Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2004-01-22

For the reasons set out above, the Application for Review is not allowed and I will order that the decision of the Responsible Authority be affirmed and a permit issue subject to the conditions included in the Notice of Decision, with some variations.

Environment Act 1987

D'Amelio v Monash CC [2004] VCAT 60 (22 January 2004)

22. These submissions were challenged by Mr Montebello and Mr Bartley. They also referred to a number of the decisions cited by the Applicants, as well as several others such as a decision by Senior Member Marsden in Hatziladas v Monash CC [2003] VCAT 370 and a determination by Member Walter Homeline Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2003] VCAT 830.

23. In considering these submissions, I refer first to the findings of another division of the Tribunal in O'Connell Street Developments Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council [2003] VCAT 448 that considered the legal question as to the status of Melbourne 2030. I do not need to go to the Tribunal's reasons in detail. Suffice to say that I concur with its finding that Melbourne 2030 is an adopted strategic plan to which the Tribunal must have regard pursuant to Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Tribunal must give greatest weight to the provisions of the Planning Scheme as it exists at the date of its decision and in giving weight to the policies in the Scheme must have regard to Melbourne 2030. It is important that a decision by the Tribunal does not undermine the policies of Melbourne 2030. It is often necessary to balance the various policy objectives.

D'Amelio v Monash CC [2004] VCAT 60

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (4)

D'Amelio v Monash CC [2004] VCAT 60 (22 January 2004)