/2) to Jack Roach (Letters, 20/2) about serious flaws in the VCAT planning appeal processes. Jack and I represent Boroondara resident groups with great concern about loss of local amenity through inappropriate development. Mark Bartley needs to say who he represents. He is a partner with DLA Phillips Fox, often employed by the State Government and developers in cases with environmental impact.

Melbourne 2030 is laudable, but where is the implementation plan that acknowledges public transport deficiencies, time needed to change this and a fair process of change. Why are local community interests listened to but effectively ignored by VCAT? Economic reasons for change must be balanced by local community impact.

VCAT's legislated aim to be independent is being attacked by the ad hoc approach to planning decisions. To use Mark Bartley's words, proper consideration of large planning issues is not being achieved by VCAT. Robert Gray, East Hawthorn