Tourist park ruling slams shire

By Melissa Donchi
THE Shire of Yarra Ranges Council has been slammed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for its ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unlawful’ decision making process.
The Healesville Tourist Park appealed to VCAT after the council prevented the owners from making important business decisions on their property.
While shire spokesman James Martin described the appeal to VCAT as ‘a case of sour grapes’ the report described the council’s decision as ‘tinkering with figures in an arbitrary way’ as well as lacking ‘meaningful change’ and ‘tangible justification.’
The council granted a permit to the Healesville Tourist Park back in August but attached a number of conditions including, the deletion of four cabins and the relocation of a proposed recreation building from the front of the site to an adjacent area occupied by children’s playground equipment.
The tribunal ruled that these conditions served ‘no useful planning purpose’ and deleted them.
The tribunal also dismissed condition 1D in which the council decided that 25 per cent of the proposed cabins be fitted to accommodate persons with mobility issues as lacking ‘clarity’ and ‘certainty’ as well as claiming it unfairly imposed an arbitrary requirement.
“The 25 per cent figure is arbitrary. For example, why 25 per cent and not 10 per cent or 50 per cent?
“I am not suggesting that the provision of accommodation that is accessible to disabled persons is inappropriate,” the report stated.
“However, it is inappropriate that such requirements be imposed in an arbitrary, opportunistic way.”
Condition 18 set out by the council to restrict the duration of the stay of people accommodated at the park was deleted by VCAT, which ruled such a condition was illegal and in direct conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.
“The council considers the condition necessary to ensure that the park does not become a residential village,” the report stated. “I do not agree.”
Mr Martin said the council was disappointed by the VCAT ruling.
“It is our strong belief that the site’s isolation makes it inappropriate for increased housing as proposed by the applicant,” Mr Martin said.
“The council would much prefer a better mix of camping and caravanning facilities at the site, rather than potentially permanent dwellings.”
MAP consultant Vari Perez who worked with the Anderson’s on their application to council and VCAT said it was the council’s responsibility to see that all applications meet the local and state planning criteria.
“It’s also up to the council to make recommendations but these should have tangible planning justification and not be personal opinion or interpretation,” she said.
Healesville Tourist Park owners Kevin and Kim Anderson said the application should never have gone to VCAT.
“It was the personal opinion of people on the council rather than an application of the law which it should have been,” Mr Anderson said.
“It was an absolute waste of ratepayers’ money.”