• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Cited legislation

1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.

The proposal was a Colorbond shed in the backyard of an existing house. It measured 7 metres by 9 metres, with a maximum height of 3.49 metres to the roof ridge and walls at least 2.7 metres high. It was proposed to be set back 3 metres from the north-east boundary, 5 metres from the south-east boundary and 20 metres from the south-west boundary. The stated colours were “woodland grey” for the roof and “paperbark” for the walls. The applicant said the shed was for domestic storage.

Council had notified neighbours and received objections from Lane, who lived to the south, and Carter, who lived to the west. Council decided to support the application and issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, including a planting condition. Lane and Carter sought review. Their concerns included the shed's appearance, effects on views and daylight, possible use for plumbing-related business activity, and stormwater runoff.

After a hearing on 11 September 2008, and an inspection of the site and locality, Member Mary-Anne Taranto varied the Council's decision. The order directed that a permit issue, subject to conditions. The permit was not refused. The conditions required amended plans showing indigenous trees or shrubs along the shed's east, west and south sides, drainage arrangements including underground pipe alignment, and other controls over appearance, use, earthworks and completion. The required planting was to be carried out within three months after completion.

The judgment's paragraph numbering restarts within sections and is not a single continuous sequence. For that reason, the references below identify the relevant heading and its locally numbered paragraph rather than treating those numbers as global paragraph references.

Why the court decided this way

The central assessment was whether the proposed shed would cause unreasonable effects on neighbouring properties. The Member did not assess the building in isolation. She considered its height, wall heights, colours and finishes, setbacks, existing screening, local development and the possibility of additional planting.

For Lane's property, the Member acknowledged that the shed was large and would be visible, partly because the review site was elevated above Lane's property. However, the shed would be set back 5 metres from Lane's property, and the boundary fence covered in creeper would partially screen it. In the “Interface with No. 4 Royal Parade” discussion, paragraph 5, the Member considered the wall heights not unreasonably high, the proposed finishes sympathetic to the landscape quality of the area, and the setbacks reasonable. She also found that the setback left enough room for planting.

The landscaping requirement was important to the decision. In that discussion, paragraph 6, the Member required planting on the eastern side as well as the south and west sides, to reduce oblique views from Lane's backyard and views from the neighbouring backyard at No. 410 Belgrave-Gembrook Road. Paragraph 7 specifies that the planting was to be shown on plans before endorsement and that plants were to be capable of reaching at least 5 metres at maturity and be at least 1.5 metres high when planted. With these modifications, paragraph 8 records the conclusion that the shed would be visually acceptable.

The Member also addressed overshadowing and daylight. In the same section, paragraph 9, she anticipated that shadow cast on Lane's backyard would not be unacceptable in light of the proposed heights and setbacks. She further anticipated no unreasonable loss of daylight at Lane's lounge-room window. This was an assessment of the anticipated effects in the circumstances described in the judgment, not a general rule that sheds of this size cannot cause unacceptable shadowing.

For Carter's property, the concern was the view from her backyard and elevated deck, including distant mountain views. Under “Interface with No. 406 Belgrave-Gembrook Road”, paragraphs 1 to 3, the Member considered the shed's distance from the property and existing planting along the common boundary. She noted that the mountain views were primarily directed away from the shed, towards the south, and considered any view of the shed peripheral rather than dominant.

The proposed use concern was dealt with through the permit condition. Under “Proposed use of the shed”, paragraphs 1 to 5, the judgment records the allegation that the applicant, a plumber, might use the building for business activities and cause noise. The applicant said he intended to store an old jeep, boat and caravan, not to conduct plumbing work there. The Member considered the condition restricting use to domestic storage sufficiently clear for the permit. It also prohibited habitation and business use except in accordance with the home occupation provisions of the Cardinia Planning Scheme. The Member observed that breach could give rise to enforcement action under the Act and said refusal should not be based on an assumption that the permit holder might fail to comply.

Stormwater was managed through an existing discharge condition and an additional plans requirement. Under “Stormwater”, paragraphs 1 to 3, the Member considered that underground-pipe discharge provided safeguards but strengthened the condition by requiring the plans to show drainage details, including the alignment of underground pipes.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to change a statutory test or announce a broad new legal doctrine. It applies the planning controls and decision-making approach described in the case to a particular shed proposal and its surrounding properties. The material provided identifies the relevant scheme provisions as clauses 11, 19.03 and 65, and identifies a permit trigger under clause 35.05-5. It does not reproduce the full wording of those provisions, so their detailed legal operation cannot be stated from this judgment alone.

The clearest general proposition in the reasons concerns the assessment of a proposed use. The Member referred to Jefferson v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council [2003] VCAT 806 for the proposition that an application must be considered as presented and not on the assumption that the land may later be used for a different, even unlawful, purpose. The current Member then applied that approach to the concern about possible plumbing work. The permit condition limiting the shed to domestic storage was considered sufficient guidance, and possible future non-compliance was not a reason to refuse the proposal.

The decision also illustrates the use of conditions to manage effects rather than treating every identified concern as requiring refusal. Here, the Tribunal made the landscaping more specific and required stormwater details on plans. The outcome therefore demonstrates a case-specific response: the permit could issue with additional controls that addressed the impacts found relevant.

The “before” and “after” comparison should be kept modest. Before the decision, Council had issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, including planting conditions. After the review, the permit was still granted, but the Tribunal varied the conditions, including by extending planting to the eastern side and requiring planting and drainage details to be included in amended plans. The judgment does not describe a change in the underlying law.

Key passages with plain-English translation

In “Interface with No. 4 Royal Parade”, paragraph 5, the Member explained that the shed would be visible but considered its height, finishes and setbacks acceptable. In plain English, visibility alone did not decide the issue. The Member assessed how prominent the structure would be in the physical setting and what screening and landscaping could do.

In the same section, paragraph 6, the Member required planting along the eastern side as well. In plain English, the planting condition was tailored to views from more than one direction, including a neighbouring property other than Lane's.

In “Proposed use of the shed”, paragraph 5, the Member stated that “it would not be reasonable to refuse an application on the basis that the permit applicant might not comply with permit conditions.” In plain English, the Tribunal assessed the application and its conditions on their stated terms; it did not refuse the permit merely because neighbours feared that the applicant might later breach a use restriction. The judgment also noted that failure to comply could give rise to enforcement action.

In “Stormwater”, paragraph 3, the Member considered that requiring drainage details on the plans would strengthen the condition. In plain English, the Tribunal required more information about how runoff would be conveyed, rather than relying only on a general discharge requirement.

The quoted passage from Jefferson appears in the judgment as support for the approach to future use. The present decision's own application is the Member's conclusion that the domestic-storage condition sufficiently guided the lawful use of this shed.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most relevant, as an example rather than a universal rule, where a planning review concerns an outbuilding and the issues resemble those considered here: neighbouring views, visibility from elevated land, potential overshadowing, concern about a different future use, and stormwater management.

The facts that mattered included the site's elevation relative to Lane's property, the shed's 5-metre setback from that property, its height and wall heights, existing boundary screening, and the ability to plant around the building. For Carter, the distance from the shed, existing boundary planting and direction of the distant mountain views informed the assessment. A fact pattern with different distances, terrain, building height, screening, view orientation or proposed use could require a different assessment. The judgment does not establish numerical thresholds for acceptable visual impact or shadowing.

The decision may also be relevant where an objection rests on the possibility that a permit holder will use a building differently in future. The reasons support considering the proposal as presented and considering the effect of a use condition, rather than treating an alleged future breach as though it were already the proposed use. The judgment does not say that a condition will resolve every use-related concern; it records the Member's finding on the particular domestic-storage condition before her.

Finally, the stormwater discussion is relevant to permit design where neighbours raise runoff concerns. Here, a condition requiring underground-pipe discharge was supplemented by a requirement for plans to show drainage arrangements. The judgment does not provide a general engineering standard or specify technical design criteria beyond those conditions.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment text provided contains no discussion of later cases applying, distinguishing or overruling Lane v Cardinia SC. It therefore does not establish how later courts or tribunals have treated this decision. A claim about subsequent treatment would require sources beyond the judgment supplied.

The only other decision expressly identified in the reasons is Jefferson v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council [2003] VCAT 806. That is an earlier authority cited by the Member, not a later treatment of Lane. The Member quoted it for the proposition about assessing an application as presented and not assuming a future different use. The quoted passage also names Dover Street Pty Ltd v City of Yarra and D.M. Dodd and Others and Stebbins v City of Yarra and Anor, but the supplied text presents these as authorities appearing within the quotation from Jefferson. It does not provide their full citations or separate reasoning by the Member about them.

Accordingly, the judgment supports describing Lane as an application of the cited approach to its facts, but not claiming from this source that a later court adopted or extended its reasoning.

Still-open questions

Several matters are not resolved by the judgment text. It does not set out the complete wording of all cited Cardinia Planning Scheme provisions, so it cannot alone establish how those provisions might apply to a different site or proposal. It also does not discuss the technical design of stormwater works beyond requiring underground-pipe discharge and plans showing arrangements, including pipe alignment.

The visual and daylight conclusions are tied to the Member's inspection and the circumstances recorded in the reasons. The judgment provides no general acceptable-height, setback or screening formula. It does not quantify shadow duration, solar access or the degree of view loss. It also does not identify a general test for when a view is sufficiently important to affect a planning outcome.

The use condition allowed business activity only in accordance with the Scheme's home occupation provisions. The judgment does not explain those provisions or decide whether any particular business activity would qualify. Nor does it determine what enforcement action would follow a breach; it says only that non-compliance could give rise to the possibility of enforcement action under the Act.

Lastly, the supplied judgment does not report any later treatment of this decision. Its continuing status and later judicial interpretation remain unaddressed by this source.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.