Lazzcorp Developments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC & Ors [2010] VCAT 1081
[2010] VCAT 1081
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Decision date
2010-06-28
Before
Mr P, Ms J
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (22 paragraphs)
- The applicant contests several conditions that are sought to be imposed by Vic roads.
- At the hearing, Mr Adeyemi advised that dispute remains with respect to 3 of the proposed conditions (conditions 4, 6 and 8 as set out in Vic roads letter dated 24 August 2009). According to Mr Adeyemi on reviewing Mr Turnbull's evidence Vic roads has agreed to delete conditions 1, 2 and 9.
- In relation to the conditions which were not resolved my findings area s follows:
- In relation to condition 4, I accept Mr Turnbull's evidence that the sealed driveway ramp is acceptable at a width proposed. The condition is unnecessary and will be deleted.
- Condition 6 should be reworded to make it clear that the requirement is for vehicles to enter and leave the site is a forward direction.
- In relation to condition 8, I accept Mr Turnbull's evidence that the basement ramp has been designed in a satisfactory way and the condition can be deleted.
- The site presents a good opportunity for redevelopment. Its redevelopment for residential accommodation is appropriate given its attributes and context. Policy and the zone purpose support its redevelopment. The overall height and form of the building is acceptable. I am satisfied that subject to the inclusion of some conditions that the amenity impacts can be managed. I am also satisfied that the proposal is not an overdevelopment.