Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2007-07-11

For the reasons I have set out above, I consider the Council's decisions to refuse a permit for the proposal shown in the application plans and to oppose the design shown in the substituted plans were correct. I also accept the Council's submissions in relation to the revised plans filed in accordance with my directions.
Thus, I find a modified form of the proposal would represent an acceptable outcome in terms of the provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. That is based on a three storey podium form and recessed fourth level shown in the Revision B plans with the top level deleted. That would also ensure sufficient parking is available to those on-site. I will direct that a permit be issued subject to conditions.

[1] I was advised by Mr Townshend that Mr Swan dated would file a letter with the Tribunal but no correspondence has been received by the Registrar.

[3] Based on plans that I substituted without objection by any party. These plans are identified as PD-02 - PD09 all marked as revision B except PD-03 that is marked as revision A. PD-01 has no revision number.

[4] Pursuant to Clause 34.02. The requirements of Clause 55 do not apply to a five storey building. A number of Clauses of the Scheme are relevant to the consideration of this Application including Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15.12, 16.02, 19.03, 21, Clause 22.06 (urban design policy for non-residential development and multi-unit residential development), and Clause 65 (general decision guidelines). Car parking requirements are at Clause 52.06 and loading requirements are at Clause 52.07.

Environment Act 1987

I Y Lords Investments v Port Phillip CC [2007] VCAT 1221 (11 July 2007)

I Y Lords Investments v Port Phillip CC [2007] VCAT 1221

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

I Y Lords Investments v Port Phillip CC [2007] VCAT 1221 (11 July 2007)