I am writing to you regarding 65 The Grove.
Recently I read the update provided in issue 8, and I was greatly dismayed to hear that the developer has decided to pursue the council in VCAT. I wholeheartedly approve the Meddler’s principled coverage of the issue, as I have an long-standing and abiding love for the built heritage of my neighborhood, and vehemently oppose its despoliation.
Taking the words of the applicant’s representatives at face value, during the applicant’s possession of the property over the past two decades, he has allowed the house to deteriorate beyond the point of irrevocable damage. The subsequent proposal that he has submitted was enabled by and contingent on a council policy (see Clause 15.03-1L of the Moreland Planning Scheme) that housing in such a state should be demolished (rather than be reconstructed) and its replacement must make a positive contribution to the heritage of the precinct. It is also council policy that such buildings adopt innovative and contemporary designs. Hence if a house is derelict to the point of structural unsoundness, the policy encourages its demolition and replacement with a completely modern design. This is exactly what the proposal envisions.
We must also remember that the proposal entails a subdivision of the property, which according to the architect will provide homes for the families of him and his brother. This is a pious motivation but it is reasonable to ask: why was the complete demolition of the original house, other structures and vegetation (as shown in the submitted planning documents and supporting engineering reports) necessary for such a goal to be met? We may never learn the answer, however it is plain that the applicant has been highly motivated to build, as he has spent close to two decades and considerable funds (in council rates, land tax, planning fees for multiple rejected applications, architectural fees, engineering consultancy fees) to get the redevelopment off the ground.
It is telling that at the planning meeting on the 27th of January this year the architect made a veiled threat of defamation action towards anyone who would suggest the demolition was deliberate. It is also telling that an anonymous author felt compelled to write a poorly-worded and condescending letter to similarly threaten legal action against your publication (Friendlyjordies’ voice of Yilmaz comes to mind). This strategy of dragging objectors through the courts is perhaps the last card in the deck for people who clearly object to the scrutiny and wider negative media attention that their proposal has attracted. In response we need to keep holding a magnifying glass to this issue.
In light of this debacle, the council should act on the concerns of the objecting councillors and revise the planning guidelines to remove the loopholes and incentives for such developments. It goes without saying that this process must not be led by those with developers’ interests at heart.
Sincerely,
Pulut Hitam
The Coburg Meddler 