courtneyeastgippsland.com

Quick note with more to come.

Not technically perfect but good enough for the moment

East Gippsland Shire Council decided to grant a permit for a multi level building at Lakes Entrance.

One objector, Ms L Taip, took the matter to appeal at VCAT.

East Gippsland Management Authority then obtained leave to object on the basis of flooding and sea level rising due to climate change.

Slightly revised plans submitted and objector, Ms L Taip withdrew her objection.

EGCMA later withdrew the objection based on climate change and rising sea levels but continued to object on the basis of flooding.

VCAT Member, Ian Potts made the decision to refuse the permit.

Without telling anyone and although no one was objecting on the basis of climate change or rising sea levels, Ian Potts decided he would include these factors in making his decision.

Reasons for the decision shown below:

CONCLUSIONS

1. This development would intensify the land use of this site and introduce a higher level of hazard and risks to future users of the site and emergency personnel. This is not an orderly planning outcome.
2. It is a premature development that has been made without a full and proper consideration of the risks and hazards from sea level rise and other climate change impacts and how those risks and hazards are to be addressed. This also is not an orderly planning outcome.
3. While it is recognised that the Council has gone to considerable lengths to develop a planning framework for the future urban development of Lakes Entrance (and other settlements in the shire) it has done so in the face of shifting policy imperatives driven by an increasing understanding of the vulnerability of Lakes Entrance to climate change impacts. It has failed to take account of these shifts. The development of this urban design framework has been overtaken by events that will have major influences on future development of Lakes Entrance and more widely the current and future community. The Council has chosen to ignore these events and defer decision making that it is charged by the State to undertake.
4. Such decision making is difficult. Being difficult is not a sufficient reason to defer it. There are severe and long term consequences from the impacts of climate changes that are required to be addressed now. State planning policy directs planning and responsible authorities to do so. The Council however is not required to ‘go it alone’. The Water Minister’s direction to the CMA similarly directs it to assess and respond to planning decisions now. The Council and the CMA are to work together to address these issues now and eventually no doubt integrate with whatever statewide responses develop in the not too distant future.
5. The decision to grant a permit for this proposal would be to ignore these imperatives and fail to address the level of long term impact and poor planning outcomes that will arise from its vulnerability to the sea level rise and climate change impacts.
6. I conclude that a permit should not issue. Accordingly I will direct that the Responsible Authority’s decision be set aside and no permit will be granted.

What was John Brumby’s response to the complaints it would have a detrimental effect on development in coastal areas.

John Brumby said the decision had nothing to do with rising sea levels but was based on flooding.

Is John Brumby stupid or simply attempting to mislead the Victoria voters before an election.

If John Brumby can’t count, for his benefit we advise that in the above conclusion of Ian Potts the words rising sea level and climate change are mentioned as the factors on SIX occasions and the word flooding is not mentioned once.