//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2004] VCAT 60
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2004-01-22
Original judgment source is linked above.
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.
D'Amelio
Monash CC [2004] VCAT 60
21. The Applicants for Review contended, among other things, that uncertainties relating to the Investigation Areas nominated in the Scheme should cause greatest weight to be given to the residential character policies in the Scheme. They referred to several cases in support of this submission, including my determinations in Jackson and Ors v Monash City Council [2001] VCAT 410 and Grech & Associates v Monash City Council [2002] VCAT 542 as well as a decision by Member O'Leary in Citywide Property Services v Monash CC & Anor [2002] VCAT 724. Moreover, they submitted that Melbourne 2030 does not specifically refer to housing or high density housing as being appropriate in the Monash Specialised Activity Centre and that residential development is secondary to the promotion of economic activity within the Monash Specialised Activity Centre. Consequently, it was submitted that the proposal involving high density housing would compromise the outcomes sought by Melbourne 2030.
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.