1 Application P823/2005 is made by the permit applicant, Green Cape Properties Pty Ltd, to review the decision by the responsible authority to refuse a permit to construct a four storey building, including shops and apartments, and car parking dispensation on the subject land. The land is currently occupied by the former Sandringham Post Office, which will be demolished. The land is situated in a Business 1 Zone and is subject to a Special Building Overlay.

2 The proposed uses do not require a permit in a Business 1 Zone. A permit is required for buildings and works but is exempt from the third party objection notice and review provisions of the Planning and Environment Act - see clause 34.01-4 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. Under clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme a permit is required for dispensation from the standard car parking requirements. Such a permit application is not subject to the same exemptions from notice requirements as is the case in the Business 1 Zone. The site is also subject to a Special Building Overlay and a permit is required under this Overlay, which is not exempt from third party notice, objection and review requirements. However the grounds of refusal do not rely on floodplain issues and the relevant floodplain manager has not objected to the proposal.

3 The responsible authority required the permit application to be advertised and objections were received which went significantly beyond issues of car parking and relied on matters relating to the use and development. A number of objectors have lodged statements of grounds in respect of the application for review, which also raise issues associated with the use and development as well as parking related issues.

4 The applicant/permit applicant requested a directions hearing to seek a direction from the Tribunal that the grounds relied on by third parties objecting to the application be limited to the issue of car parking dispensation. The Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal decision in Sweetvale Pty Ltd v Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2003] VSCA 83 was relied upon in support of this request.

5 In the Sweetvale case the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the appellants, who were objectors to a planning permit application that was the subject of a Notice of Decision to grant, could raise and argue all aspects of the planning permit application before the Tribunal, notwithstanding that parts of the permit application were exempted from objection and review by third parties, or whether they were confined to the limited matters that fell outside the exemptions. The Tribunal determined that the appellants were limited in the arguments and submissions they could make. The Court of Appeal supported the Tribunal's decision and found that:

[17] ...no right of review to the Tribunal lies where an exemption is imposed. Any review is limited to those parts of the application for the permit to which the appellants were able to object in accordance with the Act and the Scheme.

6 The objectors in this case will be subject to the same constraints. It will not be open to the objectors to raise and rely upon issues relating to all aspects of the planning permit application. They will be confined to addressing those issues where the need for a permit is not exempt from third party objection, notice and review, namely the dispensation from car parking under clause 52.06 and any flooding issues arising under the Special Building Overlay. They will need to rely upon the responsible authority to raise other issues associated with the building that may arise from the need for a permit under the Business 1 Zone.

7 It is best for objectors to be aware of the constraints on the representations that they may make before the hearing. I will therefore make a general direction concerning the range of matters it is open to them to address but it will be up to the presiding member at the hearing to implement the direction in the context of the overall conduct of the proceeding.