//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VCAT 1739
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2003-11-21
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons set out above, the Application for Review is allowed, and I will order that the decision of the Responsible Authority be set aside and a permit issue subject to conditions.
Catalano Family Pty Ltd
Port Phillip CC [2003] VCAT 1739
67. Therefore, unlike the situation of buildings I considered in Evangelidis v Port Phillip CC and Ors [2002] VCAT 303 and Perkins & Associates v Port Phillip CC [2002] VCAT 449, the inter-war context of the site remains strongly evident. As I have said above, the review site is set between two double storey apartment buildings and, given the deep front setback, the building is diminutive element. The main basis for its current concealment is, however, the overgrown garden. I therefore find that there are grounds to retain the building on the basis of its contribution to HO7.
82. That is also the approach adopted in Harding v Port Phillip CC and Ors [2002] VCAT 416 in so far as the Tribunal referred to structurally unsoundness as including:
90. In Zanacorp Builders Pty Lt V Port Phillip CC and Ors [2001] VCAT 2107, Member Cimino made the following observations in relation to the matter of feasible re-use: