Goode and Ors v Moonee Valley CC [2011] VCAT 2046

[2011] VCAT 2046

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2011-10-25|Before: Mr P

View original source

General information, not legal advice.

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

[1]

The application seeks retrospective approval for the use. While it is debateable as to whether the Melbourne City Council permit has expired, even if it has, the purpose of the application before me is to review the merits of the proposal as to whether or not a permit should be granted. It is not open to me to deny a permit as some form of punishment. Another form of application or prosecution is required.
Mr Goode raised concerns about exhaust stacks and other works that have been undertaken on Rugolo's panel beating land. I am not in a position to make a finding on those matters as they relate to another property. They are not the subject of this application.
Mr Goode also expressed concern about whether the Council has acted properly in terms of affording residents natural justice or procedural fairness. I am not in a position to say whether or not the Council has given Mr Goode and the other neighbours fair opportunity to present material and argument to it, nor do I need to. The application lodged by the residents against the Council's decision allows for this matter to be considered afresh, in totality, by the Tribunal. As part of this process, Mr Goode and the neighbours have been given the opportunity not only to make the application, but to participate at the hearing, make submissions, present material to support their case, to question the applicant's expert and to be present during the submissions presented on behalf of the Council and Rugolo. That process accords with natural justice.

[2]

Goode and Ors v Moonee Valley CC [2011] VCAT 2046

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)

Goode and Ors v Moonee Valley CC [2011] VCAT 2046 (25 October 2011)