Yarra Council this week decided against appealing to the Supreme Court over a VCAT ruling to grant a permit to redevelop the much loved Dimmey’s building with a 10 storey, green, oval shaped glass tower.
Greens councillors have objected all along to the inappropriate redevelopment of this historic and iconic building but after careful consideration we could not agree to a Supreme Court action.
We were advised there was virtually no chance of success on legal grounds, the only basis we could appeal. Any appeal would have cost up to a hundred thousand of dollars and so we felt this would not be a responsible use of ratepayers’ money.
We received many emails and phone calls urging us to pursue an appeal, and parallels were drawn between our fight with Vicroads over Clearways, and the Port Phillip council’s final rejection of the development on the St Kilda Triangle.
They are very different cases.
Port Philip council had actually approved the St Kilda Triangle development and issued a permit. They had to pay $5million, not to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, but to get out of an agreement they had actually made with the developer.
Yarra Council rejected the Dimmey’s proposal. We fought a case in VCAT with senior legal representatives and lost. That case has already cost a lot of money, well spent though it was.
Yarra Council challenged the extension of Clearway times in the Supreme Court because we had not been adequately consulted on these changes. There was no process where we could have meaningful input into this decision and so a Supreme Court challenge was our way, the only way we had, of trying to change a bad decision. The Greens strongly backed that action.
The Dimmey’s proposal, on the other hand, was subject to a proper council planning process and we rejected it. It was also subject to a Heritage Victoria process – we objected on heritage grounds, but Heritage Victoria supported it. Our planning refusal was challenged at VCAT and we fought that case vigorously . We lost.
The Greens’ position has been clear and strong all along – we do not support this development. It is too large and out of character with the predominantly low rise Victoria streetscape of Swan Street. However other state-based bodies – Heritage Victoria and VCAT – have overruled us despite our legal representation. If there was a legal case still to be fought at the Supreme Court we would have. But there isn’t.
There are clearly problems with the State Planning Framework when the character of Swan Street is considered irrelevant because it is a Major Activity Centre with good public transport, and when state policy is interpreted as requiring buildings that are very large and very different from existing buildings in all Major Activity Centres. This framework allows a development such as this tower to dominate and detract from the increasingly rare and precious Victoria streetscape found in Swan Street . It’s these planning provisions that need to change if we are to prevent inappropriate developments in heritage shopping strips in the future.
