//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2011] VCAT 1472
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2011-08-03
Ms J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant/Owner must do the following things to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a) pay the costs of all alterations/reinstatement of Council and Public Authority assets necessary and required by such Authorities for the development.
(b) Obtain the prior written approval of the Council or other relevant Authority for such alterations/reinstatement.
(c) Comply with conditions (if any) required by the Council or other relevant Authorities in respect of alterations/reinstatement.
The car parking allocation for this development must be:
During the construction of the buildings and works allowed by this permit, the laneway(s) adjacent to the subject land must be kept free of parked or standing vehicles or any other obstruction, including building materials, equipment etc. so as to maintain free vehicular passage to abutting benefiting properties at all times, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
(b) The development is not completed within two years of the date of commencement of works.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
[1] This approach accords with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ungar v City of Malvern [1979] VicRp 25; [1979] VR 259
[3] The exhibited version of Amendment C62 contained a Housing Opportunities Framework Plan which defined the boundaries of each growth area. This plan has not been included in the approved Amendment.
[7] Member Cimino has also recently adopted this approach when considering the implications of Amendment C62. Refer to Mediam Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC VCAT reference no. P3408 2010, 13 April, 2011. This decision predates the gazettal of the Amendment.
[9] Ms Sharp submitted that the site coverage calculation is closer to 80% than the 60% claimed by the applicant. Ms Sharp submits that the discrepancy is attributable to the applicant's failure to include the elevated basement in the site coverage calculation.
[10] We have read the Panel Report. This aspect of Amendment C62 was not the subject of submissions and there is no reference in the Panel report to Clause 2.2 of 21.04-1. The Panel was not constituted as an Advisory Committee.
[11] The State Planning Policy Framework encourages consolidation of existing urban areas while respecting neighbourhood character. Well designed medium density housing which respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing, is encouraged. Policies at both State and local levels encourage the provision of a diversity of housing types and lot sizes to meet the needs of all residents and visitors to the municipality, and more affordable housing options are also encouraged.
[12] The objective of Clause 55.04-6 is_: To limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows._
[13] Standard B15 of Clause 55.03-11 requires parking to be provided at a rate of :
Studies or studios that are separate rooms must be counted as bedrooms.
Karmar Investments
Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1472