[2019] VCAT 1155
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2019-08-19
Mr J, Ms J, For P
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] Pursuant to clause 43.03, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Planning Scheme. This does not apply if a schedule to the overlay specifically states that a permit may be granted before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Planning Scheme. Clause 1 of Schedule 1 to the IPO (Institutional Uses) states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Planning Scheme.
[2] The site is referred to as 'Victoria House' in clause 22.16.
[3] 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.
[4] The term 'response site' is not defined in the ACZ1 provisions. The Chapel Street Activity Centre, Chapel re-Vision Discussion Paper (7 September 2015) states "Response sites are defined as sites which offer the opportunity to provide a positive response as the area undergoes transition to higher density. The response is usually associated with a net public benefit associated with the increased development capacity under the new zoning. This may include a new pedestrian link, footpath widening etc."
[5] Victoria House Nominees v Stonnington CC [2016] VCAT 2
[6] Department of Health and Human Services, 28 July 2016
[7] We note that the adjoining development to the south has habitable room windows on both levels which face this setback area.
[10] C&L International Holdings Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2019] VCAT 69; Chapel Plaza Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 1730; Bensons Group Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 2155; Headland Properties Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2018] VCAT 41; SMA Projects v Stonnington CC [2018] VCAT 1428; Victoria House Nominees v Stonnington CC [2016] VCAT 2;
[12] The evidence identifies a two-way peak hour volume in Malvern Road west of Bendigo Street of 1493 vehicles/hour in the morning peak and 1387 vehicles/hour in the evening peak.
Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd
Stonnington CC [2019] VCAT 1155