Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-08-12

The applicant for review described the issue they were concerned about at the practice day as being that the proposed alteration required by the notice of decision did not make the proposed built form acceptable.
I agree with the respondent that the ground of review as it is currently expressed does not raise a relevant planning issue. I have given leave to the applicant for review to revise this ground of review.

3. Traffic Safety and Functional Concerns

The proposed location and configuration of the garage raise significant traffic and safety concerns, particularly in relation to:

Inadequate swept paths for vehicle entry/exit

Constrained sightlines impacting pedestrian and child safety

Increased traffic movement in a narrow street with limited turning space

The lack of appropriate vehicle access and turning areas may result in unsafe conditions for residents, visitors, and children using Little Tribe Street.

The fifth ground of review includes various references which are not appropriate for the applicant for review to rely on. It states:

5. Contrary to Orderly Planning and Clause 15 & 55 Principles

The decision is inconsistent with:

Clause 15.01-5L (Neighbourhood Character - Port Phillip): which seeks to ensure that development responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character

Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy - Port Phillip): which aims to conserve and enhance heritage places and precincts.

Clause 55 (Two or More Dwellings - ResCode): including standards related to site layout, neighbourhood character, and on-site amenity.

The decision undermines the orderly planning of the area and sets a poor precedent for future development in this heritage-sensitive precinct.

This ground refers to clause 22.04 which is not a clause within the planning scheme and clause 55 which is not relevant to the application under which permission is sought. I have struck out this ground but given leave for an amended ground to be submitted addressing the relevant heritage aspects intended to be contested by the applicant for review.

The Tribunal raised with the parties that it appears that the Council gave notice under section 52 of the PE Act to Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water objected to the permit application and the Council officer's report refers to consideration of that objection but did not give it notice of its decision as is required under the PE Act.
Melbourne Water is not a referral authority for this application but is entitled to notice of the Council's decision.
Ms Tangalakis offered to serve Melbourne Water with the decision and to this application.

For the reasons given above I have:
1. Disregarded the failure to provide a certificate under section 47(1B) of the PE Act; and
2. Struck out grounds 1, 3 and 5 and given leave to amend ground 1 and 5.

[1] Referred to as the certificate in these reasons.

[2] Clause 62 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ('VCAT Act').

[6] Ibid s 96P, which is derived from the amount of $1,000,000 on 1 July 2015 adjusted annually by CPI. The estimated cost of development was not in dispute.

[10] See VCAT Act s 4(2)(b) which states 'For the purposes of this enabling enactment - ... (b) a decision that purports to be made under an enactment is deemed to be a decision made under that enactment even if the decision was beyond the power of the decision maker.'

[12] Ibid at [34] having earlier discussed the width of this power and an earlier decision which traced the origin of this provision at [17]-[20].

[13] This is consistent with other decisions of the Tribunal including Oreana Property Group Pty Ltd v Casey CC [2024] VCAT 107.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

Environment Act 1987

Armistead v Port Phillip CC [2025] VCAT 716 (12 August 2025)

Armistead v Port Phillip CC [2025] VCAT 716

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)

Armistead v Port Phillip CC [2025] VCAT 716 (12 August 2025)