An article regarding the 6 Paine St development has just been published in the Hobsons Bay Weekly.

It’s an excellent article highlighting how residents around the development reacted to the developer’s letter.

Just a note on the article, we trust readers understand surrounding residents are not opposing the option of social housing, residents are concerned about these key issues:

1. The ridiculous size and physical impact of the development regardless of it being private housing, social housing, or anything else. Any proposal should at least be sympathetic to heritage overlay zoning and comply with Council’s development guidelines.
2. Peter Cahill (the developer) using a much larger alternate proposal to concern residents into being more receptive of his preferred plan.

Article and picture below.. or go to the article at the Hobsons Bay Weekly website.

NEWPORT residents say they feel “blackmailed” by a developer’s letter which “threatens” the neighbourhood with a social housing scheme unless they approve of his ‘designer’ apartments.

As reported by the Weekly in April, plans for a three-storey, 42-dwelling apartment block at the former Newport timber yard were rejected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

More than 80 objections had been lodged with Hobsons Bay Council against the proposal for a black, cement-sheet apartment block.

In a letter dated July 21, Domain Hill Property Group managing director Peter Cahill states that if residents do not accept his new designs, a four-storey, 136-dwelling social housing complex could be built without council approval.

Mr Cahill states that a number of local residents are concerned about the site being potentially developed for social housing.

“Whilst I am prepared to be open and transparent that social housing is a legitimate alternative for us, I wish to emphasise it is not our preferred option,” he writes. “A social housing scheme of 136 apartments over four levels has been designed for the site and presented to us.

“The social housing option – which would normally be approved direct though the state government and not via council – does not preclude us from submitting a separate and independent planning application to council for upmarket designer townhouses.”

Resident Anthony Simmons said many viewed the letter as an ultimatum. “He seems to be threatening or trying to blackmail people. [Residents] think it’s quite an underhanded approach and not going through proper process. We’re feeling a bit under threat.”

Resident John Laurie said Mr Cahill was threatening the neighbourhood with a four-storey social housing scheme unless they accepted his so-called ‘designer’ apartments.

“Threatening the residents of Newport to get what you want doesn’t seem too ethical – or sensible – to me,” he said.

Williamstown MP Wade Noonan labelled the letter “bizarre”.

“I think the developer is adopting a rather dubious approach to this site. Having lost at VCAT earlier this year, the developer now seems to be saying that if they don’t get their way they may move to a plan-B social housing option – it’s quite bizarre.

“The other thing to be said here is that the developer is not correct when they say that a social housing application would normally be approved directly by the state government and not via the council.

“This process was only in place during the global financial crisis to support the Commonwealth government’s stimulus package. To that extent the developer is misleading the public.”

Mr Cahill told the Weekly that while a social housing project would probably be more profitable for him, his preference was for upmarket townhouses.

He denied his letter was a threat and said that Mr Noonan was wrong, based on professional advice received.

“I can’t control how someone can interpret something, nor can I control people’s emotions,” he said of his letter.

“All I can do is be transparent and outline the facts.

“As I stated in my letter, my preference is to proceed with an upmarket townhouse project – not sure I could have made it any clearer.

“My aim was to avoid any confusion so that people do not misinterpret our new planning application.”

Hi,

VCAT have made their decision to uphold the councils refusal for a permit, in orther words refuse the application.

Below is a copy of the email from VCAT, and attached is the decision document.

—————————————————————————–

APPLICATION CONCERNING: 6 Paine Street NEWPORT  VIC  3015

I refer to the above application and attach a copy of VCAT’s final decision in this matter.  The copy is a Microsoft Word document.

If you require a hard copy of this order please email VCAT and it will be posted to you.

THE EFFECT OF THIS DECISION

This decision is final and binding unless it is set aside by the Supreme Court, or the order is corrected, revoked or varied under the provisions of s. 119 or 120 of the VCAT Act 1998.

In coming to its decision the Tribunal has made a finding on the issues before it. It has no power to review or reconsider or alter this finding once the decision is published.  Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Tribunal to enter into correspondence with parties as to the issues presented before it and the merits of the decision.

Should you wish to challenge the decision, you should consider obtaining legal advice as to your rights in the circumstances.  This should be done promptly as an appeal to the Supreme Court must be lodged within 28 days of this decision.  The Tribunal is unable to enter into correspondence in relation to issues or evidence subject of this decision.

PLEASE NOTE

Most Planning & Environment List decisions are also available via our website (www.vcat.vic.gov.au) which has a link to take you to the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s website (AustLII) where records of the decisions are stored and may be accessed.

Decisions should appear on AustLII within 14 days after the decision is posted.  We suggest you use the Recent Updates List function on AustLII to find recently released cases.

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL

If you have any concern about the authenticity of this email, please contact VCAT for confirmation.

Yours faithfully

Nick Tsirakidis
Acting Registrar
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

REPORT (click link): P3214 2010 Peter Cahill v Hobsons Bay CC _DC RD 100311_-1

Following Council’s refusal of the developer’s proposal, the developer has submitted an appeal to VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal).

Please read this summary of recent correspondence and make sure you read the IMPORTANT section at bottom of this post.

Everyone who objected to the development will have by now received a letter and attachments posted to them from the developers solicitor Best Hooper. Here is an extract from the letter…

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re:    Permit Applicant: Peter Cahill
VCAT Reference No. P3214/2010
Subject Land: 6 Paine Street, Newport
Planning Permit Application No. PA1020902

We act for the permit application in the above matter.

As directed by the Tribunal, we enclose by way of service the following:

(a)    copy Application for Review against a failure to grant a planning permit within the prescribed time;
(b)    Information form (A); and
(c)    Statement of Grounds form (B).

Please be advised this matter has been listed in the Major Cases List and the following dates have been allocated:-

Yours faithfully
BEST HOOPER

John Cicero
Principal

Enclosed with the above letter is a copy of the developers solicitors’ application letter to VCAT, and the application form. It is important to note that the applicant has three reasons to select from as the basis for requesting a VCAT review:

[X] Failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time (section 79)
[  ] Refusal to grant a planning permit or an amendment to a planning permit (section 77)
[  ] Conditions in a permit (section 80)

The application has chosen “Failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time“, and documented the timeframe calculations (enclosed Reference 1) where they reflect Council took too long to grant/refuse the permit. Also enclosed is a copy of the applicants planning permit (Reference 2).

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Although the developer is appealing to VCAT on the basis of the timeframe it took Council to review the planning application, (according to VCAT) VCAT could hear and consider the entire application. You will notice in the developers appeal form to VCAT (section 8 Hearing conduct, time and complexity) they have request VCAT mediation and estimate they will take 8 hours to make their submission, and will bring 6 expert witnesses to the VCAT sessions. So it would appear the developer is not simply preparing to talk about more than just timeframe issues.

Shortly will follow another post on this website outlining the next steps objectors should take. Which will include the critical step of completing in triplicate and submitting the Statement of Grounds (Form B) as soon as possible. And we will be requesting volunteers to assist objectors with that task via photocopying and posting assistance.

Also being considered is a call for volunteers to speak at these hearings on behalf of groups of residents, as its a difficult time for objectors to turn up in person this time of year.