(MORE) NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

 New material added 1 August 2016 - Rhymes for the Times

Community Service Announcement 310716

LOST BUDGIE

Has anybody seen BUNDY, who flew away from his home at 70 Newcastle Street on Friday morning 29 July?

Bundy is light blue in colour.  He is very friendly.  He talks, and answers to his name.

His owner, Joy, is heartbroken.

So please, if you see him, contact Joy on 0419 360 639 or 9641 2591.

Question: When is an oversized shed no longer oversized?  Answer:  when the Shire of York planner gets leaned on…

York trends back to the future, with Crs Smythe and Randell pointing the way

In my previous article, I mentioned the surprising show of support from Cr Smythe—and the much less surprising show of support from Cr Randell—for the construction of an oversized shed in Lewis Road.

Well, I’m no longer surprised.  Since I put fingers to keyboard on the matter, several indignant residents of our fair shire have told me that those two upstanding representatives of the community are also longstanding friends of the applicants, bearers of an old ‘established’ York name.

From the outset, I want to make clear that nothing I say here is intended to reflect on the applicants.  They’ve done nothing wrong.   They’re not elected officials, holding positions of trust.  They’re entitled to make any planning application they wish, no matter how far outside policy limits it may fall. 

It’s up to Council, not applicants for planning approval, to safeguard the public interest.

No, fault and blame rest solely and squarely with the councillors mentioned, who appear to have adopted in this instance the dubious view that the interests of their friends should take precedence over the public interest, as expressed in policy, whenever those public and private interests conflict.

Cronyism

I think the correct term for such behaviour is ‘cronyism’.  Even if it involves no greasing of palms—it usually doesn’t, and and I’m sure it didn’t on this occasion—it is still, in my opinion, a form of corruption likely to involve the transfer from applicant to councillor of intangible benefits like gratitude, admiration, consolidation of mutual affection and promises of electoral support.

We’ve seen more than our fair share of cronyism in York.  Some of us may have naively believed that with the election last year of a new council, cronyism would fade out of the picture.  Sorry, folks, Ashworth Road was just the beginning.

Readers will remember that at its ordinary meeting in May, Council wisely accepted the officer’s recommendation to reject the Lewis Road application.   It did so because according to the shire senior planner—who produced the recommendation—the dimensions of the proposed outbuilding were inconsistent with the rural residential provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 2, and because to approve it would set ‘an undesirable precedent’.

In her admirably detailed report, the senior planner provided a tabulated summary of how far the proposed shed varied in size from what policy allows.  Her argument for rejecting the application was clear, cogent and convincing, precisely what one would expect from a qualified and experienced shire official.

As I indicated in my previous article, the proposed shed wasn’t just a little bit oversize.  It was bloody enormous.  However, the planner noted that a suitable reduction in the size of the shed so that it no longer appeared ‘bulky and out of scale’ could result in a happier outcome for the applicants, and she invited them to discuss possible changes with the Shire.

Sure enough, the applicants re-applied, presumably after sharing tea and bickies with Shire officials and perhaps a councillor or two.  And guess what?  This time, the officer’s recommendation, included in the agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting, is for Council to give conditional approval.  Let’s see if we can find out why.

But first, we need to have a closer look at relevant aspects of policy relating to sheds in the rural residential zone.

Variations

According to policy, the prescribed maximum wall height for a shed in the rural residential zone is 3m, with a permissible variation of 5% to 3.15m.  The prescribed ridge height is 4.2m, again with a permissible variation of 5% to 4.41m. 

For a property of the size of the one in question (1171m²), the floor area is limited to 200m², again with a permissible variation of 5% to 210m².  That’s also the prescribed cumulative floor area of outbuildings on such a property, so if your shed has a floor area of 210m², that, one might suppose, would be the only outbuilding you can have.

The prescribed side setback from boundary is 10m. 

The ‘revised proposal’—really a new application—coming before Council tomorrow is for a shed of the following dimensions:  wall height, 3.5m; ridge height, 4.56m; floor area, 200m²; floor area cumulative with existing outbuildings, 312m²; side setback, 5m.

These dimensions reflect, respectively, a variation in policy (allowing for permissible variations) of 0.35m in wall height; 0.21m in ridge height; none in floor area of the proposed shed, but a massive 102m² when existing outbuildings are taken into account; and 5m in side setback.

In rounded terms, this amounts to variations of 12% in wall height, 10% in ridge height, 67% in cumulative floor area, and 50% in side setback.  The height variations may be deemed relatively inconsiderable.  The cumulative floor area and side setback variations may not.

Trashing policy

In her report on the ‘revised proposal’, the senior planner states:  ‘It is considered that the reduction in height and area has reduced the scale of the outbuilding to a size which, with implementation of appropriate conditions will not appear out of character in the locality, maintains amenity and will not set an undesirable precedent…’ (Emphasis added.)  Regarding that last point, I beg to differ, for reasons set out in my previous article.

By the same token, I differ also with her conclusion that her recommendation ‘will not result in any policy implications for the Shire’.  How can it fail to have that result?  Existing policy permitted specific variations of 5%.   Going beyond those variations amounts, frankly, to trashing the policy.

So what’s going on?

It isn’t easy to determine what’s revolving in the bureaucratic mind as it weaves deftly towards a decision or recommendation.  Time-honoured locutions like the ubiquitous impersonal passive construction ‘it is considered’ give the impression that what is being delivered is of oracular rather than human origin, and not to be laid at the door of any breathing person in particular. 

But in this case, rightly or wrongly, I sense unease, a clutching at straws, an ethical tremor, a quiver of professional trepidation—and I have sufficient regard for the senior planner’s capacities to hope that what I sense is really there.

I don’t actually know if she was ‘leaned on’, or by whom, to produce this current lamentable recommendation.   But whatever the truth of the matter may be, something is amiss.

Will Council accept the new recommendation?  I expect so.  Will it do so unanimously?  I hope not.  My guess is that Crs Saint and Walters will vote against it.  Will Cr Ferro vote against it?  I rather doubt it, but I hope I’m wrong.

Some final questions

Finally—I suggested earlier that this so-called ‘revised proposal’ is really a new application.  Was it treated as such?  If so, were the applicants required to pay a new set of fees?  And shouldn’t neighbouring landowners have been consulted again, as the planning application process requires?

If the proposal isn’t to be regarded as a new application, then Council will have to revoke its decision of 23 May 2016.  Has enough time elapsed for that?

Grossly oversized shed, Canberra

A nasty story

On Saturday morning, as I wandered along Avon Terrace on my way to our friendly IGA, my attention was caught by the sight of a mature—but by no means elderly—couple holding placards demanding their money back from a local businessman whom of course for legal reasons I won’t name.

I accosted them near Settlers’ Courtyard and asked them what the placards were about.  They told me that the person named on the placard had signed an agreement to borrow $45,000 from them, but had repaid only $11,000 and was dragging his heels regarding the rest, payment of which is now very much overdue. 

Who would have guessed that something like that could ever happen in York?  I was quite shaken by what they told me.

I’ve had no independent confirmation of their story, but I’m curious to know more.  If you have some information to share, I’d be happy to publish it on the blog.  No names, though, or identifying details—sensibly, I’m taking my cue from the Shire’s decision to withhold the Fraud Squad’s report.

POSTSCRIPT:  And the word of the month is…FLEXIBILITY!

This evening, I attended the July meeting of the Shire of York Council.  Naturally, my main reason for being there was to witness the debate and vote concerning the matter of the oversized shed.

Cr Randell moved to accept the officer’s recommendation.  Yes, he said, the proposal didn’t conform to policy, but what the heck, let’s live dangerously, the applicants had reduced the size of the shed, and the planner had done an excellent job in helping them bring the building down to a more or less acceptable size, and look, the property abuts the agricultural zone, and anyway, bugger the policy, this is the country, we have to be flexible, let’s show some flexibility and wave this one through.

I’m paraphrasing, of course.  I may have inadvertently added a word here and there to enliven the style and substance of his discourse.

He forgot to trot out his trademark line, namely, that the applicants are friends of his and belong to an old York family.  I felt cheated, to put it mildly.

Cr Smythe seconded Cr Randell’s motion.  She added nothing to Cr Randell’s argument, instead repeating his mantra that this being the country, Council should be flexible and let the applicants build their oversized shed.  She, too, forgot to mention that she and the applicants are friends. 

I suppose that when you’re busy being flexible, it doesn’t matter a toss that a few disrespectful miscreants might construe ‘flexibility’ in this instance as another word for doing favours for your mates.

Cr Ferro, confirming my suspicion that she has completely lost sight of why many of us voted her on to Council, spoke briefly in support of the motion.  And yes, she too mentioned the need for Council to be flexible because this is the country. 

It doesn’t seem so long ago that she dipped out on flexibility when she applied for permission to run more than the prescribed number of horses on her property. 

Better luck next time, Councillor.  No doubt unintentionally, you’ve set yourself up for a quid pro quo.

Crs Saint and Walters opposed the motion, both arguing in effect that Shire policies exist to preserve the interests of the whole community, not to provide councillors with the scope and opportunity to create exceptions. Cr Walters pointed out that if policy proves to be unworkable, the answer is to revise the policy, not to disregard it. 

Alas, their words fell uncomprehended on deaf ears.  The motion was carried 5-2.

Welcome back, the good old days of cronyism triumphant.  Beneath the surface of life in York, not much seems to have changed.

 

POETRY CORNER

Rhymes for the Times

Early and late, early and late,

Big sheds sprang up on the York Estate:

Buildings as tall as the Taj Mahal

Permitted as favours to this or that pal,

Sheds wide as a prairie, sheds pricking the sky,

All done with approval—not one on the sly!

Some residents wondered, how came this to pass?

Surely rogues from the old days were put out to grass?

Well, no, not exactly.  Not as you might wish.

Some things might still happen that stink like stale fish.

All councillors differ in means and in ends:

Some do the right thing, others favour their friends.

It’s easy to see which way each of them tends.

So, the deed now is done, but some questions remain:

Pray tell us what happened to Councillor Jane?

And President Braveheart—what led him to stray

From the straight, narrow path into Cronyhelp Way?

I saw no surprises from Councillor Denese—

She had old friends to favour, to flatter and please—

While Councillor Pam, cards held close to her chest,

Having nothing to say, tagged along with the rest.

So did they all flunk on the probity test?

The plebs looking on seemed much less than impressed.

Councillors Heather and Trish, as we’ve come to expect,

Spoke up for the truth—they were fair and correct—

But truly to tell you, they argued in vain.

That’s what comes on York’s council of having a brain.

Young Councillor Trev was the star of the show.

He pointed the way for the others to go.

He reminded us all that York’s in the countree,

Which means that the Council must ‘flexible’ be,

Yes, flexible, flexible, that was the word—

What, stick to the policy?  Don’t be absurd!

Now, I have to confess to once looking askance

At Trev in his role as York’s Lord of the Rants;

He might well have exclaimed, in a voice loud and rude,

“We’re shedding our principles!!!!! Go and get screwed!!!!!

Your grumblings and gripes get us old Yorkies down!!!!!

So button your lips, or be run out of town!!!!!”

But he didn’t.  Then let me give praise where I should.

He’s a very nice fellow—just misunderstood.

(From Song of the Sheds, by Polly Amory)