Playing the perverse system

It has been obvious to anyone passing the derelict site regularly that the harvesting of bricks was demolition by stealth.

The historic Corkman pub in Carlton was bludgeoned into rubble one night in 2016.

Its death was quick, but the principle remains the same.

The pub was heritage protected and there was no demolition permit. The owners were prosecuted and it resulted in tougher legislation to prevent the same happening again.

The Corkman legislation came into play for the Shepparton Hotel, where the council had tried and failed to use proper processes to stop its slow demolition.

While the pub was subject to a heritage overlay, an application for a demolition permit would most likely have succeeded.

Instead, the council continued to monitor the building as a matter of public safety.

It has been a long process, all the more drawn-out because the system relies on people responding appropriately to orders.

You either comply with an order or challenge it through the proper channels if you think the council has erred.

It is now more than 15 years since the fire at the hotel, and many residents will be wondering why it has taken so long to do anything about it.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has asked me, “Why doesn’t the council do something?”

Council has done plenty over the years, but in every instance orders have led to extensions, and further extensions and more orders.

Given the history, natural justice and fairness took precedence, with the council allowing time to drift so there could be no accusation of undue haste.

The most recent order (prior to emergency demolition) was a declaration that the building has lost a few bricks too many and was considered a risk to life and limb.

Pedestrian access was curtailed and the owners were ordered to get a builder to make it safe.

No work was apparently done, despite extensions of time, and more permanent barriers were added to the temporary fencing to keep pedestrians away.

Ultimately the council had to take the final step of ordering demolition.

Given the uncertain future of the site, it was never an option for the council to make it safe. That would in effect be condoning keeping the hotel in the same derelict state, contrary to a punitive derelict building rate it introduced to promote redevelopment of such eyesores.

The land will be more attractive to developers as an unencumbered site that doesn’t have to retain any of the hotel facade.

The perversity of the system is that you can slowly demolish a building brick by brick to the point where you make it unsafe, then potentially benefit from an emergency order to complete the demolition.

Darren Linton is chief correspondent at McPherson Media Group.