Manningham News

Lawless and Criminal?

Am I exaggerating?

Most likely not.

Manningham Council make rules and laws which they fanatically enforce upon the rest of us.

But when the council has to comply with their own laws or when they break their own laws, the story is very different.

It appears that Manningham Council does not think they should live under the same laws as the rest of us.

When their own laws get in their way, they simply remove them. When they break their own laws, they try to sweep the whole incident under the carpet – as quickly as possible.

Please read the Council Minutes for 24 April 2018.

So what happened?

Manningham Council Disregard and Break their own Laws.

Manningham Council has, over the years, renovated, altered and added to the council offices in Manningham Road. The problem is, that back in 1991, Manningham Council, themselves, put a heritage overlay on their old Council offices. Their aim at the time was to protect the heritage value of the old Council offices. The offices were not to be changed or renovated without careful consideration being given to preserving the heritage value of the building.

However Manningham went and changed, renovated etc. the old council offices WITHOUT EVEN CHECKING if there was a heritage overlay on them.

So how much did these alterations effect the heritage value of the council offices? Let me give you the council's own words.

That's right. Manningham Council ruined any heritage value the old offices once had.

Manningham Council ignored their own laws.

Manningham Council has recently remembered they put a heritage overlay on the old council offices AND that they SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANY of these alterations, additions or renovations.

What was to be done? Clearly Manningham Council is in breach of their own laws.

What would Manningham Council do to us if we did the same thing?

Let us consider for a moment what Manningham Council would do to US if we owned a property with an overlay on it and then went and changed our property, obliterating the very reason why the overlay was put on it in the first place. AND if we did all this without getting council approval.

I am not going to speculate here. I am going to give you exactly what Manningham Council did to a migrant family who did exactly the same thing. This family changed a property that had a council overlay on it and ignored (or did not know about) the overlay.

Please see VCAT case 2044 of 27 October 2011. Please also see my article on this site "Out of Control Environmentalism".

A migrant family bought a property in Warrandyte and it appears they wanted to plant some trees from the 'old country'. They brought in some soil, dug a trench and put up a retaining wall. But their property had a council overlay which prevented such things AND they didn't get council permission.

The council had them before VCAT.

The council insisted everything they did be undone and they put in a management plan for the NEXT 10 YEARS to ensure everything was. They insisted:

• The landowners were not to carry out any more work.

• They must identify all weeds and put in a weed management plan.

• Identify and remove all soil, rock and other material brought in.

• The earth must be returned to the trench IN THE EXACT LAYERS IT WAS REMOVED. And this must be done UNDER THE SUPERVISION of someone approved by the council, who no doubt would check that gravel was layered correctly back in the trench, clay was layered correctly back in the trench and so on.

• The current owners (and any future owners) of the land must comply with the 10 year plan demanded by the council.

• The owners had to have various reports prepared by experts (at their own cost) regarding native vegetation, habitat values, and so on.

• They had to have a report prepared by an expert for vegetation to be planted to remediate areas they made changes to.

The council demanded a lot more than I have mentioned above. Please see my other article for the full list of demands made by the council. The owners simply had to do all of this.

In my view, these council demands were onerous, punitive and no doubt meant to serve as an example to others who would do the same thing.

Now what happens when the council does the exact same thing?

Absolutely nothing, that's what.

There is no requirement for them to undo the damage to the council offices. Nothing. No one will be fired. There will be no disciplinary measures at all upon anyone.

Instead Manningham Council is now working desperately to sweep the whole incident under the carpet as quickly as they can.

So how will Manningham Council get out of this mess?

Manningham Council has a tried and sure method of excusing themselves from their own laws.

The council has employed a 'heritage consultant' to re-check the heritage value of the old council offices.

What do we expect the result to be?

The heritage consultant concluded that the council back in 1991 was simply mistaken to think the old offices had any heritage value in the first place. So no harm has been done by the current council when they altered and renovated it beyond all recognition!

I know that to many people that seems entirely reasonable. The council employs an independent consultant to check their decision making process. Surely these consultants will arrive at an objective and realistic assessment of the heritage value of the old council offices.

You may think so. But that is not how things work. You see, the council has done similar things before.

The same thing happened with the old Eastern Links Golf course.

The council has used an 'independent' external consultants before – for the exact same thing.

The council had placed an overlay over the ENTIRE Eastern Links Golf Course. When this very large piece of land was owned by the Golf club, the council overlay was an onerous and burdensome restriction on the use of the land. The golf club had to get approval from the council for any change they wanted to make to the club buildings, the forested areas, the greens and so on.

However this property was sold and the council planned to use this valuable real estate for high density development.

However they had a problem. The land had large areas of 'native heathy forest' that the council said was indigenous to Manningham and of great environmental value. And for this (and other environmental reasons) there was a protective overlay on the ENTIRE property.

So what could they do? This council overlay was going to place massive restrictions on what the council could do with the land.

Again they resorted to an 'independent consultant'. They employed a consultant again to re-assess the heritage value of the land.

And again we find the same outcome. The consultant came back with exactly what the council wanted to hear. Let me give you their exact words.

The council again had exactly what they wanted. Armed with this consultant's report they were able to run bulldozers through the 'Native Heathy Forest' to put in roads, and so on. All they had to protect was the old house and a 10 meter area around it. That is exactly what they wanted to hear. They were free to do whatever they wanted to the rest of the property.

Note that this is something that the council would never have allowed the Golf Club to do. The Golf Club were simply not allowed to make such drastic changes to the indigenous and environmentally valuable 'native heathy forest'.

We see again that Manningham Council is quite willing to place the most burdensome and onerous restrictions upon US and what WE can do with our own land.

But when it comes to themselves, Manningham Council has absolutely no intention to live under the same laws they impose on us.

They dispose of them in a heartbeat when their own laws restrict what they want to do.

So are these Independent Consultants 'Independent'?

Not in my view.

I am not exaggerating when I say that external consultants always tell the council what they want to hear. It appears that somehow the council lets these consultants know what they expect to see in their report, and the consultants, hoping to get further well-paying government work, appear to happily listen and oblige.

We are told these consultants are an independent check on what the council does. But that is not the case.

If you read the minutes and reports published by the council, you will see that external consultants always tell the council what they want to hear. As far as I have read, I have never seen them being the bearers of genuine bad news or bad outcomes for the council.

What I have noticed is this. If a consultant has to mention some minor matter that could reflect badly on the council, then they are very careful to play it down and heap copious praise on the council before and after they mention it. This can be seen when the council employs outside organisations for their satisfaction surveys.

I do not think they are independent at all. They are just presented that way. The council somehow makes it clear to them what they expect to see in their reports. These consultants are not silly and know how to listen. AND they are eager to get further council work, if possible.

So what is Council's strategy to extricate themselves?

Basically it is arrogance. They plan not to listen to anyone who says anything about this they do not want to hear.

They are going to focus solely on the report from their 'independent' heritage consultant – who just happens to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Manningham Council will not listen to anything they don't like.

The Warrandyte Historical Society have an interest in the heritage value of buildings in the city. But they are far too polite when talking to the council.

In the minutes they are reported as saying "

"Warrandyte Historical Society (relating to 699 Doncaster Road, Doncaster) says Heritage Council process has not been followed; and sends wrong message to the owners of heritage listed properties." (3.9 page 171 minutes)

The council "sends the wrong message..."

You bet they do.

Please allow me to translate and elaborate on what the Warrandyte Historical Society might possibly mean:

"Manningham Council has broken it's own laws, disregarded their own overlays, did not follow procedures or go about the work in the way they expect us to and finally after changing the building beyond all recognition, they simply want to excuse themselves of all wrong doing."

In short Manningham Council are behaving like complete hypocrites AND if they can simply walk away from the very things they expect us to follow, then why should we follow them.

In my view, this might be what the Warrandyte Historical Society means.

And they would be quite right in my view.

Manningham Council did not get any approval to do what they did. They did not even check to see if there was a heritage overlay over the old offices. They did not even think of preserving any of it's heritage value. No, they were just in a rush to make the changes they wanted.

The procedure they should have followed is quite straight forward.

If the council wanted to renovate the council offices, then BEFORE anything was done, they should have reassessed the historical value of the old offices. Not after the changes were made but BEFORE making the changes.

That is precisely what they demand WE do. If we tried to justify our actions AFTER the event, they simply would not listen. They would insist that we are just trying to excuse ourselves and justify ourselves breaking the law. They would insist we did not follow the correct procedure.

But right now, they don't want to remember how they mistreat residents who did the exact same thing they did.

Why was a heritage overlay put on the old offices?

Let us see what the council said back in 1991 when they put the overlay on the council offices.

The above quotation simply screams of the lawless and criminal behaviour of Manningham Council in changing this building beyond recognition and destroying the two trees. (Yes, the trees were removed to build the MC² building. And here too, the council did not even bother to check if they had put an overlay on the trees.)

Manningham Council simply cannot let the above stand. It is a stink, stain or blot that they simply have to get rid of. So they employ a Heritage Consultant, Lovell Chen, to re-check the accuracy of the original statement.

They got it seriously wrong in 1991.

I think their heritage consultant knew precisely what was expected of her and she knew what the council wanted to see in her report.

I say this because Lovell Chen concludes that nothing said in the original report of 1991 was accurate. Every thing was wrong. I find it odd that Lovell Chen can find nothing positive to say about the 1991 decision. She finds fault everywhere she can.

How could the council get it so wrong back in 1991?

The council back in 1991 would have checked their opinions against other sources. The report would have been the product of a council committee. Such committees normally consult with a variety of experts in the field and other authorities, just as the council does now. This is how government usually works.

The council would have consulted with other architects, other experts, probably even the state government. Their conclusion would not be the conclusion of one person but would be a summary of current expert opinion.

At the end of the process there would have been council officers who scrutinized and checked the final report. Again, this is how usually council works.

Now Lovell Chen comes along and she, ONE PERSON, goes and says they were ALL wrong. Completely wrong in fact. Very odd isn't it.

Lovell Chen says,

Lovell Chen says they got it completely wrong. That's right - all the experts they consulted, the council staff who reviewed it, possibly also the state government, everyone they went to for advice and expert opinion. They all got it completely wrong.

Desperate arguments.

You can tell how desperate Lovell Chen is. She is desperately trying to give the council exactly what they want. The council quotes her report as saying:

The blocks "oeuvre"...

In my view, language like that is usually meant to do one thing. If you do not understand the french word 'oeuvre' then clearly you are an unsophisticated philistine and could not possibly understand the finer points of architecture... so stay out of the conversation.

In my view, statements like that are not meant to explain anything. What they are meant to do is exclude people from the conversation and discussion. People who are interested but who don't know the lingo better be careful. The council doesn't want to hear what they have to say.

And clearly the council back in 1991 did consider the block's "oeuvre".

The original reports says the old council offices were "the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state."

To start with, Lovell Chen may not be using the word correctly. Oeuvre normally refers to the entire collection of work belonging to an artist, writer, musical composer on in this case architect.

Clearly they did understand the work of Mies van der Rohe and also examined or at least possibly checked all other examples of his style of architecture in Victoria. So they were familiar with this architectural style.

Here we see Lovell Chen making sweeping statements not supported by fact or example or proof - but simply based on her own opinion.

Also why is it important to place the building in the 'local architectural context'? They put the overlay on the old council offices not the architectural context or other buildings nearby. Why are other nearby buildings suddenly important? Why can't we understand this simply as saying the old council offices were of historical value while any nearby buildings were not. Surely if other nearby buildings were of historical value, they would have been mentioned in the statement of significance.

I get the impression this latter argument is a bit desperate. She tries to make it sound important and significant but really it is of no significance and carries little weight when you scrutinize it.

Lets look at other things Lovell Chen says:

Quotations are taken from page 169 of the minutes.

What she is ignoring is the process by which the citation came to be included in the statement of significance in 1991. Unlike what Lovell Chen is doing, this statement of significance was not the view of one person. It was a view held by many council staff and most likely by many experts in the field.

She ALSO makes no mention of the significance, character or quality of the additions of 'fabric' to the building. Sometimes alterations improve, enhance and extend the original architecture. She makes no mention of this or has any discussion of any of this. In her view, changes are wrong and diminish the historical significance of a building.

She simply uses the fact that the building had been changed over the years (as most buildings are) and the benefit or otherwise of the changes is not mentioned or discussed. That is not much of an argument.

Please consider this. Manningham Council requires any changes made to heritage building complement the existing architecture of a building. Many people who own buildings with a heritage overlay have done so under council supervision. So it is possible to add to the value of the building just as it is to take away from the heritage value of a building.

The thing that is of importance is that in 1991 the building, with all it's history and it's changes, was seen by many to be of significance historically and architecturally. That is the important point.

So a small number of errors and omissions in the history and development of the building render the statement of significance wrong. Really?

We most likely all recognize the Parthenon in Athens as being of historical significance. But do we have a complete understanding and record of it's history and development. Off course we do not. Does that mean it is not right to say it is historically significant or it's historical value should be questioned? Off course not. Now I know there are major differences between the old council offices and the Parthenon in Greece, but the principle here is valid.

Also consider this. Was the original statement of significance prepared in 1991 meant to be a full record of the history of the building or was it meant to be a statement saying it was historically significant? It probably was not meant to be a statement of the full and complete history of the building and did not intend to give the full history and development of the building. In 1991 they may only have wanted to include events and changes they saw as important. So this argument is really not of importance.

Again, everything she says in the above quote should be prefaced by 'In my opinion', which I note she does not do.

It is all her opinion. Note that her 'amalgam of architectural interventions' could also be seen as complementary additions to the architectural and historical value of the building. But that is not how she portrays it.

All of it is 'her opinion' only.

If the council were to be genuine and sincere in their assessment, they would get the opinions of other people in this matter and not rely on just one person's opinions.

I note that the Warrandyte Historical Society raised some objections to the assessment. But the council was simply in no mood to listen. The council replies to the Historical Society's objections and says:

The council clearly is going to rely solely on Lovell Chen's opinions. In fact they say as much.

This is no way to decide the fate of a building that was once regarded by many inside and outside the council to be of historical significance to the city of Manningham.

The council should do a comprehensive review - and do it honestly - with out pre-deciding the outcome or 'conveying' what they want to see in the consultant's reports.

Lovell Chen is very useful to Manningham Council.

Lovell Chen has given Manningham Council exactly what they wanted and the council is relying solely on Lovell Chen to get them out of the mess they created. They want to sweep their own criminal and lawless activity under the rug as soon as possible.

That's right! Manningham Council ruined all heritage value in their own heritage building.

But one person's opinion will get the council off the hook. Just forget about what others have said back in 1991 and others may say today about this matter.

The way Manningham Council has approached this problem indicates that they believe they have the right to disregard or break their own laws and do so with impunity.

That is a far cry from what would happen to us if we were to do the exact same thing they did.