VBAB|2025-10-15|Before: Members P, Member P

The Applicant's submissions to the Respondent in 2025 and in it's appeal:

a) did not provide evidence that either of the Converted Garage or Converted Pergola had an approved building permit; > > b) alleged the Garage and Pergola were built between 1975 and 1977; > > c) admitted that the plastic roof covering was added by the Applicant after its purchase of the Subject Land, in or around 1994; > > d) admitted that the garage was converted to the Converted Garage in or around 1992; > > e) alleged the Converted Pergola did not need a building permit; > > f) alleged the Converted Garage had been in use for over 31 years.

Based on our considerations of the above, we find that the Respondent had a proper basis to issue the Building Order under s 111 the Act as it is clear, on the balance of probabilities that:

a) neither the Converted Garage or Converted Pergola has an approved building permit; > > b) the subsequent works to convert the garage and pergola were not compliant and not appropriate to what the garage and pergola were originally and structurally designed for; and > > c) the Applicant's own engineer stated works were required to the Converted Garage.

Accordingly, we determine that the Building Order is affirmed.

[1] Clause 17 of Schedule 3 to the Building Act 1993 provides: 'Unless the Building Appeals Board otherwise determines, a party to a proceeding before the Board must bear his, her or its own costs'.

�Brown v Municipal Building Surveyor for the City of Hume [2025] VBAB 129; (15 October 2025)

CITATION Brown v Municipal Building Surveyor for the City of Hume [2025] VBAB 124

�Brown v Municipal Building Surveyor for the City of Hume [2025] VBAB 129;

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

�Brown v Municipal Building Surveyor for the City of Hume [2025] VBAB 129; (15 October 2025)