There were 62 reported decisions of the Tribunal last month in the Planning and Environment List a number of which were of interest including:
- Xin Hai Cit (Forest Hill) Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2022] VCAT1050, which involved the redevelopment of the prominent Hewlett Packard site on the corner of Burwood Highway and Springvale Road.
- Peninsula Aero Club v Mornington Peninsula SC [2022] VCAT 1141, which involved a Declarations Hearing associated with the permitted activities of the Aero Club namely whether they constitute an ‘airport’.
- Cavendish Properties Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2022] VCAT 1150, which involved a proposed building within the Endeavour Cove Marina Precinct which was the subject of an October 2021 Ombudsman report essentially stemming out of the separate Operation Sandon IBAC investigation.
- Waterfront Place Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2022] VCAT 1157, which involved the now rather infamous land at 1-7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne which has been the subject of numerous prior proceedings over the past decade and which received media coverage.
- Green Wedge Guardians Alliance Inc v Hume CC [2022] VCAT 1168, which involved the proposed development of a market outside the UGB with net community benefit considerations and which was also subject to media coverage.
Additionally, a red dot decision was published in O’Bryan v Hepburn SC (Red Dot) [2022] VCAT 1184 as a reminder to self-represented third party applicants for an enforcement order that the Tribunal is not an investigative or law reform body and that the application cannot succeed if no contravention can be proven.
However, it was perhaps the decision of Townsing v Stonnington CC (No 2) [2022] VCAT 1252 that was of most interest relating to an inconsistency between conditions under review and description of what the permit allows. In brief, an application was made to construct a second dwelling and undertake buildings and works to an existing dwelling. Council approved the application but in doing so included a condition requiring the deletion of the proposed dwelling. Deputy President’s Bisucci detailed legal analysis is worth reading as to the relationship between permit preambles and permit conditions as is her conclusion in this matter being:
Thus, if council did not consider the second dwelling an acceptable planning outcome, it should have issued a notice of refusal to grant the planning permit.
Glossop Town Planning enjoyed another busy month appearing before the Tribunal either as an advocate (Hew Gerrard) or expert planning witness (John Glossop). If Glossop Town Planning could potentially be of assistance with any VCAT related matters, please contact our office on 9329 2288 or via email at mail@glossopco.com.au.
