Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-06-27

The applicant amended the permit application to remove the mobile crane from the application plans. The applicant said that this was done on the basis that it is a mobile crane, is not a fixed structure, can move around the site, including inside the existing building, and also be removed from the site at any time, for example, if it were rented out or the like.
The council disagreed and said because it was on the site and not intended to be moved from the site, or at least for any significant period, that it constituted a structure that was captured by the buildings and works permit trigger at clause 33.01-4 of the planning scheme.
The dispute between the parties on this point was not particularly strongly made by either party. Whilst both made written and verbal submissions to this effect, it was not, for example, laboured and, following the evidence of Mr Lewington during which he clarified that the crane would be predominantly stored on the review site (and not elsewhere), the council made no submissions about this following his evidence.
It would seem to me that just because the mobile crane is a particularly large piece of equipment, does not automatically constitute it being a structure. The review site hosts a number of other pieces of mobile equipment, such as a rolling crane, forklifts, scissor lifts and the like.
However, the permit does not control or seek to regulate those. I accept that a mobile crane such as the one that is proposed to be used, perhaps has the greatest prospect of extending beyond the title boundaries because of the nature of it having an extendable boom. However, this does not qualify as being a permanent structure that is captured by the buildings and works trigger in the IN1Z.
I acknowledge that the council is seeking to regulate the mobile crane from a safety perspective. However, I am not persuaded that a permit is required for it in this instance, notwithstanding that the amended application removes it as being a fixed object.

The proposal includes the construction of a tower crane, with vertical webbed lattice frame, and a horizontal boom. The maximum length of the operational part of the boom would be 18 metres in length, with the counterweight tail a maximum of 10.05 metres in length. The height from ground level to the underside of the horizontal boom would be 24 metres.

Council said policy demands good urban design, including within its industrial areas. The planning scheme includes clause 22.03, Urban Design In Commercial And Industrial Areas. The Policy basis under this clause is:

Greater Dandenong has a strong industrial base. The Municipal Strategic Statement emphasises the importance of protecting this industrial base for the prosperity of the municipality. The Municipal Strategic Statement also acknowledges the need to improve community perception of the industrial image of the City.

This policy provides direction for the development of commercial and industrial areas. Particular parts of the policy relate to areas along main roads and at identified gateways to the City.

The policy focuses on urban design and landscaping to improve the appearance of commercial and industrial areas and to provide certainty and direction for ongoing private sector investment which are objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement.

Objectives of this policy are:
- To improve the appearance of all commercial and industrial areas, and particularly development along main roads and at identified gateway sites.
- To provide urban design solutions which respond to the type of road and the speed of the traffic using the road.
Although this policy applies to new and infill industrial development, when reading the various policy aspirations, much of it relates to new industrial estates, rather than infill development.
However, the policy still applies to this proposal and requires the context of the area to be considered, as well as the scale of nearby buildings.
Clause 21.04-3 refers to Industrial land use. Industry is a significant employer within the municipality[2] . This policy states:

The industrial sector in Greater Dandenong is the mainstay of its economy, providing jobs and investment opportunities locally and within the wider south eastern region.

This same clause also has numerous objectives and strategies to facilitate and enhance the industrial sector within the municipality.
The council said this general area hosts mainly single storey warehouses and the tower crane at a height of approximately 25 metres would therefore be a prominent visual element within the context.

Aerial Image of the review site and abutting properties.[3]

View of the existing building on the review site.[4]

View from in front of the site looking south-west.[5]

The applicant said whilst the council's description was in part accurate, it also said there were numerous other elements of built form that were located nearby and which were quite tall. These included factory stacks and mobile phone towers.
I also observed such features nearby when on my site inspection, as well as antennas atop existing buildings, some buildings that had taller elements, tall light poles providing lighting for existing car parks on private land, and exhaust flues. These are also evident in the material provided for the hearing[6].
I accept that the council's policies referred to in submissions seek high quality urban design outcomes in industrial areas. However, it must also be recognised that there will be, in some instances, features that are somewhat more rudimentary in appearance, consistent with the desire for industry to be supported in areas such as this. This is the nature of industrial type uses and is evident in the surrounding area. Such protrusions are not uncommon, and in a municipality that encourages the facilitation of industrial uses, one must wonder that if a tower crane for the purposes proposed were not able to locate here, then where else could it be appropriate.
For these reasons, I find that the proposed tower crane is consistent with the balancing of policy that seeks good urban design outcomes, and for industry to be supported and that its visual appearance will be an acceptable insertion into the surrounding industrial area.

For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. The permit conditions are amended accordingly.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Clause 21.01-1 states: Greater Dandenong businesses provide the third highest number of jobs in metropolitan Melbourne, with the employment sector largely orientated towards manufacturing occupations.

[3] Source: the council's written submissions, page 3.

[4] Source: the Applicant's Appendix 1, page 1.

[5] Source: the Applicant's Appendix 1, page 8.

[6] Such as the applicant's Appendix 1 - Photos.

Environment Act 1987

Go Workplace Training Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 566 (27 June 2025)

Go Workplace Training Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 566

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Go Workplace Training Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 566 (27 June 2025)