• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

After the appeal was filed, Gavco entered negotiations with the Council and reached agreement on a modified car park layout and related matters. Gavco's solicitors wrote to VCAT on 13 August 2001 advising that Council had accepted the modified layout in principle and that Council had agreed to withdrawal of the VCAT appeal subject to modification of the planning permit (letter quoted at [7] and Council letter at [8]). The Permit Holder sought to withdraw the Application for Review.

The Tribunal refused to grant leave to withdraw the Application for Review under s74(1) of the VCAT Act because the request was late ([9]). Despite refusal to grant leave to withdraw, the mediation listed on the day proceeded. The parties and the Member conducting mediation signed a Mediation Record of Settlement that amended Condition 1 to give effect to the agreed outcome. The Tribunal then made an order allowing the application in part and directed the Responsible Authority to amend the permit in accordance with the terms agreed and set out in the Order, invoking s85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Order and [10]).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's decision is procedural and settlement‑based rather than a detailed merits determination on the substantive planning objections. Two procedural and statutory points underpin the outcome:

1. Jurisdiction to effect permit amendment: The Tribunal invoked statutory power under s85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to direct the Responsible Authority to amend the permit. The Order expressly directs the Responsible Authority to amend Permit No. M/2001/30 in accordance with the Tribunal's Order, pursuant to s85(1)(e) (see Order). That statutory power enabled the Tribunal to give effect to the parties' agreed amendment rather than determining the underlying planning merits of the condition.

2. Settlement recorded at mediation: The parties reached agreement during the VCAT process and executed a Mediation Record of Settlement that amended Condition 1 to reflect the modifications (see [9]). VCAT mediations commonly produce recorded settlements; the Tribunal then made an order implementing the settlement. The Tribunal declined a late application to withdraw the proceeding under s74(1) VCAT Act, but proceeded with the mediation and recorded the settlement; it then used its s85(1)(e) power to order the permit amendment. Paragraph [9] explains these steps.

In short, the Tribunal's reasoning is that where parties agree a modification that addresses the disputed condition, the Tribunal may implement the agreement by ordering amendment of the permit under the statutory power available, even if a formal withdrawal was refused because of lateness. The decision does not evaluate the Permit Holder's grounds against the condition on their substantive planning merits; rather it gives effect to the negotiated resolution between the parties.

Before and after state of the law

Before: The Tribunal and practitioners approach permit condition disputes under s80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. VCAT has established procedural rules and discretions under the VCAT Act, including leave to withdraw applications under s74(1). Where an application is withdrawn properly, VCAT typically will not make substantive orders; where a matter proceeds, the Tribunal determines issues on their merits unless parties settle.

After this decision: The decision demonstrates a straightforward application of existing statutory powers, no new principle of law was created. It confirms that VCAT may:

• refuse leave to withdraw an application under s74(1) for lateness (see [9]); and
• nonetheless proceed to record a settlement reached at mediation and exercise s85(1)(e) powers to direct the Responsible Authority to amend a permit to implement that settlement.

The decision is therefore an application of established procedural and statutory powers rather than a change to underlying substantive planning law. It provides a precedent of practice: when parties agree modifications at mediation and sign a Mediation Record of Settlement, the Tribunal may make orders to implement that agreement and direct amendment of a permit.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Selected passages are quoted in the Reasons. Below each quotation I translate into plain English and explain its role.

• Quotation (paragraph [1]): "This is an Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ('the Act') brought by the Permit Holder for review of a condition in a permit which the Maroondah City Council ('the Responsible Authority') has issued to it."

  Plain English: The Permit Holder is asking VCAT to review a condition imposed by the Council on a planning permit, and is doing so under the specific statutory provision that gives VCAT that jurisdiction (s80). This sets out the legal basis for the Tribunal's involvement.

• Quotation (paragraph [5]): "The condition that is the subject of the Application for Review is: ... a) All car parking and landscaping within the common property area."

  Plain English: The exact condition being challenged required the car parking and landscaping to be located within the common property. This is the factual and legal focus of the dispute.

• Quotation (paragraph [6]): "The Grounds of Application for Review are: 1. Condition 1 is unreasonable and unnecessary. 2. Condition 1 does not achieve any relevant planning policy objective or planning purpose. 3. Condition 1 is unduly restrictive."

  Plain English: The Permit Holder argues the condition is inappropriate or unsupported by planning policy. The Tribunal records these grounds, but does not resolve them on the merits because the parties reached a settlement.

• Quotation (paragraph [9]): "The Tribunal did not give leave, pursuant to Section 74(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, to withdraw the Application for Review because of the lateness of the request. The mediation proceeded as listed. The parties and the Member conducting the mediation signed a Mediation Record of Settlement amending Condition 1 to give effect to what had been agreed between the parties. An appropriate Order will be made."

  Plain English: Although the Permit Holder asked to withdraw the appeal late and the Tribunal refused that withdrawal, the mediation went ahead. During mediation the parties agreed changes and signed a settlement; the Tribunal will make an order to implement that settlement. This explains the procedural route taken.

• Quotation (paragraph [10]): "For the above reasons this application is allowed in part. It is appropriate that the permit be amended, and I will so order."

  Plain English: The Tribunal partly upheld the Permit Holder's challenge, not by deciding the condition was unlawful on its substantive merits, but by ordering the permit be amended as agreed in the settlement.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is most directly relevant in contexts with the following features:

• An applicant for review challenges a specific planning permit condition under s80 of the P&E Act.
• Parties engage in negotiations or mediation and reach agreement on an alternative wording or layout that would resolve the dispute.
• A party seeks to withdraw the application late, and the Tribunal declines leave under s74(1) VCAT Act because of timing, but mediation nevertheless proceeds.
• The parties sign a Mediation Record of Settlement which amends the condition, and the Tribunal is asked to formally record or implement that settlement by directing amendment of the permit under s85(1)(e).

In such fact patterns this decision supports the Tribunal making an order to amend the permit to reflect the parties' agreement, rather than requiring a formal withdrawal or a full merits determination.

How later courts have treated it

This Reasons decision does not cite appellate authority, nor does it purport to overrule or modify case law; it is a Tribunal-level decision implementing an agreed settlement. The Reasons rely on statutory provisions (s80 and s85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and s74(1) of the VCAT Act) rather than judicial precedents.

Accordingly, the decision is best read as a practical demonstration of statutory powers in use rather than as an authoritative legal precedent that establishes novel principles. The judgment itself does not discuss later treatment by higher courts, and it does not include citations to other authorities. Practitioners should treat it as persuasive Tribunal practice evidence that recorded settlements at mediation can be implemented by orders amending permits under s85(1)(e).

If a reader requires evidence of appellate or judicial authority on the broader points (for example, limits on VCAT's power to order permit amendments or practice on withdrawal of appeals), targeted legal research will be necessary because the decision itself contains no discussion of subsequent judicial treatment.

Still-open questions

The judgment leaves several practical and legal questions open because it focuses on implementing a settlement rather than adjudicating contested legal issues:

1. Substantive merits unresolved: The Tribunal did not decide whether Condition 1 was unreasonable, unnecessary, or unduly restrictive on the merits ([6]). A later case where the parties do not reach settlement would be necessary to obtain a binding ruling on those grounds.

2. Limits of s85(1)(e) direction: The decision demonstrates that VCAT used s85(1)(e) to direct amendment in accordance with the settlement. It does not explore the limits of that power, for example where a Tribunal order would conflict with statutory planning scheme requirements, public interest concerns, or third-party rights. Those boundaries remain to be tested in contested litigation.

3. Withdrawal discretion and timing: The Tribunal refused late withdrawal under s74(1) but nevertheless recorded and implemented a settlement reached at mediation ([9]). The decision does not explain the specific factors bearing on lateness or how the Tribunal will balance procedural fairness against finality when considering withdrawal requests; practitioners will need to look to other authorities or practice notes for guidance.

4. Effect on third-party referral authorities: The permit and the process named several referral authorities (Yarra Valley Water, Melbourne Water, TXU, Telstra, Multinet Gas). The Reasons do not address whether or how the amendment ordered would require further referral, consent or re‑notification to those parties. That issue may be material in other cases.

5. Precedential weight: As a VCAT member's Reasons implementing a settlement, the decision's precedential value is limited. It does not present a fully reasoned adjudication of planning principles. Practitioners should therefore rely on it for procedural practice, that settlements at mediation can be recorded and implemented by order, but not as authority on substantive planning law.

Conclusion on open questions: This decision is a useful example of VCAT practice in implementing mediated settlements by formal order, and of the Tribunal's procedural discretion regarding withdrawal. It does not resolve substantive planning law questions nor define the outer limits of the Tribunal's power to direct permit amendments. Where those legal questions are material, further contested proceedings or higher-court authority will be needed.