Here are two VCAT decisions that involve the BMO and bushfire protection, one in which I was involved in 2013 and a more recent decision that has come to my attention.
In both cases people were wanting to build a home on their land and had much to lose. Would the two examples meet a fairness test or would they fit a definition of 'kangaroo court'?
If you have an opinion feel free to express it in the comments provision at the foot of this posting.
If people own their blocks and bought in good faith with the intention of being able to build they should be able to (given reasonable conditions, including being able to clear vegetation from near the building). If they are paying rates to a Shire surely there is a contract that they can use the block for its intended purpose. If they can't then the Shire needs to look at compensating them.
ReplyDeleteI have not fully studied the VCAT outcomes, but looking at excuses why the recent Eltham application should not go ahead, and applying these excuses to other parts of outer Melbourne, I would envisage many current homes would not have been built. There seems no consistency in building regulations in Victoria. It seems to be at the whim of councillors and council officers ideologies.
ReplyDeleteI have briefly read the two judgements and examined the locations on both plan and aerial maps. It would appear to be clear that both properties already have adjacent homes and buildings nearby. So in effect, what these two decisions are is a new prohibition on building in bush areas. Is this now a formal or even de-facto government policy in which the CFA now seems to be having quite a say? It looks as if the rights of landowners are now to be even further infringed, and more people forced to be squeezed into the cities where they can be more closely 'monitored'. These developments are quite concerning and indicative of even greater 'big brother' interference in the lives of ordinary people trying to go about their own business.
ReplyDelete