[2016] VCAT 373
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2016-03-09
Original judgment source is linked above.
in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions.
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The acoustic report must make recommendations to limit the noise impacts in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of noise from industry, commerce and trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1), State Environment Protection Policy (Control of music noise from public premises) No. N-2 (SEPP N-2) and any other requirements to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards for commencement or within twelve months afterwards for completion.
[1] We 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 by parties that did not appear. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.
[2] Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)
[4] At the time of the revised statement of grounds being lodged these were objectives contained in Clause 15.02-1, 21.07 - 1 and 22.16. The statement of grounds also referred to provisions of Amendment C133 to the Yarra Planning Scheme. On 19 November 2015, Amendment C133 was approved, introducing Clause 22.17 - Environmentally Sustainable Development.
[6] LPD Property Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2015] VCAT 1409 - specifically Paragraph 10.
[8] Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146
[9] The approved plans for 158 Bridge Road includes a street wall of approximately 11 metres. It is lower than the street wall directly to the west at the rear of 189 Lennox Street. The Charlie building adopts a slightly different approach with balconies and a slightly recessed street wall extending up five storeys.
[10] The assessment tools referred to in Clause 22.17 include Green Star, MUSIC and STORM. The relevant potential assessment tools for internal environmental quality, for which daylight is one measure are BESS and Green Star.
[11] For example SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 1068 and Brat Investments Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2015] VCAT 2001
[12] By letter to the Tribunal dated 23 December 2015
[15] Based on the findings in Mr Richardson's evidence.
[16] As 89%, more than 80% benchmark is met.
[17] With only 54% of living rooms meeting the 1% daylight factor across 90% of their living areas.
[19] For example the mapping identified that nearly all of the living room of dwelling 1.03 had a less than 0.5% daylight factor.
[20] This is because transitional provisions apply.
[21] Being primarily dwellings 1 and 3 on each level, and dwelling 2 on levels 1 to 3.
[22] Based on the assessment and mapping providing in Mr Richardson's evidence about the November plans. The December plans do not sig
[23] The December plans identify 63 bedrooms, or 89% meeting the BESS benchmark. If an amended arrangement resulted in the bedrooms of four dwellings not complying, but raised the living rooms to a compliant best practice benchmark, it would result in 59 bedrooms or 83% meeting BESS (and therefore meeting best practice) and 24 (rather than 20), or 65% of living rooms meeting BESS (still under 80%, but much better than the current 54%).
[24] Being the Melbourne Water stormwater calculator.
[25] Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS)
G3 Projects Pty Ltd
Yarra CC
LPD Property Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2015] VCAT 1409, Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146, SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2015] VCAT 1068 and Brat Investments Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2015] VCAT 2001