1. The application was lodged with the Council on 28 November 2024. On 5 December 2024, the Council notified the applicant of the following requirement ('information requirement'):

Pursuant to Section 54 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, further information is requested before the proposal can be considered and assessed by Council. The information required is detailed below.

...

1 The Site Plan to scale with dimensions to show:

(a) A north arrow

(b) If the proposal triggers a planning permit under the Erosion Management Overlay, the following is required:

(i) Contours across the entire site, including notations showing the AHD of each contour.

(ii) Any existing development, including buildings, water tanks and pools or dams on both the subject lot and adjacent land.

(c) The location and diameter of all trees within 4 metres of the proposal

(d) Any retaining walls, existing and proposed.

2 The Floor Plan to scale with dimensions to show:

(a) A north arrow

3 The Elevation Plans to scale with dimensions to show:

(a) Maximum height and depth of any existing earthworks within 5 metres of the proposal, including the works that are proposed.

(b) The location and health and depth of any proposed retaining walls, if applicable.

1. A Geotechnical Assessment prepared in accordance with the Incorporated Document 'Requirements for a Geotechnical Assessment, Landslide Risk Assessment or Landslide Hazard Assessment prepared in support of a planning permit application under the Erosion Management Overlay (Yarra Ranges Shire Council, March 2023.' This must be accompanied by a Geotechnical Declaration and Verification Form (Form A).

Note: This item only applies in the event that a planning permit is triggered for the proposed buildings and works under the EMO.

1. A Landslip Risk Assessment prepared in accordance with the Incorporated Document 'Requirements for a Geotechnical Assessment, Landslide Risk Assessment or Landslide Hazard Assessment prepared in support of a planning permit application under the Erosion Management Overlay (Yarra Ranges Shire Council, March 2023.' This must be accompanied by a Geotechnical Declaration and Verification Form (Form A)

Note: Council may waive the request for a landslip risk assessment if the geotechnical practitioner assesses the site in accordance with section 6.1.1 of the incorporated document and provides written advice stating that these requirements have been met.

1. A written response regarding the location, extent, and details of existing earthworks on site.
2. The information requirement was given on the fifth business day after the applicant lodged the application. I mention this because if the application is a VicSmart application, it must be made within five days to affect the time for a review application on grounds of failing to decide an application.[3] The requirement specified a lapse date of 4 February 2025. The Council has extended this lapse date on more than one occasion and the current lapse date is 23 July 2025.
3. I draw attention to the requirement being made under section 54 of the PE Act. I will return to this issue later in these reasons.

1. The issues involved in determining this proceeding are as follows, in appropriate logical sequence:

(a) Characterise the proposal.

(b) Identify the permissions required for the proposal.

(c) Consider whether the application is a VicSmart class of application.

(d) If the application is a VicSmart class of application, determine the scope of a more information requirement.

(e) Consider the parties' submissions.

(f) Assess the information requirement.

(g) Consider whether decision guidelines are relevant to the assessment.

1. The proposal consists of plans and a written statement submitted with the application.
2. Before referring to those details, it is relevant to briefly identify existing conditions, as follows:

(a) The land is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 21.34 metres, a depth of 60.96 metres and an area of 1,298 square metres.

(b) The land slopes up from the street by 18 metres, which is an overall slope of nearly 30% which the Council describes as 'moderate'.

(c) The land is developed with a double-storey dwelling, located on excavated land, with various 'retaining structures' (as the Council describes them) including 'multiple staggered retaining walls' behind the dwelling.

(d) The dwelling has a deck at both the front and rear of the dwelling.

1. The plans submitted with the application are the plans prepared by building designer 'Archiscope' drawings 1 to 4 (inclusive) dated 2 December 2024 revision B.
2. The existing floor plans and elevations are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 Existing floor plan and elevations. Source: Application plans drawing 3.

1. It will be observed that the first floor plan shows the rear deck to be demolished. It is not dimensioned. The west elevation shows an L-shaped deck projecting about four metres from the first floor door access to the rising land behind the dwelling. The west elevation also shows:

(a) the existing deck located above excavated land comprising a retaining wall (dimensioned at a height of one metre) and a steep batter; and

(b) the existing deck floor level as 2.55 metres above the existing ground level on which the dwelling sits.[4]

1. Two photographs of the west elevation and a photograph of the deck from the rear yard assist in understanding existing conditions. See figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 Photographs of west elevation of existing deck. Source: Application documents

Figure 3 An oblique view of the deck from the backyard Source: Applicant's written submissions p 2

1. Figure 2 shows an external stair from the ground floor adjoining the existing deck. At the hearing the applicant said the stair would be retained (even though not shown on the plans) but would not abut the proposed deck given its diminished dimensions.
2. The proposed floor plans and elevations are shown in figure 4.

Figure 4 Proposed floor plans and elevations. Source: Application plans drawing 4

1. The proposed deck is dimensioned as 4.6 metres long and 1.14 metres wide. The Council estimates its total area as only 5.2 square metres. It is materially smaller than the existing deck. It is very modest in size. I characterise it as a deck more in the form of a 'walkway' from the first floor to the backyard.
2. The plans appear to show the deck projecting marginally further into the rear year than the existing deck. As the end point of the deck meets rising land in the backyard, the plans show an area of excavation that is not dimensioned but appears to be about 3.5 metres long and about 1.5 metres wide. It would create a flat area when stepping off the deck. It is notated as having a retaining wall that is 'approx 500 [mm] high'.
3. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that no change is proposed to the excavated and battered land below the existing deck and that she anticipates the need for a structural deck support below a point about half-way along its 4.6 metres length. These matters (together with the retention of the stairs) are not shown on the elevations).
4. The following written details are included in the application:

Extent of any proposed earthworks:

Earthworks less than one metre (approx 500mm) may be required to facilitate the building of the new deck. Plans demonstrate the location and extent of the excavation. Plans also indicate there are existing earthworks over 1 metre in the vicinity of the proposed new works and earthworks. Note that proposed deck works are consistent with original plans approved by council when the house was originally constructed. Note that the proposed works will not impact on the scenic character of the significant landscape as the deck is to the rear of the existing building and not visible from the street nor horizon. It is proposed that native plants be used to stabilise the earth around the proposed deck which will enhance the environment and character of the Dandenongs. No trees are required to be lopped to facilitate the earthworks as they are not within 4 metres of the works.

The means proposed to stabilize disturbed areas:

Existing earthworks are supported by retaining walls under one metre at the house level (base) of the existing earthworks. See plans for details of proposed earthworks/excavation under 1 metre to support new works. Plans demonstrate that retaining plants will be planted around the proposed earthworks and existing earthworks as the primary means to stabilise disturbed areas. With a preference to source native plants. If access allows, additional retaining walls (under 1 metre) or rocks may be considered in the future to further stabilise the earthworks. Access may be limited so planting is the primary strategy.

1. I agree with the Council that the application plans are of poor quality, even though the proposal is 'modest'. For example, they do not show spot levels, natural ground level, existing vegetation, structures to be retained (eg stairs).
2. My task in this proceeding is to determine the review of the information requirement having regard to the permit application in its present form.

1. The nature of the permissions required are relevant for determining what more information may be required.

1. The applicant's land is included in a Low Density Residential Zone ('LDRZ') under the planning scheme. No permission is required under the LDRZ to demolish the deck or construct a deck (ie an extension to a dwelling) and so the LDRZ is not relevant in this proceeding.

1. The applicant's land is included in an Erosion Management Overlay ('EMO').[5]
2. The schedule to the EMO includes the 'objective to be achieved', the 'statement of risk' and the 'maximum tolerable risk to property' for land uses, including those in this application.[6] I will not repeat those provisions in these reasons.
3. Under the EMO, 'a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works ...'.[7] Exceptions may be set out in the schedule to the EMO.[8] The schedule provides that '[a] permit is required for all ... new buildings and works except for 12 specified matters. Four of those matters require further consideration.
4. The first exception is:

Earthworks that result in a modified ground surface that is less than 1 metre above or below the natural ground level and does not allow water ponding.[9]

1. The only earthworks shown on the plans is the excavation and construction of a small retaining wall to the immediate south of the deck with a notation of 'approx 500 [mm] high'. I agree with the Council that this exception is not met because the plans show the height above the existing disturbed surface level and do not show the location of natural ground level.
2. The second exception is:

Alteration or extension to an existing building provided all of the following are met:

• - the floor area of the alteration or extension is not more than 20 square metres;
• - the alteration is connected to a legal point of discharge;
• - there are no existing earthworks higher than 1 metre within 5 metres of the alteration or addition.[10]

1. This exception is not met because there are existing earthworks higher than 1 metre under and around the deck.
2. The third exception is:

A retaining wall or slope retention to support existing earthworks provided the earthworks were undertaken prior to 2001.[11]

1. There is insufficient information to determine if this exception applies and so I will proceed on the basis that it is not met.
2. The fourth exception is:

A retaining wall associated with new excavation or fill provided all of the following are met:

• - the retaining wall and associated earthworks result in a modified ground surface that is less than 1 metre above or below the natural ground level;
• - the retaining wall is less than 1 metre high;
• - the retaining wall is not attached to or part of a building or structure;
• - the retaining wall does not provide landslip protection for any adjoining land.[12]

1. This exception does not apply for the same reasons as the first exception.
2. Consequently, none of the exemptions applies and permission is required to construct the deck including the retaining wall.
3. The EMO fixes the following application requirements:

An application must be accompanied by any information specified in a schedule to this overlay and information showing:

• The existing site conditions, including land gradient and the extent of any existing erosion, landslip or other land degradation.
• The extent of any proposed earthworks.
• The means proposed to stabilise disturbed areas.
• Any other application requirements specified in a schedule to this overlay.[13]

1. The EMO schedule fixes the following additional application requirements:

The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 44.01, in addition to those specified elsewhere in Clause 44.01 and elsewhere in the scheme, and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

For an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works:

• Plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, showing as appropriate;
  • The proposed new development, including as appropriate a site plan, land contours, building elevations, access, cut and fill, retaining walls and effluent disposal system.
  • Any existing development, including buildings, water tanks and pools or dams on both the subject lot(s) and adjacent land.
  • Any existing earthworks and water infrastructure on the subject lot(s), including cut and fill, stormwater drainage, subsurface drainage, water supply pipelines, sewerage pipelines or effluent disposal installations and pipelines and any otherwise identified geotechnical hazard.
  • Details and locations of existing vegetation, including any vegetation to be removed.
• A Geotechnical Assessment or Landslide Risk Assessment prepared in accordance with the Incorporated Document 'Requirements for a Geotechnical Assessment, Landslide Risk Assessment or Landslide Hazard Assessment prepared in support of a planning permit application under the Erosion Management Overlay (Yarra Ranges Shire Council, March 2023).'[14]

1. The applicant's land is included in a Significant Landscape Overlay ('SLO').
2. Under the SLO, and like the EMO, 'a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works ...'.[15] Again, like the EMO, exceptions may be set out in the schedule to the SLO.[16] Schedule 22 applies to the land and exempt building and works are those that are at least four metres from the base of any 'substantial tree'.[17] A substantial tree is defined as having a diameter at breast height more than 0.16 metres 1.3 metres above the ground.
3. The application plans show no trees within four metres of the deck and excavation. However, the applicant accepts there are such trees but are not shown on the application plans. I will therefore proceed on the basis that the exception does not apply. Consequently, permission is required under the SLO.
4. The application shows no proposed removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation, so no permission is required for those matters.
5. There are no relevant 'application requirements' for the SLO or schedule 22 to the SLO.

1. As a matter of completeness, no permission is required under the LDRZ, EMO or SLO to demolish the existing deck.

1. The applicant's application to the Council was lodged as a VicSmart application and the Council has processed it to date as a VicSmart application. However, at the hearing the Council doubted the application was properly characterised as a VicSmart application based on its further consideration of the application.
2. The planning scheme provides:

An application is a VicSmart application if all of the following requirements are met:

• The application is in a class or classes specified in a provision of this planning scheme.
• A permit is required only under the provisions of this planning scheme that are specified as a VicSmart application, and not under any other provision of this planning scheme.
• Nothing authorised by the grant of a permit would result in a breach of a registered restrictive covenant.
• If the application requires referral to a referral authority under Clause 66, the referral requirements in Clause 71.06-2 are met.

1. The covenant and referral requirements (the two final specified requirements) are met for reasons unnecessary to explain.
2. In relation to the specified classes requirement, an application under the EMO to '[c]onstruct a building or construct or carry out works for ... [a] deck' is a relevant class and 'clause 59.05' is specified as the '[i]nformation requirements and decision guidelines'.[18]
3. The Council submitted that all the works were not or could not be works for a deck. It is unclear if the Council was referring to what it claimed were unauthorised retaining walls throughout, in particular, the backyard. The Council said part of the works should be separately characterised as works for retaining walls which cannot fall within the VicSmart class.
4. I must characterise the application on the information in the application. The only specified works not in the footprint of the deck are the excavation and retaining wall beyond the southern edge of the deck. I characterise these works as 'for' the deck because they are connected to and are not independent of the deck and the purpose is to facilitate comfortable use of the deck. As well, they are minor in scope. Although there is no notation about the amount of excavation, I estimate that less than one half of a cubic metre would be excavated.
5. Accordingly, the application for permission under the EMO is a VicSmart class of application.
6. An application under the SLO to also '[c]onstruct a building or construct or carry out works for ... [a] deck' is a relevant class and 'clause 59.05' is specified as the '[i]nformation requirements and decision guidelines'.[19]
7. Accordingly, the same reasoning applies and the application for permission under the SLO is a VicSmart class of application.
8. Therefore, the application meets the first and second of the four requirements and the application is a VicSmart application.

1. I have outlined in these reasons the 'application requirements' for applications in the EMO and the 'information requirements' for VicSmart applications in the EMO and SLO. Any inconsistency between these requirements must be resolved in favour of the VicSmart 'information requirements':

A VicSmart application must be accompanied by the information requirements specified for the relevant class of application. The information requirements of the relevant zone, overlay or particular provision, other than those specified for VicSmart applications, do not apply unless the information requirements for the relevant class of application specify otherwise.

If in the opinion of the responsible authority an information requirement is not relevant to the evaluation of a VicSmart application, the responsible authority may waive or reduce the information requirement.[20]

(Tribunal emphasis)

1. Clause 59.05 provides that '[a]n application must be accompanied by the following information as appropriate' and then specifies eight items. The relevant items in this proceeding are three for all overlays, one for land in an EMO and one for land in an SLO.

A copy of title for the subject land and a copy of any registered restrictive covenant.[21]

A plan, drawn to scale and fully dimensioned showing:

• The location, shape and size of the site.
• The location, height and design of the proposed buildings and works including details of materials.
• The location of any existing buildings, including fences and trees.
• ...[22]

A photograph of the building or area affected by the proposal.[23]

For land in an Erosion Management Overlay, information showing:

• The extent of any proposed earthworks.

• The means proposed to stabilise disturbed areas.[24]

For land in a Significant Landscape Overlay, a written description of the proposal including:

• How the proposal responds to the landscape significance and objectives specified in a schedule to the overlay.
• The impact of the proposed buildings and works on the significance of the landscape.[25]

1. In this section of the reasons, I will outline and consider the applicant's and the Council's submissions.

1. The applicant contends that the information requirement is unlawful because it requires more information than (or 'goes beyond') what is fixed by clause 59.05 and because some of the information items replicate EMO application requirements that do not apply by operation of clause 71.06.
2. The applicant also relies on the 'spirit' of the 'streamlined' and 'faster' VicSmart application process and the Department's guide stating that information beyond what is provided in clause 59 (which includes clause 59.05) cannot be required:

The information requirements and decision guidelines have been individually tailored to the nature of the proposed development and the reasons why a permit is required.

A council officer cannot ask an applicant to provide more information than is listed in Clause 59.[26]

1. The Council's information requirement was made in accordance with section 54(1) of the PE Act. The applicant also claims the requirement is in breach of section 54(3) of the PE Act which provides:

If an application for a permit is of a class that is exempted by a planning scheme from the requirements of this section, the responsible authority must not require the applicant to provide it or the referral authority with more information under this section before it deals with the application.

1. The Council justifies its information requirements as follows.
2. First, the location of the deck is in an area of relatively high landslip risk, being at hazard level 7 out of a maximum hazard level of 11 in its landslip risk mapping, and stabilisation information is therefore 'essential'.
3. Second, the Council sought advice from its geotechnical consultant who expressed concerns about the stability of the existing cutting behind the dwelling over which the replacement deck is partly located. The consultant recommended an assessment by a qualified engineer. The Council emphasises that its staff do not have geotechnical skills and therefore relies on its consultant.
4. Third, the decision guidelines for buildings and works in an overlay (ie EMO) relevantly provide:

In assessing an application the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

• The statement of significance and the objectives contained in the schedule to the overlay and whether the buildings and works will adversely affect that significance or the objectives.
• Whether the proposal meets any requirements specified in the overlay or the schedule to the overlay.

• Any relevant decision guideline specified in the overlay and the schedule to the overlay.[27]

1. The Council submits the statement of risk in the EMO schedule sets a requirement that risk from landslip needs to achieve a Tolerable Risk Level to be considered suitable for new development.
2. The Council also submits that the last of these decision guidelines requires consideration of relevant guidelines under both the overlay and the schedule.
3. I will not set out the 16-point decision guidelines under the EMO and the 3-point decision guidelines under the schedule. They are both broad ranging and specific. They include the identified risk and whether that risk is tolerable to life and property and include recommendations of geotechnical and landslip assessments.[28]
4. The Council therefore justifies the information requirement on what it needs to consider when deciding whether or not to grant permission.

1. I agree with the applicant that the planning scheme provides that the EMO application requirements do not apply and cannot be required to be provided for a VicSmart application, unless specifically required under clause 59.05.[29]
2. I do not agree with the applicant that the Council cannot lawfully make a section 54(1) requirement for more information.
3. The difficulty with this particular claim by the applicant is that a VicSmart application is not exempted from section 54 of the PE Act. A planning scheme may 'set out class of applications for permits that are exempted from the requirements of section 54'.[30] A VicSmart application is only exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the PE Act, the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) of the PE Act, and the review rights of section 82(1) of the PE Act.[31] Section 54(1) of the PE Act is not included.
4. In other words, a responsible authority may make an information requirement under section 54(1) in respect of a VicSmart application. The Department's guide reflects this power.

What does a council officer do if the submitted information is inadequate?

If inadequate information is submitted with the application a council officer should contact the applicant directly and advise that without the information the application cannot be decided in 10 business days.

VicSmart applications can be subject to formal requests for further information under section 54(1) of the Act. The processes are the same as for a regular application however the prescribed time for the issue of a notice requesting further information is five business days of receiving the application.

The request for further information must be in writing setting out the information to be provided.[32]

1. The information requirements are therefore not unlawful for section 54(3) reasons.
2. I do not agree with the Council's reasons for its information requirement. I do not consider them relevant for a section 54(1) requirement for a VicSmart application. They may be relevant when the Council considers whether or not to grant permission but are not relevant to deciding if the information in the VicSmart application is sufficient.
3. In my opinion, a valid section 54(1) requirement for the VicSmart application in this proceeding would be for:

(a) the relevant information in clause 59.05 that has not been provided or has been provided incompletely;

(b) information necessary to enable the Council to understand and assess the proposal as would be the case in any application,[33] provided that information was not information required under the EMO or the EMO schedule that was not specified in clause 59.05.[34]

1. If the Council considers the information requirements in clause 59.05 are inadequate for its proper consideration of VicSmart applications in the EMO, it should consider requesting the preparation of an amendment to clause 59.05.

1. In determining the application, I have considered the substandard state of the application plans and written statement. I put the applicant on notice about the state of the application following a practice day hearing on 14 March 2025.
2. At that practice day hearing, I extended time for the applicant to commence the proceeding and I entered the proceeding into the Tribunal's Fast Track List. In remarks to that order, I commented on the uncertainty as to whether earthworks permission was separately required under the EMO due to the state of the application and whether this could affect the characterisation of the application as a VicSmart class of application.
3. At the practice day hearing, I encouraged the applicant to consider preparing better quality plans and details and amending the permit application under the Tribunal's practice note PNPE9 processes before this hearing.
4. The applicant did not apply to amend the permit application under PNPE9 but instructed her building designer to prepare amended 'informal' plans that were filed shortly before this hearing.[35] The informal plans add a few extra details, such as location of existing trees in the vicinity of the proposed deck. I have not considered those informal plans given they do not form part of the permit application.
5. At the hearing, the applicant conceded that the permit application is not in a suitable state for the Council to make a proper assessment. The applicant also conceded that if she were to succeed in this proceeding and that the information requirement was changed to essentially conform with clause 59.05 requirements, she would have further discussions with the Council and apply to amend the permit application before the Council decided whether or not to grant permission.
6. The Council pointed out that it is yet to make a decision on notice requirements under section 52 of the PE Act and that any amendment of the permit application following this proceeding should be made under section 50A of the PE Act. I remind the Council that because I have determined the application is a VicSmart class of application, it is exempt from section 52(1) notice requirements.[36]
7. Having regard to the principles I have outlined for a valid section 54(1) requirement and having regard to the state of the permit application, I would determine each of the information requirements as set out in the following table:

This requirement is said to be conditional on permission being required under the EMO. Such permission is required. The requirement is justified under dot point 2 of clause 59.05-1 and by the state of the permit application. However, it should be changed so it is confined to the land.

The requirement is justified under dot point 2 of clause 59.05-1 and by the state of the permit application and by the applicant's implied acceptance in the applicant's informal plans.

The requirement is justified by clause 59.05-1 dot point 7 sub-dot point 1.

The requirement cannot be made because it is information required under the EMO or the EMO schedule that cannot be required under clause 76.01-2.

The requirement cannot be made because it is information required under the EMO or the EMO schedule that cannot be required under clause 76.01-2.

The requirement is too broad and is duplicated in major part by other confirmed items. It should be changed to 'The means proposed to stabilise disturbed areas' in line with clause 59.05 dot point 7 sub-dot point 2. Although this requirement, as changed, is also broad, it is justified by the insufficient details on this item currently included in the application.

In deciding a VicSmart application, the responsible authority:

• Must only consider the decision guidelines specified for the relevant class of application.
• Is exempt from considering the following matters:
  • The requirements of section 60(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f) and (1A) (b) to (h) and (j) of the Act.
  • The Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework unless the decision guidelines for the relevant class of application specify otherwise.
  • The decision guidelines of the relevant zone, overlay or particular provision, other than those specified for VicSmart applications, unless the decision guidelines for the relevant class of application specify otherwise.
  • The decision guidelines in Clause 65.
• ...[37]

1. Earlier in these reasons, I set out the decision guidelines in the EMO and EMO schedule.
2. The applicant has expressed concern that, after providing the information required to be provided as a result of this proceeding, the Council will have regard to all the decision guidelines in the EMO and EMO schedule and in particular will have regard to:
   • ... the statement of risk
   • risk to human life and property (relating to land slip risk/geotechnical data)
   • recommendations of a geotechnical assessment/landslide risk assessment
   • the need for any ongoing monitoring and maintenance
   • other decision guidelines that would require advice of a geotechnical engineer. [38]
3. The applicant is therefore concerned that the Council will refuse to grant permission on the basis that the applicant has given insufficient information to enable the Council to properly consider the application in accordance with the particular decision guidelines to which she refers.
4. The applicant has, in effect, applied for a declaration as to what decision guidelines will be relevant having regard to my determination of this proceeding.
5. I will not determine what decision guidelines will be relevant for the Council to consider. Among other factors, it would be premature to do so when the Council must first consider:

(a) the information that the applicant must provide as a result of this proceeding;

(b) any amendments to the permit application that the applicant has foreshadowed she intends to make; and

(c) any further advice from technical experts that the Council may wish to obtain.

1. I will confirm, change or delete the respective items in the Council's information requirement as set out in these reasons.

[1] The submissions and evidence (including documents) of the parties have 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.

[3] PE Act s 54(1B), s 54(2); Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 (Vic) reg 18(a).

[4] The elevation describes this level as 'NGL' or natural ground level. Being a benched site on sloping land, I agree with the Council that this level cannot be NGL.

[10] Ibid cl 44.01 sch 3.0 dot point 6.

[11] Ibid cl 44.01 sch 3.0 dot point 10.

[12] Ibid cl 44.01 sch 3.0 dot point 9.

[26] Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, VicSmart Planner and Practitioner Guide, pp 11, 23.

[28] Ibid cl 44.01-8 and cl 44.01 sch cl 5.0.

[29] For completeness, cl 71.06-2 states the EMO application requirements could apply if specified, in effect, in cl 59.05. They are not specified so this exception does not apply.

[31] Planning scheme cl 71.06-2 'Exemption from notice and review'.

[32] Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, VicSmart Planner and Practitioner Guide, p 25.

[33] Such as the information required by s 47(1) of the PE Act and reg 13 of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 (Vic).

[34] Planning scheme cl 71.06-2 'Information requirements'.

[35] Archiscope, drawings 1 to 4 revision D dated 4 April 2025.

[36] Planning scheme cl 71.06-2 'Exemption from notice and review'.

[37] Planning scheme cl 71.06-2 'Matters to be considered'.

[38] Applicant's written submissions p 6.