Almost rectangular piece of land with a frontage of 16.46 metres to the west side of Springvale Road, a depth on its northern boundary of 45.26 metres and on its southern boundary of 39.98 metres with an area of 701 square metres.

Li Chak Lai v Whitehorse CC (no.2) [2005] VCAT 1438

Pursuant to s.119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the third and fourth sentences in paragraph 33 of the Reasons given in this case in the written determination and reasons of 30 June 2005 are corrected to read:

There may nevertheless be valid planning considerations that indicate refusal , and that outweigh considerations in favour of the proposal. However, I think it does mean that, where the standards are met, the considerations against the proposal cannot include failure to meet the objectives to which the standards relate.

Correction of order under s.119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Residential 1 Zone under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme

1. This case was heard on 16 June 2005 and a written determination with reasons was dated 30 June 2005 was given.
2. It has been pointed out to me that there is an unfortunate typographical error in paragraph 33 of the reasons. The third and fourth sentences of that paragraph at present read:

There may be nevertheless be valid planning considerations that indicate refusal, and that outweigh considerations in favour of the proposal. However, I think it does mean that, where the standards are met, the considerations against the proposal can include failure to meet the objectives to which the standards relates.

1. There are three problems with the English expression in the above quotation as it stands at present. Two of them are infelicities where the expression can be improved, although the present wording is unlikely to mislead. The other is more serious in that what appears is the opposite of what was intended.
2. The first infelicity is the inclusion of the word "be" before the word "nevertheless". It should not be there.
3. The second infelicity is the last word in the quotation. The word "relates" should read "relate".
4. The more serious problem is that the word "can" should read "cannot".
5. Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (VCAT Act) empowers the Tribunal to correct an order containing, amongst other things, an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, see s.119(1)(b).
6. The written reasons might not ordinarily be thought to be part of the order, but s.117 VCAT Act, which deals with reasons for final orders, provides in sub-section 6:
   • (6) The reasons for an order, whether oral or written, form part of the order.
7. On that basis paragraph 33 of the reasons forms part of the order and can therefore be corrected pursuant to s.119 VCAT Act. I propose to make the above mentioned corrections accordingly.