© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2015] VCAT 1836
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2015-11-25
Original judgment source is linked above.
The recommendations contained in the approved tree management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays: No collection
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.
[2] I have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.
[4] In Ballarat C185 (PSA) [2015] PPV 103 at page 40.
[5] (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 786.
[6] Prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning.
[7] Clause 11.01-2 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
[13] As set out in the purposes to the General Residential Zone.
[14] Clause 32.08-7 creates the ability for a mandatory height limit to be set, and Schedule 1 to the General residential Zone, as applies to the review site, sets that mandatory height limit as 9 metres, and 10 metres for sloping sites.
[15] (Correction) [2015] VCAT 717.
[18] Such as Reid v Nillumbik SC (No.3) [2011] VCAT 925.
[20] In reference to the decision of Reichert v Banyule City Council (1996) VICCAT 44
[21] In reference to the decision of Amoco Australia Limited v City of Berwick (1983) 1 PABR 166
[22] (Mitcham Towers) [2004] VCAT 1706.
Backman & Company Pty Ltd
Boroondara CC
Backman & Company Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2014] VCAT 1581; Lazzcorp Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC (Correction) [2015] VCAT 717; Tewlen Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2014] VCAT 766; Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675; Rutherford & Ors v Hume CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 786; Golden Ridge v Whitehorse CC (Mitcham Towers) [2004] VCAT 1706.
[9] Of course, a finding about the type of repeat appeal involved in the proceeding is only the starting point of an assessment, as one must also have regard to the merits of the proposed development. This was identified in the decision of Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675[19] where the Tribunal remarked:
[12] There are four tests established to determine the factors which might justify a departure from an earlier decision in a repeat appeal. These tests were refined in the decision of Batsis Nominees Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2009] VCAT 928 to include the following: